|
|
|
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
|
|
|
|
The most helpful favorable review
| |
The most helpful critical review
|
12 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
Loved it . . .
I don't know why I did not see the 1998 version of Man in the Iron Mask while it played in theaters. In a way I'm glad I didn't see it then - I surely would have embarrassed myself, because it would not have occurred to me that I would need a half-box of Kleenex at the end! I finally watched the movie in my own living room when it came to HBO several years ago, but...
Published on February 17, 2005 by Borderfan
|
› See more 5 star, 4 star reviews |
 |
7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
Wretched!
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...
Published on March 11, 2001 by Bryan R. Guinn
|
› See more 3 star, 2 star, 1 star reviews |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
12 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
Loved it . . ., February 17, 2005
I don't know why I did not see the 1998 version of Man in the Iron Mask while it played in theaters. In a way I'm glad I didn't see it then - I surely would have embarrassed myself, because it would not have occurred to me that I would need a half-box of Kleenex at the end! I finally watched the movie in my own living room when it came to HBO several years ago, but while I enjoyed the movie at the time, it did not leave me with the urgent desire to see it again. However, I did watch the movie again recently, and now for some unexplainable reason, I can't seem to get enough of it. I have the DVD, and it is the movie I most often reach for on a quiet evening of lousy television.
Those who are expecting a faithful adaptation of the book will come away sorely disappointed, and if that is their measure of the movie, they will do best to avoid this one. However, those who love the characters, who don't mind seeing new adaptations and interesting plot twists, and who love rich costumes and set designs will find this movie wonderfully entertaining. And that is what it is all about, isn't it? Entertainment.
I have read many reviews regarding this movie, and am puzzled, even dismayed at times, by some of the criticisms levied at various aspects of it. Some people have complained about the dialogue in the movie, calling it "flowery", but truthfully I loved the fact that Randall Wallace did not modernize it. So many new films and TV series are "dumbing down" the dialogue of period pieces to make them more compatible with today's manner of speaking. I applaud Mr. Wallace for keeping the dialogue consistent with how it likely would have been spoken in the 17th century.
Still others complained of the unlikelihood of all four Musketeers surviving a volley of musketfire during the final charge. If they had been watching properly, they would have noticed that the young Musketeers were turning their faces away, closing their eyes as they pulled the triggers. And after the first few shots, powder smoke begins to fill the corridor, obscuring their vision. So the lack of accuracy in their volley is adequately explained on more than one count. Moreover, if the critics had been watching more closely, they would have noticed that there are woundings -- D'Artagnan is hit in the shoulder, Athos in the thigh. The other two are also limping, and the script confirms that all four are wounded in the barrage.
As for the complaints that the four leads have four different accents, I did not find them distracting or annoying, as some have claimed. I expected it, since this is an International Cast, and with an International Cast, you get International accents.
And speaking of the cast, I must say that in all the Musketeers movies I've seen, this is the strongest cast ever. The primary performers, Jeremy Irons, Gabriel Byrne, Gerard Depardieu, and John Malkovich, all turn in exquisite performances, and Leonardo DiCaprio is, in my opinion, convincing as Louis and Philippe, even though he is upstaged by the other four. Anne Parilloud is simply lovely as the Queen Mother, and the moments she shares with Byrne's D'Artagnan are some of the best in the film. The love scene between them, as brief as it was, is as beautiful as any I've ever seen (this coming from someone who is not a true fan of romance! I was left wanting more!). The music is brilliant and sets the mood perfectly for each scene. The wardrobe is exceptional, especially the black uniforms of the old musketeers.
Particularly nice touches in this movie are the attention to detail: The roses left for the queen speaks as decisively of D'Artagnan's love for her as words ever could (And yes, I really liked the plot twist involving the twins' paternity); Philippe dragging his masked head back and forth over the grating in frustration while in prison; the unmasking of Philippe in a dark blacksmith's forge, his hair wrapped around his neck where, as it grew, it was unable to escape the confines of the mask; Lieutenant Andre's devotion to D'Artagnan throughout the film and the way he looks away when the king orders the volley, unable to watch his captain cut down; the rich, fancy costumes contrast the torn, sweat-stained clothing where appropriate.
The movie is not without its faults, though. The first scene involving Porthos and Aramis, for example, contains some crude language regarding parts of both the male and female anatomy and Porthos's flatulence, both of which seemed out of place, and actually got the film off to a shaky start. The first time I watched it, I almost turned it off at this point. I also could have lived quite happily without ever having seen the bulls-eye glimpses of Porthos' naked rear end. While I'm sure some of Depardieu's fans loved it, the scene did nothing to advance the plot, in my opinion. There is hardly an actor or actress out there these days that has not done a nude, but quite frankly, some things are just better left to the imagination. I'm smiling as I write this, but truly, the scene was unnecessary. Thankfully, there is a "skip" button on my DVD player! And yes, I do use it.
Those few faults are forgivable when surrounded by so many other details that are so elegantly done. For me, it was a very pleasing movie experience, one I enjoy over and over again. Kudos to everyone involved. Now, if I can just convince Randall Wallace to release a director's cut version . . . .
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
ENGARDE!, November 7, 2002
"All for one. One for all!" The familiar oath is heard again in this swashbuckler. Only this time our four heroes are older, as The Musketeers reunite for one last grand stand against injustice.
Aramis(Jeremy Irons),is now a devout priest and prays for the starving people of Paris, Porthos(Gerard Depardieu)is out of shape but still has the will to fight for right(Depardieu is also very much the comic relief in this film),Athos(John Malkovich), retired and has a son who has now gone into the service of the king, and the youngest D'Artagnan(Gabriel Bryne), still in service is now the Captain of the Musketeers, and very loyal to his King. And of course the coldhearted young King Louie XIV(Leonardo DiCaprio).
The King lets his people starve while he lavishes in luxeries. He uses people, especially women with no shred of decency or emotion. Even his mother Queen Anne(Anne Parillaud) is ashamed but still loves him. And Louie has a secret, one that may threaten his reign someday. It is the "Man In The Iron Mask" who he has had imprisoned.
Aramis ,Athos, and Porthos have set a plan into motion to restore decency to the throne. D'Artagnan on the other hand remains loyal to the king and carries with him a secret of his own. They don their old uniforms, and we see them in action once again. Will they be able to set free the man in the mask? Will D'Artagnan reunite with them?
The swordfights,scenery and costumes are all exquiste. The story will move you,there are some very poignant scenes as well as lots of action,adventure, romance and above all loyalties. Loyalties to each other, the King and to France.The actors work extraordinary well together and are impeccable in their roles.Director Randall Wallace really gives us a good look at this time and place in history, and a strong feeling for each character.
Fabulous DVD!(MGM) The widescreen presentation(standard on the other side if you prefer) really shows off the granduer of the palace grounds, and the surrounding scenery.The picture and colors clear and bright. The 5.1 Surround is outstanding in this action film. You can hear every clip clop of the horses on the stone, every clink of the swords, and every word of the dialouge clearly. The music is also well recieved and is effective. There are several features you may want to check out, there is audio commentary, a really informative look at how they chose and made the mask, and a booklet inside the case.You can also use the English, French or Spanish Subtitles if needed.
Check it out.....Laurie
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
Wretched!, March 11, 2001
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 high school drama class. 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 $$$ to watch this movie over and over and over again. The success of this movie will only encourage more hollywood schlock I fear. Read the book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
Surprisingly great movie!, October 31, 2002
Ok, to start, I just want to say that I am in no way a Three Musketeer fan. I wouldn't even look their way usually...but a friend of mine insisted that we watch this movie. Grunting, and with only Encino Man as another option, I agreed on this flick. The movie started innocently enough, and to tell most the truth, I didn't even give it a chance. Normally if you go into something with just the thought of "this is going to [stink]", it most likely will. This was not the case for me when I was watching it though...STORY/PLOT: The plot, characters, scenery, and fighting is all top-notch from what I saw. Every person I saw drew me to like them, and I found myself cheering for the original Three (Four) Musketeers even until the end. You'll be surprised how little bad-knowledge you need on the trio (quartet) to really enjoy this film. And although the main point is focused on something other than the Musketeers, they still manage to play a major role in the movie. DVD QUALITY/EXTRAS: The video is really crisp and I noticed no real distortion in the movie. Sound was also very nice (as all DVDs should be) and I wouldn't hesitate to rate the audio up with such others as Braveheart and Gladiator. Since it was my friend's, I really didn't get a look at ALL of the contents of the disc, but from what I could tell, it was a moderate DVD. The extras are the usual for this type of film, and don't offer anything spectacular or independent from other DVDs...so don't buy this DVD for content. OTHER: The only problem I have with this movie is everyone seems to hate it. I can only guess that a lot of guys go to see it and get turned off by Leonardo DiCaprio's major role as king in the movie. I'm not big on Leonardo DiCaprio either, but I feel that he deserves a chance in this one. [SPOILER] He manages to play two roles, and I feel since they were opposite personalities he pulled the role off perfectly as two completely different people. [END OF SPOILER] FIN~: To wrap things up, if you are used to cool swashbuckling scenes, as well as some great story-telling, I reccomend this movie to most. The only people that should steer clear of this movie are: people that totally hate Leonardo Dicaprio movies, people that don't like French stories, and people that need lots of non-stop action. For you out there who like exquisite scenery, romance, and all of the other things I've listed...then this movie is for you.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
Inaccurate but beautiful, February 10, 2001
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
Jeremy Irons is awesome, but DiCaprio...ick, December 5, 1999
I just saw this movie a few days ago, and I still have a lingering bad taste in my mouth from it. It's all right to veer away from the original book's plot, but I can only take so much. The twist at the end was just too much to stomach. DiCaprio was a horrible casting choice, sounding very much like a 20th century brat rather than a spoiled French king. He was better as Phillipe...I guess he just doesn't play royalty well at all. The only glimmer in this movie were the familiar old Muskateers, Jeremy Irons in particular. He's always brilliant, so I tacked on one more star than I wanted to, just for him. DiCaprio may pull in an audience, but it's the Muskateers the put out a quality performance. Too bad this movie was such a waste of their talent.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
Pathetic, and laughably inaccurate., September 12, 1999
By A Customer
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
Leonardo stinks, May 13, 1999
By A Customer
Great Film, with one exception. Leonardo Dicaprio. Whats worse, in this film there is two of him!!!! UUUGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
What actor in his forties would not want to be a Musketeer?, October 22, 2002
I know why I like this movie and it is simply because "The Man in the Iron Mask" does for swordplay movies what "Space Cowboys" did for space movies. It allowed a bunch of older actors to have fun in parts usually reserved for the younger set. I can just imagine John Malkovich's eyes lighting up at the thought of somebody asking him to play one of the Three Musketeers (Athos). The same goes for Jeremy Irons (Aramis), Gerard Depardieu (Porthos) and Gabriel Byrne (D'Artagnan). The key line for me in the movie is when Lieutenant Andre (Edward Atterton) points to D'Artagnan and says "All of my life all I ever wanted to be was HIM." But you can substitute any one of the Musketeers in that statement. I just cannot imagine any Hollywood actor of my age turning down this script. You get to be one of the Three Musketeers!So I am onboard for the fun. This is a solid "B" movie and I do not care that Leonardo DiCaprio is the big name at the top of the cast list. He is a talent actor, but as in "William Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet" he once again shows he does not have a feel for the diction of costume drama; but his Phillippe is a much richer performance than his King Louis. Yes, I can list lots of other problems with this film. Depardieu and Judith Godreche as Christine are the only ones running around with "real" French accents for one thing. But the film is, all things considered, fairly faithful to the Alexandre Dumas novel (by Hollywood standards) until the final act. I actually liked the "twist" by writer-director Randall Wallace and was not bothered that the survival rate of the Musketeer quarter is the exact opposite in the film that it was in the novel. But above all I liked watching Malkovich, whose ability to provide nuance into underplaying a role is exquisite and it is so much fun watching him draw his swords and have at it. Depardieu has fun as the bawdry brawler of the bunch, although the script relegates him to the comic relief part of the festivities. Irons provides the most panache of the quartet and the twinkle in his eyes as Aramis hatches his master plan to restore the honor of France counterbalances the deadness in the eyes of Athos after the death of his son. Byrne gets to play a pillar of virtue and his character is more a reflection of the good opinion of everybody else. It is only in his affection for Queen Anne (Anne Parillaud in a dignified but heartfelt performance) and his attempts to instruct Louis that his heart comes through. "The Man in the Iron Mask" is, like the novel, not a great story but more of a grand adventure.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
LOVE the Book, HATE the Movie, February 16, 2003
If you love the book, don't torture yourself by watching this movie. It is obvious that the Hollywood has stopped reading the book, and started writing scripts from the title of the book. This movie betrays everything about the four noble musketeers, and used their names to sell a movie to their fans. There's absolutely nothing salvageable about this movie. Even the background design looks terrible. Who ever was the make-up artist for this movie should be banned from any future job. After being in stuck in prison for most of his life with a mask on his face, the prince had perfect set of white teeth and nothing hideous on his face other than overgrown hair. This movie is terrible from beginning to end.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
|
|
| |
|
|
|
