The Man in the Iron Mask (1998) - Action, Adventure, Drama

Hohum Score



The cruel King Louis XIV of France has a secret twin brother whom he keeps imprisoned. Can the twin be substituted for the real king?

IMDB: 6.5
Director: Randall Wallace
Stars: Leonardo DiCaprio, Jeremy Irons
Length: 132 Minutes
PG Rating: PG-13
Reviews: 37 out of 258 found boring (14.34%)

One-line Reviews (151)

in many places, if not the whole thing, it looks like a film which screenplay/story was thought out some night by some bored film people who just wanted something to make to merely entertain their then idly bored selves.

I actually made the mistake of going to the movie theatre to see this piece of manure a while ago, but thought I'd add a comment here because this is probably the worst movie I have ever seen.

I must say, I had forgotten how exciting, dramatic and intriguing it was(and is).

Unfortunately, this movie has an incredibly corny plot and a slow pace.

The Man With The Boring Film .

It gets pretty tense and enjoyable, watching people sneak around, grieving and plotting.

On the whole, 'The Man in the Iron Mask' is an adventure worth watching.

Top-notch actors like Jeremy Irons, Gabriel Byrne and John Malkovich must have been choking on their lines; Malkovich's flat performance does make it seem like he was bored out of his mind.

Don't see this movie, it's a waste of time!

It is the climactic and thrilling scene of a film that has so much going for it, it earns at least 8 stars despite its flaws.

It's a good adaptation with big budget , a moving rendition of the classic tale with derring-do , intrigue , romance , action and exciting swordplay .

The action scenes are decent and well played once they arrive, and the score reasonably evocative.

It's funny, exciting, touching, pretty to look at, and isn't so cheesy that it can't be taken seriously.

All the actors in the movie are pretty average, none of them really shines out, it's once again obvious that Dicaprio do indeed have a lot of talent and i'm forever certain that he will be a very large star one day, he has a lot of talent, and it is visible in some parts of this movie, although his character seems shallow, actually all of the characters are rather uninteresting, and the dialog doesn't make the actors job any easier, trying too hard maybe to be true to its time age, and still it doesn't work convincing that way either.

My list of possible complaints is endless, but to wrap up with just a few: the cast members' accents are all over the place, the music overwrought and the entire film far too long.

Worth watching, very good movie, way underrated.

Variously uninspired, overblown and mawkish, and thoroughly predictable.

Although this wasn't a great film, it was still highly enjoyable.

I hadn't even heard of Gabriel Byrne or the supporting female actresses, but having seen Malkovich, Irons and Depardieu, I knew there would be quality acting in this film, so, having grown bored with browsing, I rented it.

It is a not a bad movie by any means, it is pretty fun and entertaining to be honest, a true guilty pleasure to see it once (i saw it twice during the first two years after its release).

) On a whole despite some dismal performances, The Man In The Iron Mask is an engrossing tale that should be viewed at least once in your life time.

The contrasts between the musketeers was conveyed well and was enjoyable to watch.

It's incredibly dull, flat, utterly predictable, tedious...

at some points, his American-boy accent was just a wee bit cringe-worthy in the circumstances, and in a couple scenes he possibly goes over the top- on the whole, however, he acquits himself well and at his best moments he is totally wonderful, (as the fabulously camp-looking Louie especially) stunning and touching to watch (if anyone on earth can play a Don Juan-type spoilt brat rich king dude, it's gotta be Leo) and all performance technicalities aside, i for one will give him snaps on having mustered the courage to wear those outfits (not to mention the hair).

Bland and uninspiring .

Wallace did such a good job combining historical fiction with old-fashioned adventure with a modern twist in that story (to be fair, Mel Gibson did a good job directing it), but here, he's not consistent; there are some scenes and especially dialogue which are real clunkers, which alternate with scenes that are rousing or dramatic.

Worst movie in a long while .

The events are exciting and sometimes heart-wrenching, the music is great, and the dialogue is truly, truly exceptional.

The story is a lot more enjoyable for me than most of the adaptations of the Three Musketeers.

Aside from all of that, the scenery and costumes are quite stunning, and the story intriguing.

It's *supposed* to be entertaining...

Their performances are the only light in this otherwise dull picture.

This film has everything to make it a success- wonderfully stirring music, fantastic sets and gripping fight scenes.

Entertaining viewing.

Eh, still I'd highly recommend it, it's the actors that make this movie very delightful to watch, one for all and all for one… this movie is just tons of fun!

There are enjoyable moments of the film, and the Musketeer uniforms are snazzy.

The WORST movie EVER !.

Instead of wasting time on this boring remake, rent "The Three Musketeers" from 1973.

but I will admit that this was worth watching.

It probably wouldn't stand up to multiple viewings, but it is worth watching if you have the chance.

What a waste of great talent and a suspenseful, swashbuckling classic!

All in all, a very entertaining tale of The Three Musketeers, based on an interesting idea, and brought nicely to life by talented actors.

The direction, the pacing, the romance, the sword-play are all dull.

if you've read the book, the movie is a torture!.. .

The chemistry between them is "magnifique," and I found their motivations both believable and compelling.

I remember this film as being good at the cinema but having rented it recently I have discovered that it's really quite boring.

Typical Hollywood schlock: a waste of time, money and reputable actors.

Malkovich sucks,Irons is dull,Depardieu doesnt really act and DiCaprio is laughable the harder he tries.

The characters are hilarious, moving and most importantly interesting, the plot - though predictable - keeps your attention, the script is well written and often very funny, and considering that the four musketeers aren't exactly young anymore the action is pretty impressive.

The uncanny show of bravery from the revitalized musketeers was stunning - in a confusing way.

Like i said this film is not really suited to my tastes, but i still found it enjoyable to watch, and the casting is fantastic.

Truly Stunning .

The music is very rousing and moving, and the sword play is energetic.

Where Hyams, as always, searches for the (special) effect and too grand but empty gestures, this film is about people.

The ensemble cast make this worth watching.

Definitely flawed, but enjoyable .

For a movie at that time period, the acting was superb, dont how how Leo didnt get an oscar, and the story was amazing and entertaining.

I enjoyed this movie because it is one of the most entertaining movies I have ever seen.

A confusing mess .

The story is well told and intriguing, keeping you interested through the whole film.

This movie is very enjoyable and just plain fun to watch!

I left with a 'ho hum' feeling, I didn't care much.

The film does also have its dull moments and questionable dialog.

My feelings were right: Man in the Iron Mask is tedious and lacks suspense, and avoids the political background the Dumas story had.

It's both an enjoyable story and a visual wonder.

The movie has a great story, excellent acting, beautiful settings,exciting action,good humor, and a wonderful music score.

However, the film is a little too long and the pacing is also uneven, I felt the film dragged in the middle and then it felt a tad rushed at the end.

I'm amazed to see that other people (or androids with no taste, more likely) actually LIKED this boring waste of invaluable time!

*no spoilers, just a spoiled movie* One of the worst movies I've seen.

" 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.

Oh, I am so glad my friend dragged me to see it.

The story was fine, the acting great, but Dicaprio dragged the whole movie into the gutter.

On top of the poor acting and casting, the film lacked an engaging plot because of the characters and the use of cameras, which seemed to work behind the scenes and let the weak characters/actors and actresses become the focus.

Aside from the fact that the acting in it was superb, aside from the fact that the storyline was interesting and exciting, and even aside from the fact that the characters were made to be so believable, each scene was like a work of art!

Good, entertaining movie .

Although it did have a few flaws here and there, it is still a very worthwhile and enjoyable film.

So I watched it again the next day, this time I understood it better and got more into it, and altogether enjoyed it more.

%*} waste of time!!!

A thoroughly enjoyable swashbuckling good time.

Furthermore the movie is kind of entertaining, though just don't put your hopes up for a cinematic masterpiece that will hunt your dreams for weeks to come.

The twist was just thrilling.

This tremendous cast and huge production make for absorbing viewing, different yet as entertaining as the Richard Chamberlain TV version and the Louis Hayward version in the 1930s.

While this isn't the best movie ever, it is still very much worth the watch; don't let the low rating fool you!

The audience I saw this with really enjoyed it, alot, and you probably will too.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar 6) it is sooooooo predictable - yeah cus no1 had worked out he was the father half way through the first scene!!!!

This film offers a prime example of the man's inborn grasp of gut-wrenching hilarity dolled up as piously dull and historically ignorant entertainment.

In fact, the entire third act piqued my interest because it was so unpredictable.

Apart from a few flaws, an entertaining movie and definatly not as easy to critique as one would think :)

a lot of boring dialogs.

its a waste of time.

If you're thinking, "That boring old fossil?!?!

I watched the first five minutes, got bored, and turned it off.

If 'we' wait too long, let's hope DiCaprio has sunk his last boat and comes back to the breathtaking roles he started in '...

His "good twin," Philippe, is flat and boring.

It's a fun flick and I enjoyed it, despite itself.

Boring !

This is another major flaw of the film: for an adventure picture, the protagonist/antagonist are just boring.

A terrific cast is wasted in a dull Dumas adaption.

Written and Directed by Randall Wallace (Best Known for writing the script of the Oscar-Winning "Braveheart" and the infamous Michael Bay film "Pearl Harbor") made an enjoyable old-fashioned adventure with a top cast.

Worth seeing if you want something light, fun and entertaining.

Ambitious, but often shallow and predictable.

DVD also includes an intriguing commentary track by the filmmaker and more.

The character Porthos was especially engaging.

Enjoyable movie .

The swordplay is entertaining, if a bit limited in scope and amount, clearly due to the seniority of most of the main cast.

It's an exciting story, even if Dumas would never have recognized it, and the musketeers are wonderful.

It was just rather dragged out.

However, the film was enjoyable.

Firstly many thanks to Writer/Director Randall Wallace (the bloke who wrote Braveheart)for crafting such a compelling tale.

Awesome, Riveting,Exciting .

He knows how to be intense.

The four musketeers, played by an international team of top actors, are also a bit dull, lacking both the humour that made Richard Lester's Musketeer films so much fun and the element of charisma and vitality that would convince the viewer that these are indeed the hardest men in the world.

Instead, it's disappointingly ordinary, but still enjoyable for the charismatic performances of the musketeers alone.

Needless to say the entire movie is worth watching for the pure beauty of Byrne and Irons...

but one of the most entertaining and powerful ones .

It may not be a "masterpiece", but it's surely a great, fun, entertaining film!

Its worst crime is that it's dull .

As for the film as a whole, well if you just go with it, and don't dwell on the flaws, it's pretty enjoyable really!

However, those who love the characters, who don't mind seeing new adaptations and interesting plot twists, and who love rich costumes and set designs will find this movie wonderfully entertaining.

It works best as a fairy tale and is fairly enjoyable if you watch it with that frame of mind.

I thought script was too boring with awkward silent gaps in-between and acting was probably even worse both from male and female actors.

Sounds exciting, right?

Classic acting, flawed story, but worth the watch.

Instead of being exhilarating and inspirational, the climax comes off like a bad cliché and takes away any emotional effect that the crew intended.

Well I am a Dumas fan, I read through the first two in the series some years back("The Three Musketeers" and "Twenty Years After") and found them to be some of the most enjoyable literature I've read.

Overall, an entertaining film, and certainly worth viewing.

Rousing With Intrigue and Top Row Performances All Around .

Fun, entertaining movie.

Awesome, Riviting,Exciting .

In the story, a plot is hatched to free Philippe from prison and pass him off as Louis as a way of ridding France of a petty, self-indulgent king with no regard for the French people.

I was hoping that they would make a sequel to this exciting movie.

Bad directing, boring visual style.

) Only Aramis' and Athos' characters seem genuine, d'Artagnan's, though noble, is predictable, and Porthos is just plain disgusting--not true to Dumas' character at all.

Fun, entertaining, great story, .

It should be thrilling, a great big adventure.

Instead I got a fun film, with flaws, but it was enjoyable enough.

This is a very moving, compelling rendition of the legendary tale of the Man in the Iron Mask.

Very entertaining movie.

Can somebody please explain to me why Gabriel Byrne is constantly saddled with trite nonsense like this when he is one of the finest actors working in cinema today?

This is really just one of those films that are so bad they're entertaining.

Certain scenes involving the older stars were some of the most powerful and compelling I have ever seen, particularly the one in the tomb where they discuss their plot to replace the king.

The King falls for a beautiful girl (Judith Godreche) and while Athos (Peter Sarsgaard) leads to the summit of the dreary musketeers , thus : the brave Dartagnan (Gabriel Byrne) ; the responsible father Athos (John Malkovich) ; the joker (though with flatulence) Portos(Gerard Depardieu) and the Priest Aramis (Jeremy Irons).

The intriguing plot leads to an exciting finish but the ending is predictable, and not one that makes a hero out of the heroes.

Depardieu is charming, Irons: dramatic, Bryne: tortured and Malkovich: intense.

For instance, when Gabriel Byrne has a rose in his hand, and in a very cliché way, Anne Parillaud puts her hand to her lips!

Accept this version on its own terms and I hope you will find it as engaging as I.

And I loved some of the unexpected plot twists, especially near the end.

The plot was confusing and had little of the drama and tension of Dumas' story.

Finally Hollywood provides us with an unfailing cure to insomnia.

waste of time .

The other thing that really got on my nerves was DiCaprio who seemed very limp and bored.