BlazeLime Strong and Moving!

Pluskylang Great Film overall

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

MartinHafer The version of IRON MASK that I saw is a silent film with the intertitle cards removed and dialog/narration by Douglas Fairbanks as well as incidental sounds and music (added later—during the sound era). He did, despite rumors, have a very nice voice and was perfect for the role of narrator. I would have much preferred to see the movie in its original form, as viewing it this way was a bit odd. It was like watching a silent and having someone talk throughout—acting out some of the parts and describing the action. Many of the descriptions (such as "the dice are kind" as D'Artagnon wins at playing dice) are completely unnecessary and detract from the film.This sort of reissuing of a silent with narration and sound is not unheard of, as Chaplin did this with THE GOLD RUSH. About 20 years after its initial silent release, Chaplin re-released it with his narration and a musical score he wrote himself. Many complained about this as a bastardization of the original, but I actually like both versions about equally—they are indeed classics. I assume Chaplin got this idea, in part, from the re-release of IRON MASK.The film begins with some irrelevant scenes where the four Musketeers get into trouble and have fun. When the actual important part of the story begins, Louis XIII is excited because his wife just had a son! He is thrilled to have an heir. But, unexpectedly, shortly after the baby's birth, the Queen gives birth to another boy—an identical twin! Cardinal Richelieu and his sidekick begin their scheming—and their rival, Rochefort, finds out their plans. Richelieu's plan is to have the other child raised as a commoner along the Spanish frontier—why, exactly, he's doing this is unknown. It's interesting that in this version, Rochefort is a scoundrel much like Richelieu is in later ones—as in later versions (such as the Louis Hayward and Richard Chamberlain films) Rochefort was a good guy and worked with the Musketeers for France's best interests and Richelieu was a scheming jerk. Here, the roles are reversed and the entire story is changed. Instead of removing a bad king (Louis XIV) and substituting a good twin brother, the plan of Rochefort is to get rid of the good one and install the more malleable and evil one in his place.Years have passed and Rochefort has gotten a hold of the twin—turning him evil and selfish. On the other hand, the Prince has grown into a decent guy and able ruler—due, in part, to the able tutelage by D'Artagnon. Rochefort plans to have the evil twin substituted in place of good King Louis XIV. Who will win this battle of wits? Watch it for yourself and see.Like most of Fairbanks' other silents, this one in which he starred was a high-budget film—with great sets and costumes. Considering he was the biggest swashbuckling star of the era, this isn't surprising and it looks great. While the story is a bit jumbled as well as hurried in the process, it's a pretty good movie—though I strongly recommend you try to find the original version if you can—Fairbanks just talks too much in this one and you lose some of the beauty of this well-acted film.

netwallah This movie has the unique status of having been a sequel in novel form even before the movies started. Dumas père wrote The Man in the Iron Mask to exploit the success of The Three Musketeers, and no doubt Hollywood figured they might as well follow the novelist's example and produce another movie with Douglas Fairbanks as d'Artagnan. Here, as always, Fairbanks is the pre-eminent swashbuckler, leaping onto his horse from windows, climbing trees acrobatically, and swordfighting against great odds, even when the story line calls for him to have aged at least twenty years. The costumes and sets are lavish, and the structure of the silent film—in the version I saw provided with a competent voice-over narrator, Douglas Fairbanks Jr.—is almost coherent, though not entirely. It helps to know the story in advance. I would have preferred to see it in its original form, with intertitles.

David Atfield In Kevin Brownlow and David Gill's extraordinary 1980 documentary about the silent era "Hollywood" the final sequence of "The Iron Mask" is described as Fairbanks' farewell to the silent film. And it is.Generally this is an inferior film to the amazing 1921 "Three Musketeers". Allan Dwan is not the visual stylist that Fred Niblo is, and so "The Iron Mask" becomes much more of a straightforward action film. But as such it is splendid. I think we tend to forget what a good actor Fairbanks was. His emotional journey here is quite powerful as he faces the death of his lady and of his friends - and he ages convincingly as well.Most of the cast is different to the "Three Musketeers" but Margueritte de la Motte returns as Constance and the unforgettable Nigel de Brulier again plays Richilieu with extreme venom.Fairbanks has an athletic field day as well. There seem to be a number of versions of this film around. The one I saw ran 95 minutes and had tinted sequences. I've seen some advertised as having talking sequences, and others with narration by Douglas Fairbanks Jr - the one i saw had neither of these.It was probably the last large scale silent feature made in Hollywood. And that is what gives those gorgeous last minutes such power. The silent era was truly the golden years of Hollywood and Fairbanks was its king - in this film he sadly abdicates.

GAUCHO-3 Emotional end to the silent era. ERA