tomnotarnold This movie was decent, but I have to say that I was not particularly impressed with Leonardo DiCaprio's performance in this one. I mean, what happened? He's usually so good! Even in his earlier roles when you could tell his acting was not as good because he didn't have as much experience and maybe hadn't fully found his voice yet, he was still at least fun to watch in movies. But in this movie I feel I could really take him or leave him, to be honest with you. It's not terrible, but if you want to watch it just because of Leo, save yourself some time and choose one of his other films instead.

flackjacket 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.

Python Hyena The Man in the Iron Mask (1998): Dir: Randall Wallace / Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, John Malkovich, Jeremy Irons, Gerard Depardieu, Gabriel Byrne: Fantasy about identity that takes a familiar concept and reworks it with the Musketeers as a factor. Set in 1662 with the separation of twins. One is put in chains and fastened into an iron mask while the other becomes a sadistic ruler. He is defended by a Priest and the Musketeers. One of the Musketeers loses a son in one of the King's battles so he gets together with the others with plans of switching the twins. Randall Wallace does a skilled job directing but humour is often too corny, such as a scene where the Musketeers slice vegetables that are thrown at them. We know where this all ends and only the sets make it worthwhile. Leonardo DiCaprio is a fine actor but unfortunately overplays two roles here. John Malkovich plays a vengeful Musketeer. Jeremy Irons is terrific in his loyalty to the King. He is outsmarted during the switch but will become involved in the action violence climax that these films tend to be reduced too. Gabriel Byrne is also featured although he has played broader roles than this. Gerard Depardieu is hilarious but the other roles seem more or less cardboard. The film contains impressive sets that are the strongest element in the film. That is the one element that allows the film to see the light of day. Score: 6 ½ / 10

KINGJO4606-1 This is one of Randall Wallace's better movies. Although not as good as Braveheart, it is better than Pearl Harbor and We Were Soldiers. It has a great cast; it is amazing that Jeremy Irons, DiCaprio, John Malkovich and Gerard Deperdieu were able to all star in the same movie. However, I have always been a History fan; and the IMDb profile claims that I like biography, history and war movies above all. Perhaps such a bias causes me to give this film a more generous rating.One thing the film did is to cause me to question issues of legitimacy. The film is, of course, not historically accurate. It is obviously romanticized. But in real life, there had actually been a man in the Iron Mask in the Bastille prison. In real life, there had been tension between Jesuits and kings. And the movie alludes to events that would later portend the French Revolution (i.e. starving hordes in Paris). In real life, King Louis XIV also declared himself to be in charge of the French Royal Council in 1661; and the film starts off in 1662. The very fact that a 'bad' king is replaced by a 'good' king may be a reference to the latent belief (at least on the part of Alexandre Dumas) that Louis XIV had been corrupt and that so had been his Royal Council. After all, Wikipedia claimed that Louis XIV's reign had actually not been peaceful during the later part of his years.However, the film was enjoyable. After watching the 1994 Disney version of the Three Musketeers as a kid years ago, it was interesting to see the Three Musketeers again in their older years. And just because they were older obviously did not mean they did not have problems. In fact, the film demonstrates the reality that their lives had gotten more difficult. The film also touches on other important issues that may cause heated debates. The film seemed to argue that the wars fought consumed the resources of the French peasants and urban workers. Rather than competing over scarce resources, the countries engaged in war fought for glory and ideological reasons. This may be true, but I'm not sure to what degree it is also a romanticized notion. Historians will probably duke it out.I would recommend this film and would even do so for those who are not fans of history.8/10