The Man in the Iron Mask (1998)

Really Surprised!

Good start, but then it gets ruined

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

This movie was decent, but I have to say that I was not particularly impressed with Leonardo DiCaprio's performance in this one. I mean, what happened? He's usually so good! Even in his earlier roles when you could tell his acting was not as good because he didn't have as much experience and maybe hadn't fully found his voice yet, he was still at least fun to watch in movies. But in this movie I feel I could really take him or leave him, to be honest with you. It's not terrible, but if you want to watch it just because of Leo, save yourself some time and choose one of his other films instead.

There's a sort of pall that hangs over The Man in the Iron Mask. It's a feeling of... mediocrity. I know that no expense was spared in production. It's a fine specimen of movie entertainment. Sets, costumes, cinematography, editing. And, of course, big headliners.The one thing that feels skimped on is story management. It feels dilettante-ish; like simple karmic elements tinker-toyed together and intended for delectation by a 5-year-old snuzzled into bed with his teddy bear. Transitively, the actors--especially the headliners--come off like their tongues are weighed down by the knowledge that they're reading fay, simplistic storytelling. Somewhere between the standard script and the interp (the direction, also, mayhaps?), a ball has been dropped.After viewing, I thought, OK: What's a good counter-example? A flick that has all the same technical finery, including roughly the same period, but also possessing a picaresque narrative, with character study, as deep as it is broad, would be... Barry Lyndon.If you're thinking, "That boring old fossil?!?!" then I'd just say... OK, maybe "Iron Mask" is more your speed, and... godspeed! But I see the technical finery of a flick as merely a substrate. The story is everything. I do expect both (good technique and narrative depth), but actually am more respectful toward flicks that, even if they're technically lacking, at least deliver on the mythic level in a satisfying way.So I give this one a '6' for the technique, but I can't creep that any higher.If you like a simple intrigue fable and lots of swashbuckling, "Iron Mask" will do.

I liked this one quite a bit, excellent in terms of a period piece, which I was in the mood to watch with beautiful sets and costumes and a swashbuckling adventure. I had seen this years before but couldn't remember any details about the movie itself, for some reason though I had never forgotten the fascinating story about the Man in the Iron Mask.I like how this opens by telling you that while "Some of this is legend at least this much is fact, when rioting citizens of France destroyed the Bastille they discovered within its records this mysterious entry; prisoner number 64389000-the man in the iron mask." so that there is an immediate element of mystery.The movie itself is a classic adventure film with romance, intrigue, lots of action, yup there's even sword fighting, and filled with a fantastic cast to portray the aging musketeers (Gabriel Byrne, Gérard Depardieu, Jeremy Irons, John Malkovich) as they hatch their plan to overthrow the King. I enjoyed all of them but honestly Gérard Depardieu was hilarious here, and this has to be my all time favourite role of his... "I'm just a fat old fart with nothing to live for anymore. I'm going to hang myself, as soon as I'm sober." Leonardo DiCaprio does a decent enough job portraying two very different characters, that of the evil king Louis and also his good natured, tortured twin brother who has been kept chained and masked in a dungeon for years. Leo is young here and struggles a bit with accent etc and I think also gets overshadowed by the experience of the others in the cast. 10/12/15

This is one of Randall Wallace's better movies. Although not as good as Braveheart, it is better than Pearl Harbor and We Were Soldiers. It has a great cast; it is amazing that Jeremy Irons, DiCaprio, John Malkovich and Gerard Deperdieu were able to all star in the same movie. However, I have always been a History fan; and the IMDb profile claims that I like biography, history and war movies above all. Perhaps such a bias causes me to give this film a more generous rating.One thing the film did is to cause me to question issues of legitimacy. The film is, of course, not historically accurate. It is obviously romanticized. But in real life, there had actually been a man in the Iron Mask in the Bastille prison. In real life, there had been tension between Jesuits and kings. And the movie alludes to events that would later portend the French Revolution (i.e. starving hordes in Paris). In real life, King Louis XIV also declared himself to be in charge of the French Royal Council in 1661; and the film starts off in 1662. The very fact that a 'bad' king is replaced by a 'good' king may be a reference to the latent belief (at least on the part of Alexandre Dumas) that Louis XIV had been corrupt and that so had been his Royal Council. After all, Wikipedia claimed that Louis XIV's reign had actually not been peaceful during the later part of his years.However, the film was enjoyable. After watching the 1994 Disney version of the Three Musketeers as a kid years ago, it was interesting to see the Three Musketeers again in their older years. And just because they were older obviously did not mean they did not have problems. In fact, the film demonstrates the reality that their lives had gotten more difficult. The film also touches on other important issues that may cause heated debates. The film seemed to argue that the wars fought consumed the resources of the French peasants and urban workers. Rather than competing over scarce resources, the countries engaged in war fought for glory and ideological reasons. This may be true, but I'm not sure to what degree it is also a romanticized notion. Historians will probably duke it out.I would recommend this film and would even do so for those who are not fans of history.8/10