Critics’ reviews

The Man in the Iron Mask (1998)

9 reviews from 9 publications. Critics’ score 47: 3 positive, 1 mixed, 5 negative.

Back to our review of The Man in the Iron Mask

47
Positive
3
Mixed
1
Negative
5

The reviews lean negative, with five of the nine unfavourable, though almost every critic finds something to enjoy. Praise clusters on the cast, particularly the veteran actors playing the ageing Musketeers, and on the costumes and sets, which Empire says linger in the memory. Gabriel Byrne is picked out by RogerEbert.com as the most charismatic of the company. DiCaprio’s double performance divides the critics more than anything else: Variety and Collider call it the film’s strongest asset, while Time Out finds him miscast as the adult king.

The reservations cluster on tone and script. Several critics complain that the film cannot decide whether it is a tragedy, a farce or a romance, and the dialogue is repeatedly called wooden or worse. Depardieu draws unkind notices for overacting. The spread is wide, and it splits along time: the 1998 reviews are mostly cold, while later reappraisals from /Film and Collider defend it as silly but likeable entertainment.

Variety
10 March 1998 · Todd McCarthy
70*

DiCaprio gives a wonderful double performance as the ruthless king and his sensitive brother in this sober, serious-minded costumer with an involving narrative and magnetic cast. It falls short on boisterous excitement due to mundane action but offers agreeable middle-of-the-road entertainment.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2013 · Caroline Westbrook
65*

Wallace delivers a flawed but fun adaptation of the Dumas tale, providing pacy swordplay and sumptuous costumes and sets that linger in the memory. It is consistently entertaining but badly let down by dialogue bordering on the moronic.

Read the full review →
Time Out
10 September 2012 · NF
40*

The critic finds the film uneven due to inconsistent tone and DiCaprio's miscasting as the adult king, though the supporting Musketeers are better, with Depardieu overacting.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
13 March 1998 · Kenneth Turan
30*

The film swashes until it buckles under too many disparate elements—swordplay, tragedy, slapstick, and romance—without a consistent style or unifying tone beyond crude humor. It has energy and star power but more spectacle than imagination or sense.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
13 March 1998 · Roger Ebert
30*

The film is a loosely adapted costume swashbuckler that takes too long to set up its plot and lacks focus, though it becomes modestly interesting once the central substitution scheme is underway. Gabriel Byrne stands out with the most charisma among the strong cast.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
13 March 1998 · Janet Maslin
30*

DiCaprio delivers dual roles as a spoiled, vain king and his noble twin in an amusingly ludicrous update of the Dumas tale with a 1990s spin. The film trades classic inspiration for coarse, modern blockbuster elements and wooden dialogue.

Read the full review →
Collider
27 June 2024
70*

The film is uneven with pacing issues and a melodramatic script, but DiCaprio delivers a strong dual performance that elevates it. It stands as one of the funnest and most entertaining swashbuckling adventures of its era despite not being a critical favorite.

Read the full review →
/Film
3 February 2026
70*

The piece defends the film against its original poor critical reception, calling it a silly but enjoyable swashbuckler buoyed by its strong cast of veteran actors as the aging Musketeers.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
19 January 2001 · Angus Wolfe Murray
30*

The critic finds the film a clumsy, clichéd swashbuckler that borrows poorly from better predecessors and wastes its cast. Depardieu is singled out as especially embarrassed by the material.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate