Rating: 
Summary: A Disgrace to a Classic Novel
Review: This version of The Man in the Iron Mask is terrible. I had heard several very highly rated reccommendations for the movie and I was bitterly disappointed. From the very beginning I was bored completely. Leo fans are the only ones I can see being interested in this film. Definately NOT on my wish list!
Rating:
Summary: Wretched!
Review: I can only surmise what people were thinking when giving high marks to this movie--controlled substance abuse and chemical dependency come to mind as excuses--but I can see it earning nothing more than 1 star. The acting was horrible, the plot thin (I suppose it vaguely resembles Alexandre Dumas' novel), and the sets third rate. What we have here is the avaricious hollywood establishment banking the success of a movie on a star whose acting skills barely rise above commercial stock actor. The end product is a shoddy movie that the studios have foisted on us in the hopes that minions of 13-17 year old girls will shell out $.. on this movie. The success of this movie will only encourage more hollywood schlock I fear. Read the book.
Rating: 
Summary: The Actors gives it More Credibility than it Deserves.
Review: "The Man in the Iron Mask" was pretty much a Critical and Commercial Flop, in Australia, it opened in cinemas a year after "Titanic" and Mask was the first of the two to leave the cinemas. The Fault falls at the feet of Writer/Director Randall Wallace. His Formulaic and Overly Sentimental Writing, combined with his amature first time direction make the film Childish and Sickly when it should be at its most powerful, and Slow and Boring when it should be at it's most Exciting. Everyone else in the production of the film give there absolute best efforts. Costumes, sets, camera work; All top notch. The Acting is the films real saving grace. Without such a well known and talented cast, the film would have been a tele-movie. Even though the director seems to be pushing for very Stage-like performances, every actor manages to shine, though two actors stick out even more. Leonardo DiCaprio takes on two roles and he can make them completely different with the use of his eyes alone, and John Malkovich's performance shows a range of emotions that Malkovich isn't really known for, but he should be now. All round, I still have to say I was a little dissapointed. I expected a more mature handling of the classic tale, and it angers me that the studio involved palmed the material off onto a first time director to use as a training film. But in the end, the Performances make it worth the wait.
Rating: 
Summary: Enjoyable and Believable
Review: It's got all the classic elements for a great story. An evil but handsome villain, the chance to root for the underdog, four feisty musketeers, fencing, intrigue, romance, and suspense. All in all, a terrific, if rutted, adaptation of the classic. The story takes place in 1662 France, where the common people are starving due to the arrogance and deceit of the newly crowned King Louis XIV, who cares only for his own pleasure, and enjoys twisting and manipulating people to his advantage, including the only one of the original four musketeers to still bear the sword for the crown, D'Artagnan, who is now his captain. It has an inspiring subtle romance between D'Artagnon and Queen Anne. It has gorgeous costuming and sets. It has dynamic swordplay, and an all-star cast. It has elements of Biblical proportions - the slaying of a man in order to take his wife as a mistress is straight from the story of David and Bathsheba. Forgiveness, willingness to die for a good cause, and doing what is right and noble, no matter what the consequences, make this film a great one. Unfortunately, a few stumbling blocks are thrown in for wary parents... mild sexual innuendo, the presence of seduction, several hinted-at sexual encounters (off-screen, and mild), and backside nudity during an attempted suicide scene. On the other hand, elements make up for the film's few faults - D'Artagnon declares, "I think it is possible for a man to love one woman all his life, and be the better for it." Aramis informs Porthos that there are more important things that women. There's a moderate amount of violence, but nothing over the action in "The Mask of Zorro" or "Ladyhawke." With a stirring soundtrack, and a suspense-filled last hour, The Man in the Mask is an excellent adaptation, if flawed, and has a good heart. "All for One! And One for All!" The Musketeers live on.
Rating:
Summary: Inaccurate but beautiful
Review: This film is of course in no way historical. There is no hard fact going its way : Louis XIV having a younger twin brother who became the Man in the Iron Mask, though this man is absolutely proved. The conclusion of the film is in itself inaccurate historically. Louis XIV, the Sun King, was not exactly a man of peace. He waged wars all along his very long reign. He brought prosperity to his kingdom, because he was able to stabilize the inside situation and have wars only outside. He was also able to centralize the kingdom, to increase it by integrating several provinces, at times in a very ruthless way (Savoie : deportation of whole villages, killing of all men and people who could oppose his famous dragons), at times in a more standard colonizing way (Auvergne : colonized by the minor branch of the royal family with the assent of the Church ; Aquitania : colonized by the seizing of Bordeaux and the destruction of its main castle, the Château Trompette) ; at times in a more civilized way after a war against the German empire (Flanders : he introduced royal justice to do the job and get rid of superstitions and witch hunting, etc). He also managed in that line to have a completely new and innovative defense system built by Vauban and surrounding the kingdom with a line of star-shaped forts. His main action in this unifying line was the abolitioon of the famous one-century-old Edit de Nantes that gave Protestants the right to practice their religion and to have some important say in local affairs, and even some autonomy and stringholds : they emigrated to the German Empire. His great action was yet economic and he had very good counsellors and ministers who developed agriculture and even industry through, among other things, the development of a navy that boosted some activities : forestry, hemp cultivation and shipbuilding. He also developed triangular commerce (trinkets against slaves in Africa, slaves against spices in the West Indies and the Great Louisiana (half of the North American continent) and back to Bordeaux, Nantes and Rouen who became extremely rich. And of course he developed colonialization in Africa, the West Indies and North America. New Orleans became an essential city of that grandeur. This project was only possible by the curbing of the aristocracy, of the Catholic church and of all the arts who became essential in his policy. He spread Royal Justice and dismantled local justice and his justice was founded on the first clear corpus of laws that were rational. That enabled him to recruit (in fact to sell the positions of) a lot of judges, lawyers, administrative officers, hence building a new type of aristocracy, the « robe » aristocracy generally coming from the rich mercantile bourgeoisie of the cities. He also boosted education for the needs of the State, including the education of women. Agriculture was also transformed with inner peace, the total submission of local nobility reduced to dependance on the Crown, gathered in Versailles, and the imposition of a fairer legal, judicial and economic government, without forgetting the important role of new cultivating techniques very widely spread to improve productivity in the fields and to adapt the production of these fields to the needs of the kingdom. It is in those days that some central public services were able to develop : the « post » encharged with the circulation of mail, justice of course, the police essentially represented by his Dragons. The church was curbed too to the authority of the Crown. The film then is myth. Mythical, the relation between the Queen Mother and d'Artagnan, the paternity of d'Artagnan as for the king and his twin brother, the shifting of one for the other, etc. The King was known for his numerous mistresses even if this became stabilized with his midlife « crisis ». He provided the country with a lot of work on Versailles of course, but also on the building of essential canals for the circulation of goods and irrigation. So why is the film a good film ? It is a good film (intended repetition) because it is packed with action, with the famous musketeers fictionalized by Alexander Dumas in the 19th century, packed with a lot of love affairs and love tragedies, packed with blind repression and the total negation of any individual rights, with a set of actors who are extremely good. We will particularly put forward a Gerard Depardieu who does not seem to be dubbed and so keeps his slight French accent, though he plays a very standard role for him, and the double role of Leonardo di Caprio who shows a great capacity at constructing two opposed roles under the same man, and he is really good at it. It is a film that probably did not get all the coverage and success it could have gotten, especially because of its historical inaccuracy, its historical far-fetched fantasizing. The work of the actors has thus been impaired and unjustly reduced to less than what it should have been. The pageant of this brilliant royal court is of course present but both inaccurately and probably not at the level of what it was, not realistically enough. It is in other words too close to a Walt Disney production (The Hunchback of Notre Dame) and too far from a really disquieting and inspiring reflexion on this period of French history. We definitely do not see the emergence of the first modern state in the world. The only other Queen that qualifies to compete with this Louis XIV is Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen of England, a century earlier, but she only partially succeeded because she was never able to curb the nobility, to control the religious situation and to boost the economy and the arts at the level reached by Louis. She did not introduce that set of laws that could have stabilized her kingdom, especially because she was in the domain of Common Law and not Roman Law. It is in fact Cromwell and then the Glorious Revolution who will achieve the task. But, be it only for Depardieu and Di Caprio, this film is definitely worth watching. Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, Paris Universities II and IX.
Rating: 
Summary: Meet me...
Review: For the honor of the crown and the destiny of a country, the world's most renowned Musketeers reunite for one last epic battle. A sensational cast led by Leonardo DiCaprio, Oscar winner Jeremy Irons, John Malkovich, Gerard Depardieu and Gabriel Byrne shines in this lavish, action-packed movie. It is a time of both splendor and despair. France's self-serving King Louis XIV (DeCaprio) enjoys the riches of the world while his people die of starvation. Believing that he is all-powerful, Louis fears no one - except the one person who could bring his reign to an end: the man he imprisoned for eternity behind a mask of iron. And when Louis' selfish excesses go too far, retired Musketeers Athos (Malkovich), Porthos (Depardieu) and Aramis (Irons) vow to free the mysterious prisoner who may be France's only hope for survival. Only one question remains: will their old comrade, the legendary D'Artagnan (Byrne), help them - or destroy them.
Rating:
Summary: Thrust goes wide
Review: The biggest problem with this film? Leonardo DiCaprio, sadly miscast as the king of France and his unfortunate iron-hatted twin. DiCaprio is too young and unfamiliar with the swashbuckling genre. Throughout the film he seemed detached, as if a part of him, and a fairly large part, was somewhere else. Once the film finally got rolling, it had moments, though the hodgepodge of accents -- from Jeremy Irons' aristocratic British to Depardieu's heavy French, with Malkovich's broad American thrown in for good measure -- was a little disconcerting. On the other side of the balance, the actors playing the Queen and D'Artagnan were terrific.
Rating:
Summary: Two Leonardos--Four Stars
Review: The early going is tough in this latest film version of Alexandre Dumas's 1850 novel. The crudest of the Three Musketeers (Gérard Depardieu, who teams with Irons and Malkovich) grabs at women's breasts and breaks wind. A petulant King Louis XIV (DiCaprio) struts about like a heavy metal wannabe in Alice Cooper hair and silk dressing gowns. Jolly hangers-on at his court chase after a prize pig as if auditioning for Hee Haw. But just when you have decided that this Man in the Iron Mask is strictly for teenage girls who can't get enough of their beloved Leonardo, something terrific happens. Iron Mask's plot kicks in and proves Dumas's old warhorse can still run. Despotic Louis, it turns out, has a saintly twin (also DiCaprio, far more effective as the hero than the bratty villain) whom he has imprisoned, hiding his brother's face behind an iron mask. As the aging musketeers scheme to dump Louis for the good twin, Mask becomes a vigorous and engaging blend of intrigue, sword fights and romantic derring-do. Boisterously directed and written by Randall Wallace (who wrote Braveheart), this is Saturday matinee stuff in which our heroes are forever charging into the fray with swords drawn. Who can resist? "All for one, one for all," may be their battle cry--but a more fitting motto could just as easily be, "All for fun, fun for all."
Rating: 
Summary: One giant chunk of swiss cheese--stinky and full of holes
Review: An extraordinary cast coupled with exquisite set decoration and a strong story, even the unsinkable Leo, couldn't save this latest Musketeer effort from the perils of a really bad script. What's wrong? Try everything. The characters, for one, don't resemble the intelligent, if flawed, aged Musketeers Dumas penned. In trying to replace tyrant King Louis with the twin brother he condemned to the Bastille, the four Musketeers become squabbling, selfish prunes and quickly send the movie into the realms of "Real World: 17th Century Paris." Like the popular MTV series, "The Man in the Iron Mask" is seeped in secrets, lies, scandals, and of course sex. The difference is, we don't care. You've got Porthos, the maniac-depressive. He's a sex-obsessed nihilist who, when he's not fondling women, enjoys brief brushes with suicide. Why two such diametrically opposed interests? We can't figure that one out either. Athos is instantly temperamental and needs serious anger-control therapy. The ever-pious Aramis must act as a buffer for the brood while concocting his whole switch-a-roo plot. Throw in a bit of the queen and her secret lover for fun. And don't forget the subplot involving a secret Jesuit revolt that leads, let's see, absolutely nowhere. That's excluding the dialogue which is painfully cheesy. Who really mutters "Goodbye, cruel world" before hanging himself? I was embarrassed, for the actors' sakes, to watch them recite such flimsy lines with such ferocity. These guys are determined to be the best darn musketeers, ever. The award-winning cast, which I had looked so forward to seeing, can't manage to sneak past this one without taking a hard punch. Jeremy Irons as Aramis lacks the intensity and grace of his usual performances, as does Gerard Depardieu whose acting abilities are reduced to Porthos' obnoxious dramatics. John Malkovich, looking like he wandered off the set of "Ravenous," is just not Musketeer material. His theatrical training, however, comes through brilliantly; he chooses to ar-ti-cu-la-te every word as if the mike weren't millimeters from his face. Leonardo Di Caprio as Filip is surprisingly tender, but Leo the King is another pretty cardboard cutout. Anne Parillaud does a great job filling her complex mother-queen-lover character with what she's given, only she's not given much. The one considerable performance belongs to Gabriel Byrne, ever the underrated actor. He saves this movie from the eternal flames of movie hell with the strength and sensitivity he lends D'Artagnan, the only character developed enough to deserve any sympathy. Byrne tenderly exposes the flaws of a man who relentlessly pursues duty and loyalty, and sometimes confuses the two. Aside from his memorable performance, there's not much to like. There's something unintentionally goofy about four out-of-shape middleweights in drapes and two cheeky Leos with long hair. Trade these accidental laughs for those in the Chris O'Donnell and Kiefer Sutherland version of "The Three Musketeers" which is smarter and lighter yet still captures the Musketeer spirit.
Rating:
Summary: 5 star actors 5 star costumes
Review: WHAT A GREAT SHOW! This is an amazing and wonderful movie. This was the best costume movie I have seen in a long time. As I watch the plot thicken the costumes become more and more beautiful. If you love epic, movies, with a fighting edge. If you love Leo, or costumes,perhaps you just like the muskateers. This is the great best movie of the last century. It wasn't given enough credit because it came out right after TITANIC and well no movie was given enough credit after it came out. It is a lot of fun to watch Leo change from a mean evil king to the kind sweet king that he becomes. If you want to watch a GREAT Movie, check this one out! :)
|
