The Man in the Iron Mask Review
by Chad Polenz (ChadPolenz AT aol DOT com)March 16th, 1998
The Man In The Iron Mask
Chad'z rating: ** (out of 4 = fair/below average)
1998, PG-13, 130 minutes [2 hours, 10 minutes]
[drama]
starring: Leonardo DiCaprio (King Louis XIV, Philippe), Jeremy Irons (Aramis), John Malkovich (Athos), Gérard Depardieu (Porthos), Gabriel Byrne
(D'Artagnan); produced by Russ Smith, Randall Wallace; written and directed by Randall Wallace; based on the novel "L'homme au masque de fer" by Alexandre Dumas père.
Seen March 14, 1998 at 9 p.m. at Mohawk Mall Cinemas (Niskayuna, NY), theater #3, with my sister Jena for free using my Sony/Loews critic's pass. [Theater rating: **1/2: excellent sound, good picture, poor seats]
Both critics and audiences alike have scolded Hollywood for monotony and lack of originality. Perhaps the reason filmmakers feel the need to turn works of literary classics and/or legends into modern movies is a form of penance, because if they can't come up with new ideas they can at least use long-loved ones as a guarantee for success... in theory. "The Man In The Iron Mask" is such a mediocre piece of filmmaking that it not only disproves said theory, but goes to show how even the most skilled of filmmakers can go wrong with the most basic of concepts.
The film starts off in traditional "period piece" fashion with the generic rhetoric about its setting - something to do with the story of the "Three Musketeers," combined with some information about the infamous King Louis XIV - a young, greedy, arrogant king who didn't care much about who or what he ruled, just as long as he had the power. Leonardo DiCaprio stars here as this king, always with a gentle voice and manner which is probably realistic, but portrays the character in an extremely stiff way. He seems quite lost here, almost to the point of boredom.
No time is wasted in establishing the story's key elements. Within a few minutes we meet our main characters and are given minimal amounts of characterization, which will become the film's biggest flaw. All information about King Louis is provided in the prologue, or simply implied, so the sense of an antagonist or even a conflict feels weak. We then meet our so-called heroes: Aramis (Irons), the king's high priest and leader of a silent rebellion against him; Athos (Malkovich), a retired musketeer who has the film's only emotional sense, that is, his love and honor for his (dead) son; Porthos (Depardieu), a bumbling womanizer who provides for lame comic relief; and D'Artagnan (Byrne), general of the king's army who will be torn between his loyalty to the king and his long-time friends. To say the characters are going through the motions is an understatement, especially as portrayed by such a talented cast who never give them any definition or texture beyond what is required by the script. Like DiCaprio, they seem lost and bored with this picture, and the bland direction certainly doesn't help.
The actual plot involves Aramis' "brilliant" plan to replace the king with his identical twin brother Philippe (DiCaprio in a dual role), with whom he was separated at birth, lived in the country for 16 years, and has spent the last six years in a terrible prison forced to wear an iron mask. The problem is this idea is not hatched until the second hour as the first hour is spent trying to show how vile the king is, but the story offers nothing new or interesting. The king uses a woman for sex and forces her fiancée to die "honorably" in the army. The people of Paris are starving to death, but he doesn't seem to care. Yes, these two examples should provide us with enough reason to hate him, build suspense, and provide for an exciting, action-packed finale, but it just doesn't happen.
Most of the blame falls on writer/director Randall Wallace. As is the case all too frequently today, Wallace falls into the Jeckyl and Hyde category - as he is responsible for penning the Oscar-winning "Braveheart," and yet fails to take a clue from his previous work. The dialogue is too highbrow or
"Shakesperian-esque" for a modern movie, therefore the actors sound like they are reading lines from a script based on a classic novel.
The general organization of the story works, but the important details are missing or dealt with too quickly. The proof of this is in the conflict itself - of course the musketeers free the man in the iron mask and offer him the chance to be king, but they never state a reason why he should accept the offer and what this will mean in the long run (Philippe himself brings this up, but their answer is more of the boring rhetoric that explains almost every conflict in the story). I kept waiting for someone to say something along the lines of, "You'll take his place and slowly change from a bad king to a good king and everyone will live happily ever after" but this is never hinted at until the very end, and by then it's too late.
I'm sure "The Man In The Iron Mask" is meant to be a light-spirited, swashbuckling adventure, but it's difficult to see it as such due to the boring story and lack of swashbuckling altogether. In fact, I'd classify the film as a straight drama on this basis, and if that doesn't go to show where and how much the film goes wrong, I don't know what will.
Please visit Chad'z Movie Page @ http://members.aol.com/ChadPolenz - over 190 new and old films reviewed in depth, not just blind ratings and quick capsules. Also, check out The FIRST Shay Astar Web Page @
http://members.aol.com/ChadPolenz/ShayAstar.html
e-mail: [email protected]
(C) 1998 Chad Polenz
More on 'The Man in the Iron Mask'...
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
