Beautifully costumed and filmed with a great cast, locations, and set. Unfortunately the script was deliberately written to ruin the preceding, or many of the actors jointly decided to give some of the worst, or the worst performances of their careers. John Malkovich, who I"ve liked in virtually every other role I've seen him in, was particularly bad, with DiCaprio not far behind.Part of the problem with the script is it suffers from a frequent Hollywood ill; Theme Schizophrenia. Am I serious, adult, interesting, complicated, painful as one would think given the movies subject matter and events, ooooooorrrrrrr am I fun and funny while I deal with warfare, betrayal, pain, suffering, rage, death, etc? Treating such serious subjects as fun and funny (which they ARE NOT)usually ends in cartoonish buffoonery ala The A Team. This film is a particularly BAD example of Theme Schizophrenia. Treated as a straight up drama for adults ala Valkyrie or Saving Private Ryan......it may well have worked.

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.

Loosely based on Alexandre Dumas' classic adventure novel, specifically the third part of the third part of the d'Artagnan trilogy (yes, I worded that correctly), 1998's "The Man in the Iron Mask" stars Leonardo DiCaprio in a dual role as both the titular Phillipe and the spoiled, oppressive King Louis XIV of France. Gérard Depardieu plays d'Artagnan, the loyal captain of the guard who's also in love with Louis' mother, played by Anne Parillaud. Jeremy Irons, John Malkovich and Gérard Depardieu star as the legendary aging three musketeers (d'Artagnan is the fourth) while Judith Godrèche plays the king's love interest. The plot revolves around a scheme by the three musketeers to depose Louis and replace him with his twin brother, the mysterious man in the iron mask imprisoned in the Bastille.For some reason I thought this was going to be a roll-your-eyes take on the story, like a mishmash of The Three Musketeers with Indiana Jones, but I was surprised and pleased to see that it's actually a serious quasi-historical drama/adventure, which isn't to say that there aren't eye-rolling movie moments. Basically, if you liked "Ever After: A Cinderella Story" (which came out four months after "The Man with the Iron Mask"), but would prefer a slightly more realistic tale, you'll probably like this, as long as you don't mind the blatant deviations from the classic book.Some people complain that DiCaprio is too effeminate as Louis, but the real Louis XIV was effeminate, so what's the problem? As for Phillipe, the man the movie's named after, the story focuses more on the four legendary musketeers, which explains my title blurb, but that's okay on account of the four formidable actors in the roles.I would've thought that having an imprisoned commoner suddenly becoming the king of France would be a good story angle, but that's not the direction the movie takes. In fact, the entire third act piqued my interest because it was so unpredictable. At first, I was turned off by d'Artagnan's sudden and curious change of mind on something, but the ending reveals why.Unfortunately, I can't give the film a higher rating because of a few aforementioned eye-rolling parts. The highly unlikely way Phillipe is rescued from prison is one and another is the way the three musketeers try to drive Louis batty at the dress ball by making him think he sees iron masks everywhere. Lame elements like this needed to be tweaked or worked out of the script altogether.The film runs 132 minutes and was shot entirely in France.GRADE: B- (or 6.5/10 Stars)

Back in the days of Douglas Fairbanks, people took historical drama/adventure movies much more seriously. There was a lot more reading going on and people were more familiar with Dumas' grand epic tales, such as "The Man in the Iron Mask." With this in mind, the director and producers of "Iron Mask" start their movie out slow in getting late 20th century viewers familiar with all the characters. This was the first role for Leonardo DiCaprio post Titanic, and possibly the greatest collection of actors ever assembled to portray the Three Musketeers (Gabriel Byrne, Jeremy Irons, John Malkovich, and Gerard Depardieu). Of them all, Gabriel Byrne stands out as D'Artagnan and portrays his fierce loyalty to the wicked King Louis 14 and the Queen Mother with quiet passion. He also looks great in the period costumes, long hair style and thin mustache.Leonardo DiCaprio plays a dual role of both the wicked king and the title character. The plot focuses on a scheme by the Three Musketeers to spring the man in the Iron Mask from prison and replace the evil king with him. The implausible way they do it and install Philippe on the throne gunks up the movie a little at the midpoint. Script rewrite, anyone? On the other hand, the scene where Philippe is unmasked is one of the best in the movie.While some moviegoers (even girls and young women still gaga over Leo from "Titanic") thought that he looked too "girly" in the movie Leo manages to get viewers to hate Louis 14 and love Philippe. And of course the queen mother knows right away and you can see the realization in her eyes (authentic French actress Anne Perillaud plays the role beautifully). Besides that, here's a little-known historical fact: the real King Louis 14 was girly. He used to pluck his facial hair and bloodlet to give his face a more vulnerable, feminine appearance. The Man in the Iron Mask ends satisfyingly and there is even some good swashbuckling action for fans of that sort of thing. Leonardo DiCaprio's image changed radically not long after the movie, when he hooked up with Martin Scorsese for a string of tough guy roles. But he should still be proud of his performance in "Iron Mask" and it is a fine movie.