Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

ChampDavSlim The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Phillida Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

suchenwi Most of the 9 comments I see here are negative to Luke-warm at best. So I beg to disagree and tell why I liked this film.Firstly, I haven't seen other renderings of the story, except for the Australian Burbank animation (1985), which I also cherished (for different reasons, of course). In fact, that anime made me read up on Wikipedia about the complex back stories, fiction and true, and after that I re-watched this Beau Bridges piece.I found him convincing both as Philippe and Louis XIV, and was thrilled by their duel on the shaky bridge (both dressed similarly, I was briefly on the edge of my seat).Then there's the ladies, who in my European cut expose interesting body parts, and when dressed still deliver strong emotions.But the roles that grabbed me most were Colbert and Fouqué, with their wheelings and dealings, mostly wrapped in courtly etiquette - quite fascinating. In contrast, the name-brand musketeers did not catch my attention so much.Finally, what detracted me most was the mismatch of the French dub and subtitles (DVD labeled Bakker 7812/773). In Vienna, Austria, the film was produced in English, but I wanted the "native" language - though very often I was astonished how many phrases can be translated differently to French, starting from "Je vous en prie" (dub) vs. "s'il vous plait" (subtitle). So I didn't get the convenient read-along experience I had hoped for. But all in all, I really enjoyed this film. And Sylvia Kristel impressed me quite much as Spanish royalty.

Stefan Kahrs In many ways, this is an unnecessary re-telling of a story we have seen realized many times before (and since), and often filmed better. It was certainly not Beau Bridges's finest hour.What was unusual and certainly the major selling point of the film was that the leading ladies (Andress and Kristel) would shed their clothes on quite a few occasions. As this film's US rating is PG and as the American running time is 12 minutes shorter than the British 15-rated release (which is the one I saw) it is highly likely that most if not all nudity was cut from the American version. Which is a shame as this is the only proper reason to watch this film.

J K Comer I would have rated this movie a little lower but Rex Harrison was very good as Colbert. I've never seen a movie with Mr. Harrison that I did not enjoy his performance. He's an exceptional actor. Young Beau Bridges did a pretty good job, however. Good story though. Ursula Andress as Louise de la Vallière was outstanding. She was quite the buxom broad, wasn't she? That girl had "attitude" in this flick, I LOVED her! Ian McShane as Fouquet was also outstanding. I have seen this story before with better adaptations. Sylvia Kristel as Maria Theresa's character was kind of weak in my opinion. Of course, the great Olivia de Havilland as the Queen Mother was outstanding - but above all the best character was played by Rex Harrison.

dwpollar 1st watched 1/26/2001 - 5 out of 10 (Dir-Ken Annakin): Average played out and retelling of "The Man in the Iron Mask" story. A look-alike of King Louie is put into power by the musketeers for political reasons although this version tries to play up a love interest without much success. Could have been a good romantic/adventure but lacking in heart-felt talent.