The Man in the Iron Mask

Posted by will on January 7, 2011

The Man in the Iron Mask

QUICK HITS
Director: Randall Wallace
Rating: PG-13
Release: 1998
Language: English
Runtime: 132 minutes
Plot: The cruel King Louis XIV of France has a secret twin brother who he keeps imprisoned. Can the twin be substituted for the real king?

This is the movie loosely based on the 1939 same-titled film, also loosely based on a tale from Alexandre Dumas’ d’Artagnan Romances which, this story in particular, is loosely based on the real L’Homme au Masque de Fer, a prisoner arrested as Eustache Dauger in 1669. Yet, you probably remember it as that box-office success with future-star Leonardo DiCaprio who was coming off absurd amounts of outrageous triumph from his role in Titanic from the previous year. The mid-90’s prepubescent 14-year old girl in you probably remembers this as the movie with not one but two Leos (!!!).

What you might not remember is that The Man in the Iron Mask is a predictable, plodding film that has a few recognizable faces (Jeremy Irons, John Malkovich, Peter Sarsgaard, and Hugh Laurie to name a few) but nothing much to offer other than a little splash of action and adventure, awkward cuts of romance, a reunion of the O.G. Musketeers, and did I mention … two Leos?

After forgiving the campy dialogue, ridiculous slapstick elements, and slow forming story, the thing that was most cringe-worthy, I found, was the stiff and unforgiving acting. And, to top off your cocktail of misery, it seemed the poisonous effect was contagious throughout the cast. To think, the person who put the most life in his character was Gérard Depardieu (the only actual Frenchmen out of the four Musketeer actors), the oafish, drunken, STI-riddled boor. While the other three played up their hackneyed roles (the converted Jesuit priest who can still kick some ass in the name of the Lord, the mourning patriarch who was wronged by the king, and the distinguished military hero who is now under employ of the Man), they do so with such uncertainty and stiffness I couldn’t decide if particular parts of the movie were either painful or laughable (painfully laughable / laughably painful?).

And back to Leo. Both of them. Re-watching this film after a number of years, and seeing a good portion of Mr. DiCaprio’s body of work, this certainly was not his best effort. I mean, who could blame him? He was playing not only dual roles, but dueling roles as well. There is one thing I have noticed, from a personal standpoint, and this movie only helped to reinforce it. Leo has this particular and distinct vocal tone and inflection that he seems to always employ, whether he’s playing a con artist, historical megalomaniac, Rhodesian mercenary, or literary figure of tragedy … he always sounds the same, regardless of flavor of accent. While, my judgement is that he is a very, very talented actor, I always have a hard time blurring the line between him and whomever he is playing (because of his voice particularities). You might as well replace the “DiCaprio is …” perceptions with the “DiCaprio as …” realities in my judgement.

Off the tangent and back to the film. For what it’s worth, which is not too much, The Man … is certainly, in some small measure, entertaining (mindlessly, almost) but a very dated work that doesn’t hold a lot of potential as something you want to re-watch. But then again … it is two Leos.

The Verdict:

★★★★★☆☆☆☆☆

Comments on this post | Published in Action, Adventure & Epic, Comedy, Romance