|
|
| Source: rec.art.movies.reviews newsgroup | | Rating: 3
| 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.
By : Chad Polenz
|
| | Source: rec.art.movies.reviews newsgroup | | Rating: 1
| Alexandre Dumas, the novelist who wrote 'The Three Musketeers' in the 19th century would be spinning in his grave if he knew that the only Frenchman in 1998's 'The Man in the Iron Mask' would have the weakest role. Also written in the 19th century by Dumas, 'The Man in the Iron Mask' was put into print after 'The Three Musketeers' and it, along with 'The Three Musketeers', actually contains four heroes: Athos, Porthos, Aramis and D'Artagnan. They are portrayed in this version of 'The Man in the Iron Mask' by John Malkovich, Gerard Depardieu, Jeremy Irons and Gabriel Byrne. Set in 1662, their King, Louis XIV of France (Leonardo DiCaprio), is a tyrant, watching his people starve while he lives in the seductive life of luxury, and is a true law unto himself.
There have been many versions of both 'The Three Musketeers' and 'The Man in the Iron Mask' produced for film and television and this one has to ranks in the much lower half of all that has been accomplished.
The musketeers are defenders of the French crown, a high powered army of loyal soldiers who possess a talent to wield a sword better than anyone to protect their sovereign ruler. D'Artagnan (Byrne), is the most loyal and says he will not betray his King, no matter how ruthless his methods are, somehow hoping his majesty will become a better man. Athos, Porthos and Aramis are past their prime and have retired to a more quiet life and decide to replace the King with his twin brother, the man in the iron mask who the King perceives as a threat to his power. They are motivated to overthrow the King when one of them is unknowingly deemed to be a suspicious traitor to the crown.
Leonardo DiCaprio and the rest of the cast are convincing in their roles, despite speaking English and containing no French accents whatsoever, except for Depardieu, but his role is the weakest and most clownish in the film. Malkovich is miscast as he was in the 1988 period piece 'Dangerous Liaisons' and why an Englishman, complete with an accent to boot (Irons) would be asked to play in this is a mystery. But their professional dedication to their roles make it work and DiCaprio is believable as both the King and his more decent twin.
The real problem with the film is that by concentrating solely on the dramatic set-up of the first 90 minutes or so, the finished product, at a little over two hours, comes off as relatively lifeless and rather stiffly written instead of sophisticated and high brow, as it should be. Written and directed by Randall Wallace who wrote director Mel Gibson's 1995 Oscar winner 'Braveheart', Wallace shows he has no talent as a director and his attention to detail is pretty superficial. The costumes in 'The Man in the Iron Mask' are noticeably "costume shop" in their appearance and the art direction and sets are perhaps the only saving grace, technically.
Teenage girls are sure to enjoy watching DiCaprio in his first role since 'Titanic' but one misfired scene has DiCaprio standing still in a room with his long hair, and some of it is draped over his face and with his attire, it just looks too feminine. I was imagining ear rings on him at that moment and it actually seemed funny. Something that I'm sure wasn't intended and it shouldn't have been allowed to happen. DiCaprio's hair in many scenes with his female companions actually looks longer than theirs does. Perhaps appropriate, but it just seems that someone should have reminded director Randall Wallace that the film is set in the 1660's and not the 1960's. Peace.
By : Walter Frith
| more The Man in the Iron Mask reviews:
<<prev 1 2 3 next>>
|
The Man in the Iron Mask posters
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
