It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

THE MAN IN THE IRON mask begins with the Queen of France giving birth to identical twins. However, the father (Louis XIII) is afraid having twins might destabilize the country and possibly lead to civil war, so he gives custody of the child to D'Artagnan. He is to raise the boy with no knowledge that he is a member of the royalty.Many years pass and by now, Louis XIV is on the throne and he's a selfish and weak leader--led around by his conniving adviser, Fouquet. Under Louis' rule, the country is is dire poverty while this young king lives for his own demented pleasures (such as watching men hang). Later, when Louis' identical brother is identified, Louis brings him to the court for all sorts of boring intrigues--none of which particularly help the story. Later, after tiring of the brother, Louis orders an iron mask to be created and the brother is forced to wear it while imprisoned in the Bastille. So now it's up to the good people in the government and the Four Musketeers to rescue the brother and substitute him in Louis' place for the good of the nation.THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK is very, very loosely based on part of the story "The Vicomte de Bragelonne" by Alexandre Dumas. And, from what I have read about the original tale by Dumas, none of the movie versions have much to do with the novel. Plus, the real life Louis XIV was a selfish jerk during ALL of his reign, so unless the identical twin was also a total scumbag, it's unlikely any switch every occurred! As a great fan of the 1977 version starring Richard Chamberlain, I was disappointed by the script. Since none of the films stick very close to the facts, it's not like preferring the later version is necessarily a bad thing. My biggest complaint about this 1939 version is that the plot, particularly at the end, is amazingly anticlimactic and convoluted. Instead of a single and fitting ending, the film is drawn out needlessly further. Plus, the acting in the later version just seemed more interesting and the plot more compact and enjoyable.

THE SWASHBUCKLER has always been a favourite film type in our household. ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD, CAPTAIN BLOOD, THE MARK OF ZORRO, THE SEAHAWK, DONDI; these are all titles that evoke that certain feeling of high adventure and excitement in all who merely hear these titles.THE famous novel THE THREE MUSKETEERS by Alexander Dumas has been adapted countless number of times to the screen with many a well known actor portraying the characters of D'Artanian, Porthos, Arthos and Arimas (also Moe Larry & Curly). Fewer numbers of versions of Monsieur Dumas' sequel have been committed to the celluloid.EDWARD SMALL Pictures' THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK (Edward Small Pictures/United Artists, 1939) remains to this day a prime example of a film that seems to garner little praise for its epic telling of the treachery that follows a Royal Twin Birth.ENLISTED as the guys with the neat blades were: Porthos (Alan Hale,Sr.-that's the Skipper's Father, from GILLIGAN'S ISLAND), Athos (Bert Roach), Aramis (Miles Mander.) and lastly the dashing D'Artanian (Warren William, distinguished Thespian of stage & screen and Road Show "Barrymore"). The beautiful Joan Bennett portrayed the Princess Maria Theresa, the Spanish Royal Betrothed to the treacherous King Louis XIV.AND PORTRAYING both Louis XIV, as well as the 'unknown' twin, Phillip of Gascovy was that most capable and likable of a screen persona in dashing, handsome and talented Louis Hayward. Mr., Hayward, who seems to be somewhat forgotten today, really electrifies the story with his presence. His ability to give two distinct personalities to the two "Twins" to such a degree that one will find himself doubting that it is indeed one actor's portrayal. (Honest Schultz, it is!) STANDOUT VILLAIN of the show would have to be Joseph Shilkraut as Royal Minister Foquet, the conniving weasel who taught the young King to be a cruel, selfish & truly evil Despotic Ruler. The Viennese born Mr. Shilkraut had been in pivotal roles, dating back to the Silents. It was he who so energized the portrayal of Judas Iscariat in director Cecil B. DeMille's KING OF KINGS (DeMille Films Company/Pathe Exchange, 1927).OTHERS prominent in the outstanding cast were: Albert Dekker (as King Louis XIII), Walter Kingsford (Colbert, the Good Minister), Doris Kenyon (Queen Anne), William Royale, Boyd Irwin, Lane Chandler, Howard Brooks, Reginald Barlow, William Standing, Dorothy Vaughn, Sheila Darcy, Harry Woods and the St. Brendan's Choir.ALSO of note in the cast were Peter Cushing, playing his first role in film as the Second Officer;and, portraying the role of the famous & infamous Cardinal Richelieu was Nigel De Brulier (The Wizard SHAZAM in THE ADVENTURES OF CAPTAIN MARVEL (Republic Pictures, 1941)! UP UNTIL now, we've talked about the people who appear before the camera lens and referred not to the guy who put it all together. Director, James Whale had brought a wealth of experience to the director's chair The resume of Mr. Whale's had such notable and stylish films as FRANKENSTEIN (1931), THE INVISIBLE MAN (1933), BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (his masterpiece, 1935), Edna Ferber's SHOWBOAT (1936), GREEN HELL (1940) and DONDI (1958). (Just kiddin' 'bout that last one, folks!)THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK has so much to recommend it and very little to detract from its total effect on the screen. Well, in the interest of impartiality and absolute fairness, we have one complaint. The rear screen projection shots seem to be often out of proper scale to the subjects in front. This seems to be particularly evident in one of the scenes showing the "King" riding in the Coach with angry burgers in the "background" jeering, sneering and shouting down his 'Royal Highness'.OTHERWISE the scripting & dialog, the acting, directing, the all important costumes (Because it's a 'Costume Drama', Schultz!), the countryside and the Villages & Palace sets are magnificent. In fact, it appears to us that the film may well have been done at various Studios 'Medieval' Sets. (20th Century-Fox's, RKO's, etc.). The shot of the crowd outside the Palace when King Louis XIII presented the newborn heir appears to have been taken from stock footage used in the Silent Screen's THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (Universal, 1923); which of course, starred Lon Chaney.SO, in closing, let's tell you that both Schultz and Me give it Four Stars (at least).NOTE: This is our first review in sometime that has no footnotes!POODLE SCHNITZ!!

The 1939 version of THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK was one of my first costume swashbucklers. I was lucky enough to see it at a screening at school and loved every minute, whether it was the swordplay, the action or even the chilling moments that featured Louis Hayward as either the evil...and most definitely unbalanced...King Louis XIV or his twin brother Philippe, trapped in that nightmarish iron mask.But more importantly, it gave me a group of unusual heroes in D'Artagnon and the Musketeers in an era when most youngsters' heroes were cowboys riding the TV range. A wonderful group with Warren William holding every scene he is in as the aging but still courageous and adventure-loving D'Artagnon. It wasn't until a few years later that I saw Errol Flynn's ROBIN HOOD and recognized Alan Hale as my first movie Porthos.It's sad that James Whale directed movies no more after this one, but what he left us is one of the best of the classic costume adventures that is still a joy to watch and a wonderful journey to the legend of the men whose battle cry was "One For All! And All For One!" Catch it when it is repeated on TCM and, for a couple of hours, be a kid again!

All positive comments are agreed to. This is truly one of the finest ones. The only minor dig that I could come up with is that they could have had more dueling sequences. Louis Hayward was capable of more robust fencing than what was portrayed here and I don't think they utilized his skills to any great degree. Outside of that this is a truly enjoyable film, black and white or not and while I don't advocate doing every B/W film over by colorizing it, I think I would like to see what this one Australia, What Guy Pearce Remake??????? Guy Pearce did Count of Monte Cristo, not M.I.T.I.M. as far as I have been able to determine.