Buy The Man in the Iron Mask Movie. Watch online or Download
Genres: ActionAdventureDr
Starring: John Malkovich, Gabriel Byrne, Hugh Laurie, Peter Sarsgaard, Judith Godrèche, Leonardo DiCaprio, Gérard Depardieu
Director(s): Randall Wallace
Available Quality: Hi Def
Country: USA, UK
Year: 1998
Available Quality: DivX, DVD, Hi Def, iPod, Hi Def, Hi Def
IMDB Rating: 6.2 out of 10 (52718 votes)
1662. Paris starves while youthful Louis XIV debauches young women and wastes the treasury on war. The captain of his guard, DArtagnan, protects him from conspirators. Louis casts his eye on penniless Christine, the sweetheart of Raoul, a soldier and only son of retired musketeer, Athos. To have Christine, Louis sends Raoul to harms way on the front. To kill the leader of the conspirators, the king calls in ex-musketeer Aramis, now a priest, accompanied by the Falstaffian Porthos. The queen mother, in widows weeds, grieves in her chapel, and in the Bastille rots a solitary prisoner, face locked in an iron mask. Perfidy, silence, loyalty, rage, and guilt are set to collide.
 |
The Man in the Iron Mask (iPod) | Resolution: 480x256 px | Total Size: 393 Mb |
|
|
 |
The Man in the Iron Mask (Hi Def) | Resolution: 852x464 px | Total Size: 890 Mb |
|
|
 |
The Man in the Iron Mask (Hi Def) | Resolution: 1920x1040 px | Total Size: 11183 Mb |
|
|
 |
The Man in the Iron Mask (Hi Def) | Resolution: 1280x688 px | Total Size: 6711 Mb |
|
|
 |
The Man in the Iron Mask (DVD) | Resolution: 1024x554 px | Total Size: 2100 Mb |
|
|
 |
The Man in the Iron Mask (DivX) | Resolution: 640x338 px | Total Size: 1386 Mb |
|
Movie Photos:
We have taken some photos of "The Man in the Iron Mask". They represent actual movie quality.
Visitors Review
(24 May 2012)
Very good adaption of a great book
All those who read the original book by Alexandre Dumas should relize that if they followed the book they would have ran off most of the young people in the nation. They changed the ending in pretty much the same way Disney has done to all of their animated features. The acting was very well done and the atmosphere was perfect for a setting back in the time of the Musketeers. Great acting and special effects make this a very enjoyable Dumas movie
Andrew DiMonte (24 May 2012)
Leonardo DiCaprio + Three Musketeers = so-so Medieval flick
"The Man in the Iron Mask" is okay once you forget the whole "LeonardoDiCaprio" thing. Of course, I don't know where the producers get offcalling DiCaprio a "man". I mean, how old is he, fifteen? I'd assume thereason he took this project was so that he could get an A for effort ingrade ten history.Of course, Gabriel Byrne, John Malkovich, Jeremy Irons and Gerard Depardieauplay the Three Musketeers! Who wouldn't like that? The swordplay in thisfilm is fair, but it doesn't match "Zorro" or "The Princess Bride" atall.Overrall, when you ignore the DiCaprio part (about 70%), it's pretty good,3/10.
gazzo-2 (23 May 2012)
Good Leo, Bad Leo...Good cast.
This is a flick where you have to simply set yer mind on stun and justenjoythe great cast you have here-two of the primo psycho actors of the'90s-Irons and Malkovich, and Depardieu doing his slob thing, and ofcourseGabe Byrne who was also decent in Stigmata and End of Days and UsualSuspects. There aren't many who work together as well's these guys did,andthere aren't many who I would sit through this kinda drivel through to seesave them.Period detail and etc was up there with the Richard Chamberlain/Mike York'70's Musketeers flix and the '93 Charlie Sheen/Keifer Sutherland Opus. Iprefer this one to Sheen's but York's is still the best of thelot.I do think that everything was a little too clean-after all this was inthetime of rotting teeth, no bathing, sores, pox, measles, few indoorplumbingoptions and the like. But sod it, here yer going for a 'never never'Franceof the 1660's, not a documentary.Now Leo.As Louis the Sun King-forget it. PooPoo. Not convincing at all. Soundslikehe's r-e-a-d-i-n-g h-i-s l-i-n-e-s in some scenes. Not good. As the IronMask guy-well actually he was alright.There are some really BIG leaps of logic and imagination you have to lookthe other way for this to work-perfect twins Despite one being in thatmask6 years, yeah right, etc etc. And the volley of gunfire where NO ONE getsHit?? WHAT THE-?!? Goofygloo time guys....But did I like this? Sure-because of the 4 leads. You can load up a flickwith alotta crud and Still have a decent time watching it if Malkovich,Irons and co are on hand. It's a fun flick and I enjoyed it, despiteitself.**1/2 outta ****, nothing great...
clavallie (23 May 2012)
Sharing a title of a novel by Dumas and some character names but nothing else.
This appalling piece of dreck is an insult to Alexandre Dumas. It bears noresemblance to the novel and is one more piece of evidence to support theassertion that the majority of people in the film industry are illiterateasses. The 1970's Three and Four Musketeers were so true to the spirit ofDumas' work, it is sad to see this awful departure from his excellent novel. The attribution to Dumas in the film should have read: Using a title of anovel by Dumas and some of the same character names in that novel, butbearing no resemblance to any aspect of his works beyondthat.The sole redeeming feature of this bucket of pus was Depardieu's Porthos. It is a pity it could not have been performed in a work more accuratelyresembling what Dumas had written.
fimimix (21 May 2012)
..huh?..
I must have missed all these wonderful performances so many users writeabout. How many versions of this wonderful story do we have to see?Randall Wallace certainly didn't read the original book (which isconsidered to be a masterpiece) written by Dumas. I'm not certain if Ican recognize which period of French history the film was supposed todepict. Only in the end did we hear "Louis IV"; that would have put itin the period just before "Marie Antoinette", who married Louis VI,right ? France had too many Louis; I don't recall ONE "Philippe" inFrench History. One user commented it was a good portrayal of"18th-century France", but it was set in 1662. AND, the location was at"Fontainbleau", not "Versailles", which "IV" built.At any rate, I didn't hear one French dialect in the entire film.Malkovich (whichever "Three Muskateer" he played, and so many usersraved about) sounded like the average man from Kansas. "Raoul" (PeterSarsgaard) was rightfully deleted from the film at the beginning,killed in front of a part of some castle used again in another scene. Ifound the other cast-members just as wooden in their performances, andwondered why they were in the movie.Earlier black-and-white films told this story much better: wasn't "TheCount of Monte Cristo" one of the men in the mask? I was totallyunimpressed with DiCaprio's acting here: another man from Kansas.Yes, the cinematography was bright and the settings were appropriate.The "masked ball" (supposedly shot in the "Hall of Mirrors" at"Versailles) was beautifully choreographed and the costumes were almostas lavish as those worn in "Marie Antoinette" (black-and-white from theearly '30s). BUT - none of the contrived action in this movie overlyentertained me......very risqué action in some scenes. That's good, ifit fulfilled its purpose to make one laugh. I didn't.AND - if I heard correctly - the prison-guards where "The Man in theIron Mask" was imprisoned were speaking Spanish, so he certainly wasn'tin "The Bastille". Those who think Dumas would be pleased with thisweak presentation of his novel certainly are mistaken: there wasnothing authentically French in this film except the Palace ofFontainbleau (which was given "thanks" in the credits). If one isfamiliar with the lay-out of "Versailles", the King's rooms were at thecenter of it with the entire palace built around them, therefore hisbeing called "The Sun King".I guess "Mask" was intended for a younger audience, who had not seenthe many versions of this story. I'm glad they enjoyed it, but - exceptto fill some idle hours - I saw nothing in it to rave about.Sorry - I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.....
lils_fury (21 May 2012)
It's okay
I like this movie, but not for what it is. Vicomte Raoul should havebeen a bit older, considering he was a teenage in the novel 10 yearslater. That novel was at least 20 years away from The Man in the IronMask. The entire cast is way to young. Every Musketeer should be over60. Athos is a supposed to be a Count, Porthos is a Barron. The tworomance novels leading to this one explain everything. Before someonebecomes a fan of this movie, they should read Dumas' writings. Not tomention that Raoul's love affair was not named Christine.Anyway, at least either way we look at it Leonardo's character dies ahorrible death. Both Louis and the man in the mask. This was based upona true story, at least the characters. There was a man in a mask atthis time, and the Musketeers existed. Alexandre Dumas wrote thesestories from the information he got from his uncle Napoleon. He wrotesome of his works while sitting on D'Artagnan's actual grave.
(20 May 2012)
Enjoyable
This review is from: The Man In The Iron Mask (Two-Disc Blu-ray/DVD Combo) (Blu-ray) I bought this movie because I enjoyed it the first time I saw it and thought it would be a great addition to my movie collection. I enjoyed the acting and the all-star cast. The story is basically a continuation or sequel of the story of the three musketeers. And for that reason I enjoyed it because it is an indirect sequel of the three musketeers. If you enjoyed the movie "The Three Musketeers" (the Disney version with Oliver Platt, Chris O'Donnell, Kiefer Sutherland and Charlie Sheen) then I'm sure you'll enjoy this movie too.
(20 May 2012)
Great Escapism
If you want the whole story in all of its rich texture and subtlety, read the book. If you want to kick back with your buttered popcorn and watch four truly great actors ply their craft, watch the movie. (Sorry, Leo, this review ain't about you. Congrats on "Titanic," nice work in "Gilbert Grape," but Irons, Byrne, Malkovich and Depardieu stole this movie from you and ran off like thieves in the night.) I love the themes of friendship and loyalty that color every scene with the Musketeers. I could not get enough of the scenery and costumes. And of course, any action fan worth his theater-size Goobers will tell you there's nothing better than a good swordfight--and the movie delivers (if the scene of their final charge at the Bastille does not raise at least one goosebump, check your pulse AND your sense of adventure!). More than that, it is wonderful fun to watch these four men have a great time on screen. Watch this, them track down other films by these artists(one of the best, "Cyrano de Bergerac" starring Gerard Depardieu, is harder to find, and not yet available in the US on DVD--something I hope will change soon).If you are the sort who loftily points out every omission and error in movie adaptations of classic literature, look elsewhere. If you want to dive into a really fun "summer" movie, come on over and pass the popcorn!
James Bond (19 May 2012)
A Pox on Leonardo DiCaprio!
Have any of these commenters actually SEEN the movie? Great acting? Iagree that John Malcovitch, Gerrard, and Jeremy Irons' performances weregood - a few scenes were great - but Leo! What a load of nothing! The onlyrole he was any good at was the retarded individual in Gilbert Grape. Youknow why? Because his acting is naturally retarded! You actually feltsorry for Gabriel Byrne when he had to act near Leo! You could tell thatGabriel wanted to do this great scene and was pulling it off until Leo saidsomething with the emphasis of a high school production of "Our Town" andGabriel just rolls his eyes up and wants to throw some punches! Part of it,too, was screenwriting. I usually respect a LOT of stuff that writers puton the screen, but I could literally pull a better script off by shoutinggibberish into a voice-recognition microphone. With any luck, Leo willcontinue to boycott the Oscars and stay home and mope so that he doesn't getany pity nominations.
(19 May 2012)
ENGARDE!
"All for one. One for all!" The familiar oath is heard again in this swashbuckler. Only this time our four heroes are older, as The Musketeers reunite for one last grand stand against injustice. Aramis(Jeremy Irons),is now a devout priest and prays for the starving people of Paris, Porthos(Gerard Depardieu)is out of shape but still has the will to fight for right(Depardieu is also very much the comic relief in this film),Athos(John Malkovich), retired and has a son who has now gone into the service of the king, and the youngest D'Artagnan(Gabriel Bryne), still in service is now the Captain of the Musketeers, and very loyal to his King. And of course the coldhearted young King Louie XIV(Leonardo DiCaprio). The King lets his people starve while he lavishes in luxeries. He uses people, especially women with no shred of decency or emotion. Even his mother Queen Anne(Anne Parillaud) is ashamed but still loves him. And Louie has a secret, one that may threaten his reign someday. It is the "Man In The Iron Mask" who he has had imprisoned. Aramis ,Athos, and Porthos have set a plan into motion to restore decency to the throne. D'Artagnan on the other hand remains loyal to the king and carries with him a secret of his own. They don their old uniforms, and we see them in action once again. Will they be able to set free the man in the mask? Will D'Artagnan reunite with them? The swordfights,scenery and costumes are all exquiste. The story will move you,there are some very poignant scenes as well as lots of action,adventure, romance and above all loyalties. Loyalties to each other, the King and to France.The actors work extraordinary well together and are impeccable in their roles.Director Randall Wallace really gives us a good look at this time and place in history, and a strong feeling for each character. Fabulous DVD!(MGM) The widescreen presentation(standard on the other side if you prefer) really shows off the granduer of the palace grounds, and the surrounding scenery.The picture and colors clear and bright. The 5.1 Surround is outstanding in this action film. You can hear every clip clop of the horses on the stone, every clink of the swords, and every word of the dialouge clearly. The music is also well recieved and is effective. There are several features you may want to check out, there is audio commentary, a really informative look at how they chose and made the mask, and a booklet inside the case.You can also use the English, French or Spanish Subtitles if needed.Check it out.....Laurie
canyongal (17 May 2012)
A Little Trivia!
I just noticed that this modern version of the 1939 original featurestwo characters named Christine and Raoul, the same names of thestar-crossed lovers featured in the Phantom of the Opera. I encourage everyone to see the original version of this film ifpossible. It's a true classic. This version is more eye candy thansubstance, especially to those familiar with the original Dumas novel.However, this movie is shot in color and does take me back to a trip Imade to Versailles a few years ago. It captures what life must havebeen like for French royalty.I feel DiCaprio was miscast in this 1998 version. It's not his actingthat is lacking, but his American accent seems out of place with theotherwise mostly foreign cast. It's too bad Di Caprio didn't attempt aBritish accent.
nkm56 (17 May 2012)
Loved it . . . One of my all time favorites
I don't know why I did not see the 1998 version of Man in the Iron Maskwhile it played in theaters. In a way I'm glad I didn't see it then  Isurely would have embarrassed myself, because it would not haveoccurred to me that I would need a half-box of Kleenex at the end! Ifinally watched the movie in my own living room when it came to HBOseveral years ago, but while I enjoyed the movie at the time, it didnot leave me with the urgent desire to see it again. However, I didwatch the movie again recently, and now for some unexplainable reason,I can't seem to get enough of it. I have the DVD, and it is the movie Imost often reach for on a quiet evening of lousy television.Those who are expecting a faithful adaptation of the book will comeaway sorely disappointed, and if that is their measure of the movie,they will do best to avoid this one. However, those who love thecharacters, who don't mind seeing new adaptations and interesting plottwists, and who love rich costumes and set designs will find this moviewonderfully entertaining. And that is what it is all about, isn't it?Entertainment.I have read many reviews regarding this movie, and am puzzled, evendismayed at times, by some of the criticisms levied at various aspectsof it. Some people have complained about the dialogue in the movie,calling it "flowery", but truthfully I loved the fact that RandallWallace did not modernize it. So many new films and TV series are"dumbing down" the dialogue of period pieces to make them morecompatible with today's manner of speaking. I applaud Mr. Wallace forkeeping the dialogue consistent with how it likely would have beenspoken in the 17th century.Still others complained of the unlikelihood of all four Musketeerssurviving a volley of musket fire during the final charge. If they hadbeen watching properly, they would have noticed that the youngMusketeers were turning their faces away, closing their eyes as theypulled the triggers. And after the first few shots, powder smoke beginsto fill the corridor, obscuring their vision. So the lack of accuracyin their volley is adequately explained on more than one count.Moreover, if the critics had been watching more closely, they wouldhave noticed that there are woundings - D'Artagnan is hit in theshoulder, Athos in the thigh. The other two are also limping, and thescript confirms that all four are wounded in the barrage.As for the complaints that the four leads have four different accents,I did not find them distracting or annoying, as some have claimed. Iexpected it, since this is an International Cast, and with anInternational Cast, you get International accents.And speaking of the cast, I must say that in all the Musketeers moviesI've seen, this is the strongest cast ever. The primary performers,Jeremy Irons, Gabriel Byrne, Gerard Depardieu, and John Malkovich, allturn in exquisite performances, and Leonardo DiCaprio is, in myopinion, convincing as Louis and Philippe, even though he is upstagedby the other four. Anne Parilloud is simply lovely as the Queen Mother,and the moments she shares with Byrne's D'Artagnan are some of the bestin the film. The love scene between them, as brief as it was, is asbeautiful as any I've ever seen (this coming from someone who is not atrue fan of romance! I was left wanting more!). The music is brilliantand sets the mood perfectly for each scene. The wardrobe isexceptional, especially the black uniforms of the old musketeers.Particularly nice touches in this movie are the attention to detail:The roses left for the queen speaks as decisively of D'Artagnan's lovefor her as words ever could (And yes, I really liked the plot twistinvolving the twins' paternity); Philippe dragging his masked head backand forth over the grating in frustration while in prison; theunmasking of Philippe in a dark blacksmith's forge, his hair wrappedaround his neck where, as it grew, it was unable to escape the confinesof the mask; Lieutenant Andre's devotion to D'Artagnan throughout thefilm and the way he looks away when the king orders the volley, unableto watch his captain cut down; the rich, fancy costumes contrast thetorn, sweat-stained clothing where appropriate.The movie is not without its faults, though. The first scene involvingPorthos and Aramis, for example, contains some crude language regardingparts of both the male and female anatomy and Porthos's flatulence,both of which seemed out of place, and actually got the film off to ashaky start. The first time I watched it, I almost turned it off atthis point. Another reviewer here commented on the bulls-eye glimpsesof Porthos' naked rear end, and I am inclined to agree with thatreviewer! While I'm sure some of Depardieu's fans loved it, the scenedid nothing to advance the plot, in my opinion, and was something Icould have lived quite happily without ever having seen. There ishardly an actor or actress out there these days that has not done anude, but quite frankly, some things are just better left to theimagination. I'm smiling as I write this, but truly, the scene wasunnecessary. Thankfully, there is a "skip" button on my DVD player! Andyes, I do use it.Those few faults are forgivable when surrounded by so many otherdetails that are so elegantly done. For me, it was a very pleasingmovie experience, one I enjoy over and over again. Kudos to everyoneinvolved. Now, if I can just convince Randall Wallace to release adirector's cut version . . . .
benzene (15 May 2012)
Very disappointing considering what it could have been.
I can't say that this was a really bad movie, but I have to say that I wasdisappointed considering the quality of the cast. Sad to say, I think thestory was not the problem with the movie (obviously, it has been done beforeand done much better), but rather the actors and actingwere.I must take exception with some of the other reviewers; I think JohnMalkovich's performance was dismal. He shouldn't have been in this movie atall. Gerard Depardieu was not given anything to work with; perhaps heshould have had Malkovich's role. Jeremy Irons, obviously a fine actor,chose (if he in fact chose it himself) a completely wrong attitude for therole. The three of them seemed totally uninvolved in the story, and hadvirtually no emotion at all. Even when his son was killed, Malkovich merelygoes through the motions, not displaying the least amount of real passion. His vow of vengeance rings completely hollow.The movie is saved from being bad by three performances -- actually four,but by three actors. DiCaprio, in the dual role, rises above the dismalacting of most of his supporting cast to give two solid performances. Butthe movie is completely stolen by Gabriel Bryne, who gives the bestperformance I've ever seen him give (indeed, I think it might have beenaward-winning in a better film), and Anne Parillaud, as the mother forced tochoose between the son she raised who is a monster and the one she abandonedwho is good. Their characters were so much more interesting that I foundmyself wishing the movie were about them, and the whole iron mask thing wasused as window dressing.
PLRD (15 May 2012)
A Really Nice Film
We didn't expect much here, so it was one of these experiences where you arepleasantly surprised. I would mention Irons and Depardieu first becausethey are just great. I suppose Depardieu has performed in comic rolesbefore but I don't recall them and so was quite pleased and amused with hisgrace and charm in such a role. Irons is imposing and has more gravitasthat anyone else in the film. Byrne is strong and a pleasure to watch. These top performers take this material and make it delightful. DiCaprio isa talented young man, I suppose, but my personal demographics are in theperiphery of his fan base (wrong sex, wrong age). I'm no Malkovich fan, buthe was not a sufficient detraction to me to offset my enjoyment of theothers. Over all, the film is a lot of fun--a really nicefilm.
(12 May 2012)
Man In The Comic Mask
I must not have watched the same movie that others have. I found the movie laughable. Bad dialog, bad acting, and just plain silly. I have seen other versions of this story that are far better than this one. I have never thought much of DiCillio's acting abilities, and this movie only reinforces that opinion. Just awful. Waste of time.
SarahNM (11 May 2012)
Definitely flawed, but enjoyable
I saw this movie on the big screen the first time. Back then I still had athing for Leo, so that was part of the reason I wanted to see it, eventhough I didn't think he would do period very well. I was so right! Perhaps it was just someone's horrible script decisions, but his lines wereextremely stilted and at some times just anachronistic. (Something like,"So, we're having difficulties with the Danish, huh?" I don't think so.) Other than that, he did do a wonderful job creating the contrast betweenLouis and Philippe. As far as the other actors were concerned, I don't knowwhy they decided to cast Depardieu and Malkovich together, seeing as theyboth stick out like sore thumbs. Depardieu is the only Musketeer who'sactually French, and Malkovich sounds like he just stepped out of acornfield in Ohio. Aside from all of that, the scenery and costumes arequite stunning, and the story intriguing. I've rented this movie a fewtimes now, to endure the mistakes and enjoy what was doneright.
(10 May 2012)
The iron and the golden review
I think the movie The Man In The Iron Mask is the best movie ever produced by Hollywood.The story about two brothers who grow up in different parts of society,one on a poor farmer land and the other joining his fathers position as the king, is played very realistically.The two develop during the years very differnet characters and when some people staying together with the king get to know that he makes others suffer from his apsolutism, they create a plan to change the bad charcter into the good one.The actors inhabite their roles very well so that the whole story seems to be very realistical.Leo who on the one hand has to play the role of the bad king and and on the other hand his polite brother, is able to avoke the spectators interest when those two meet each other for the first time, after being divided for several years.All in all the fims is the most ineresting and moving story I`ve ever seen.
musicalfan (09 May 2012)
you can watch this over and over again
The only problem with this movie that the plot is a bit implausible, butnevertheless, everything was great. I must say that I've seen this moviemore times than any movie in the world and i still say it's great. It has astar-studded cast, and all of them did an excellent acting job (DiCaprio,Byrne, Malkovich, Depardieu and Irons). This is a perfect ensemble cast,it's as if the roles were written for the actors. The acting was just welldone. The events are exciting and sometimes heart-wrenching, the music isgreat, and the dialogue is truly, truly exceptional. Trust me, afterwatching this movie at least 18 times, I've realized that the dialogue isjust superb. I very much recommend the movie, however, the story is very,very far from the original book by Alexander Dumas.
(08 May 2012)
The man in the iron mask movie
I saw this movie on T.V. I have watched it numerous times.I liked it so much I ordered it. Now I can watch it any time I want. It is a fantastic, interesting movie
Grann-Bach (08 May 2012)
Possibly not the best film about The Three Musketeers... but one of the most entertaining and powerful ones
After watching this a few years ago, I had little recollection of it...the general perception and memory I had was favorable, so I decided tomake it a point to watch, when it aired on TV. I must say, I hadforgotten how exciting, dramatic and intriguing it was(and is). Theplot is very captivating, and it develops nicely with a few twists thathold up rather well. They are neither obvious nor illogical. The pacingis very good, it never seemed to move neither too slow nor too fast.The acting is one of the highest points of the film... DiCaprio, Irons,Malkovich, Depardieu and Byrne... all hand in excellentperformances(though, obviously, some of them are more seasoned and/ortalented than the others). It was great fun to see Hugh Laurie in arole, albeit a small one, after seeing all of the BlackAdder series(inwhich he plays a considerably big role; or, should I say, number of bigroles), the genius British comedy franchise of the mid-to late 80'swith Rowan Atkinson. I was probably most fascinated by the fairly youngDiCaprio, who has the job or portraying two rather differentcharacters... everyone who's seen the film knows what I mean, but forthe sake of anyone reading this who hasn't, I won't say more. Don'tworry....No, wait! I, I meant about the characters, not about the movie!Anyway... the characters are all quite credible and well-written. Dumasknew his stuff when he wrote the novel(s?), and Randall Wallace did agood job(as far as I can tell; anyone who's read the work of Dumas,feel free, in fact, even encouraged to correct me here) of compiling itinto a two-hour Hollywood movie. It's very credible and convincingall-round, and for a Hollywood drama, there is, surprisingly enough,little to no actual sap or sentimentality. Mr Wallace doesn't try tomanipulate us or con us into feeling sorry for these characters... heinstead manages to evoke genuine emotions, something not many of thiskind of films manages to do. The dialog is fairly smart andinteresting, and always well-delivered. The swordplay is entertaining,if a bit limited in scope and amount, clearly due to the seniority ofmost of the main cast. All in all, a very entertaining tale of TheThree Musketeers, based on an interesting idea, and brought nicely tolife by talented actors. A good film, but not a great one. I recommendthis to fans of the film-makers and possibly of the legend and Dumas,as well. 7/10
Review total: 20, showing from 1 to 20