Rating: 
Summary: Better than I thought it would be...
Review: The ONLY reason I rented this film was because of John Malkovich (who was, as always, awesome). I was not expecting much since I can't stand Leonardo DiCaprio. But despite DiCaprio (who was horribly miscast and embarrassingly bad), I was quite entertained. (The casting of DiCaprio in TMITIM ranks right down there at the bottom with Keanu Reeves in Bram Stoker's Dracula. Bad, bad, bad.)
Rating: 
Summary: Being John Malkovich
Review: I really liked this movie for the casting roles of the Four Muskateers. Jeremy Irons was great. But I am impartial to Malkovich. You see, I live in a town not far (actually 35 miles) from where Malkovich grew up. My town plays his home town in sports. I even know his cousin. And from her stories, growing up, Malkovich really was like he acts now. A real stinker! I love his acting because it's a no nonsense type of acting. I think this movie would have done alot better at the box office if it hadn't been for the sinking Leonardo. Actually Brenden Frasier would have been better as King Louis. Good sword play at the end. With a feel good moment, to boot. All for One and One for All!
Rating:
Summary: A great retelling of a classic tale.
Review: As a long time fan of Alexandre Dumas, I loved this film. I though DiCaprio was grossly miscast, although his acting was better than I expected it to be. Some other reviewers eluded to the acting being "not so great," but I would have to disagree. Some of the actors were "not so great," but John Malkovich and Jeremy Irons can act circles around most acors in film today. As good as Malkovich was as Athos, Irons was even better as Aramis, and has the priviledge of being the best cast actor in this film.
Rating:
Summary: Umm... Ok
Review: I really really liked this as a movie, but I gave it three stars for a reason. First of all, Leonardo DiCaprio was a bad choice as King Louis/Philippe. He is WAAAAAYYY too American for the role of a French king. He just isn't that great of an actor. (If you're pretty in America, and get enough 13 year old girls behind you, everyone thinks you're great) I thought Depardieu, Irons, Malkovich, and Byrne were wonderful, but Malkovich should have had at the very very very least, a British accent. The actresses of the picture were great. No complaints there. I saw this, because I'm a huge Muskateers fan. And if that's why you want to see it, you won't be disapointed. The guys can certainly pull it off. I have to agree with everyone that says the dancing was horrible. The script was also espescially cheesy, particullarly the lines of King Louis. Philippe's lines were much better, even though they were played by the same person. For some reason, DiCaprio was more convincing as Philippe. He can really do that sad little underdog thing. Watch The Basketball Diaries for a dose of his finest acting, in my opinion. All in all, I would reccomend this movie. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE LOVE LOVE this movie. I've always been really into "period" movies, like this one. Elizabeth, Three Muskateers, Ever After, The Princess Bride etc... But for the aforementioned reasons, I give The Man in the Iron Mask three stars. Actually three and a half. The soundtrack is GREAT for classical music lovers. If you are like me, and love heavy, dark, angry classical music, this is definitely for you.
Rating:
Summary: Man In the Iron Mask
Review: Surprisingly, this movie isn't all that bad. The acting could have been better but other than that, it was good.
Rating:
Summary: John Malkovich in a Non-Sleazoid role
Review: This is an excellent production of a classic story. The production is done with a great deal of restraint on the violence and sexual scenes. So, it is good to show to (almost) your whole family to learn a great lesson about courage, goodness, and humility. It was a pleasant suprise to see John Malkovich in a role in which he wasn't a sleazoid. What a stretch.
Rating:
Summary: My Favorite Poor Movie...
Review: Sounds confusing? Well, it is. This movie IS my favorite, so far, but I'm not really sure whether to shun it or love it. DiCaprio's acting is wonderful, considering the many challenges of playing twins; with mixed personalities (and parents..) at that! Byrne was, as always, superb, and the added Hollywood romance doesn't take away from the movie at all... in fact, it adds to it. Malkowvich (or however you spell that) portrays an exellent Athos, as does Irons and Depardieu with their great acting as Aremis and Porthos. In fact, all the actors were great; even down the insignificant extras. But the historical accuracy was poor. Very poor. DiCaprio has an American accent, as does Malkowvich, and Byrne and Irons have an British accent. The only true Frenchies in the whole movie (which is supposed to take place in France, in case you haven't picked that up) are Depardieu and the many talented, significant "others" such as the Queen, Christine, and the royal court. All in all, the movie dramaticly moved me above all others, and I'm glad I have had the pleasure (confusion aside) of watching it.
Rating: 
Summary: A very entertaining movie. Buy it today, right now.
Review: Now, I fully understand that the acting could have been a little bit better but in spite of that the movie is really very good. The characters are well written and the story moves at a fast pace. It is a great action adventure/love story that will entertain all. For those who complain about it not being true to the book or historically accurate get a life, it's just a movie. If you want to be entertained for two hours watch this, if you want a history lesson watch this History Channel.
Rating:
Summary: To the people who put down this movie: OH COME ON!!
Review: This is a very good movie. It is a legend not for sure the truth! Therefore does it really have to be "perfectly" accurate historically. The dancing in it is good. I highly suggest watching this movie. It is very enjoyable and the acting is very good(with a VERY good cast)Leo as always is very good too!
Rating: 
Summary: Pathetic, and laughably inaccurate.
Review: I have seen worse films. I can't think of any right off the top of my head, but I'm sure I have seen them. Not many though. To begin with: DiCaprio's acting, never all that good, was at an all time low. "Titanic" was the only film in which he managed to do a worse job. The acting of the elder characters was quite decent, save for the poor choice of Malkovich as the aging Athos. Dumas was turning over in his grave, of that I've no doubt. The historical inaccuracy was pathetic. I am certain that any country that was ever ruled by a hereditary monarchy rolled in the ailes from border to border when this film was shown. To think that D'Artagnan was involved with Anne of Austria (something totally incompatable with the book), is laughable. I shudder to think what the French reaction to this film was. All in all, it is not worth either buying or seeing. A pathetic attempt to recreate the muskateer legend. . . a failed attempt.
|
