The Man in the Iron Mask (1998)

THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK is less a Hollywood blockbuster version of the Alexandre Dumas novel and more a vehicle for the then-huge star Leonardo DiCaprio, fresh from the titanic success of, well, TITANIC. Thus this is a faintly ridiculous movie, MTV-style in the lingering poster-boy shots of DiCaprio, who singularly fails to make much difference between the twin characters he plays.The rest of the film is an eventful but lifeless exercise, marred by the endlessly dated direction (a surprise given that Randall Wallace would go on to make the excellent and gritty WE WERE SOLDIERS). The frequent sword fights are more like street brawls, the sets look just like that, and the actors are picked for name value rather than role suitability. The likes of Gerard Depardieu, Gabriel Byrne, and Jeremy Irons have all done fine work elsewhere, but as the musketeers they feel sluggish and half-hearted, and don't get me started on the dumb humour.

Yes run to the exits. The film is not as bad as some make out. The dialog is a bit cheesy. The plot is a bit silly. It certainly is not a good movie. At the beginning I thought it was a kid's movie. What really bothered me was the voices of DeCaprio and Malkovich. Every single line out of Malkovich's mouth was wooden, and was obviously fake-- a community theater actor just mouthing the sounds. His American accent did not help. I don't like much of anything Malkovich has done, so I was not surprised. I don't know if it was because he did not fully learn his lines, or if he can't do the overdubs, or he over-enunciates, or it was something that the audio people could have fixed. I doubt it. He might be tone-deaf.Equally bad was DiCaprio, who reminded me how boy-toy heartthrobs just get by on their looks. He was miscast and the whole plot over-stressed him since they figured it would get the gal demographic. His dialog always sounded fake and forced and phony. There was one scene where he got mad and yelled and he was pretty good, a little boy throwing a tantrum, but much better than fellow boy-toy Ben Affleck, who rolls me on the floor when he tries to act angry. I understand that Leo and Ben have careers because women need to look at something while their vibrators recharge. Fine with me, but the mistake is giving them speaking parts. The gals will like Leo and Ben even more if they don't open their mouths in their films.I wonder if Wallace did re-writes after Titanic hit big and they had DiCaprio already under contract. Other reviewers noticed there were too many leads and I agree. The king should not be a focus, and Malkovich should not have made it past the screen test. With him out, then make Leo a Musketeer (notice they never carried muskets?) Make Depardieu the King and get rid of the clown character. Bring the dang women more into the story. The queen was great-- make the whole story center around her and have her direct the hijinks. Get us to like the other gal so we can kill her later, and get the sympathy vote at the Oscars. Take all suicide out-- this is Catholic France for gosh sake. Have the king kill the fluff babe when he cannot seduce her. Although hard for Hollywood to believe, most gals actually care when their lover is killed in war and won't jump into bed with the King. Now that she is pure, we really will care when she dies.Take the "sneak the twin out under a toga" bit out. If Dumas wrote it then was it was stupid in 1850 and even stupider when filmed. Also you can't have a Musketeer stabbed and then just get talked down and walk away.So now you got Leo as one Musketeer, and you can keep the other two but why pay those high-dollar great actors? Make the other two Musketeers non-speaking parts and pay them SAG minimums. The Raoul guy does not need to exist, other than in reference made by the fluff-babe who is going to die anyway. Or better yet, have DeCaprio the Musketeer save her from Depardieu the King, and then he gets the girl in the end.Yeah, that's the ticket. A nice story about the Queen mother and D'Artagnan her secret lover. Leo pulls in the gals and keeps his trap shut while getting the girl. That should get the budget from $35M down to $20M. Step C, profit.

This movie was recently aired on a local TV station. I was passing by the channel and figured I'd watch it since I missed it in the theater. That, and there wasn't anything else on worth watching.I guess at first I thought it odd that someone would cast Brooke Shields as King Louis XIV, but wanted to watch to see if she was somehow able to pull it off.About 20 minutes into the film I thought her acting was a little odd, even for her. So I checked the movie info on screen and discovered it wasn't Brooke Shields, but rather, Leonardo DiCaprio.After that, all suspension of disbelief was gone. It was replaced with utter amazement at how much DiCaprio looked like Shields.

The Three Musketeers by Alexander Dumas! All for one and one for all! Who can forget them? Their names are carved into our collective memories -- D'Artagnon, Athos, Paramus, Dopy, Goofy, Donner, Blitzen, and Rudolph! In this story, helas, the four musketeers are aging, like gunfighters, and have gone their separate ways. Gabriel Byrne, as D'Artagnon, remains in service, devoted to King Louis XIV. (That's Louis the Fourteenth, also known as The Sun King; cf., The Beatles.) Jeremy Irons as Aramis has become a Jesuit priest who doesn't much like the king. John Malkovich is Athos, whose much loved son, Raoul, the king has sent off to war to be killed, in order to have his way with Raoul's fiancée. Athos is pretty bitter. Gerard Depardieu is the comic Porthos, the wine-swilling lover of life who despairs as aging cripples his diverse enthusiasms. "I'm going to hang myself as soon as I'm sober." All of the musketeers are well served by the players.But who is this king anyway, the one that everybody dislikes so much except D'Artagnon and the assorted terrified subjects? The population at large is not so obsequious. They're starving and the king sends them rotten fruit that's been rejected by the army now fighting Holland.I'll tell you who the king is. He's Leonardo DiCaprio, that's who. He's not only a cruel and selfish king but the poor guy, no matter which of two opposing roles he plays -- the sneering king or the pathetic waif -- looks and sounds like a recent graduate of some high school in St. George, Utah. A huge hole appears on the screen whenever he speaks. He turns the Musketeers into the Mouseketeers.The plot is too twisted with intrigues and mixed identities and the like. It can't be described in detail. DiCaprio plays twin brothers. One is the evil king and the other is the nice man in the iron mask, who is liberated and substituted for the bad king. It gets pretty tense and enjoyable, watching people sneak around, grieving and plotting. One particularly delightful moment has the bulky Gerard Depardieu in a hay stack. His head emerges from the straw and he moans, "Ach, it's no good. I can't do it anymore." And then the head of a pretty young lady arises from the hay and reassures him. Depardeiu shakes his head. Another pretty face appears from under him. Then a third.The action scenes are fun, combining ancient matchlocks with period smallswords. None of the actors have any skill in fencing so the scenes are subject to speedy editing and a lot of brute force is used. No guts or gore, however.It's an old-fashioned adventure yarn with a budget as lavish as the decor of the palace. It's strictly a commercial enterprise with no attempt at naturalism or genuine tragedy. The original music by Nick Glennie-Smith is imitation baroque, so as not to be too alien to modern ears. The lighting and photography are in the bright classic style, and never mind the candelabras. None of it was shot at Versailles but the impression is effective. The editing challenges no one. The camera wobbles not.