Rating: 
Summary: Worth Owning This Version ! (Count On The Count to Deliver)
Review: At first, I thought this film was going to have that " PBS time period piece Mobile Theatre" quality to it...I was wrong, way wrong. Instead, this film has been one of the most highly captivating and brilliant re-makes on an old literature classic I have seen in years! Many will complain and moan that this film version does not abide by the exact story and character depth detailing of Dumas' novel; well, get a grip and a clue. We're talking film time and story pacing limits/restraints here !What works for a book does not necessarily work on film . The Count of Monte Cristo is not a t.v. mini-series of the week...The real story begins when Dantes is betrayed not just by his so-called best friend, but by others who feel that the dark truths that Dantes unwittingly knows about them will eventually be their undoing.Therefore, in an elaborate scheme to silence him Dantes spends 13 years on an island reserved for prisoners regardless of their innocence (sociable/governmental threats, society's outcasts, and throw-aways) . During these 13 years of physical and mental torture and anguish at the hands of the sadistic prison warden Dantes meets Priest,a fellow inmate, who will teach him how to survive on many levels and escape.There is also a grand secret that Priest will bestow upon Dantes to help him once he is a free man and to serve as a catalyst for his awesome transformation into the Count .In one pivotal dialogue scene between Dantes and Priest Dantes "awakens" and realizes why he has been kept prisoner all those years;one can almost visualize a light bulb above his head turn on or imagine a ding-ding-ding-ding sound effect like in a game show after guessing the right answer! From here the epic of sweet revenge takes flight ! This is also one of the best roles I have seen actor Jim Caviezel portray. From an illiterate and innocently wide-eyed Edmond Dantes ,whose ill-fated meeting with Napolean and a prison cell mate named Priest will change his life forever, to the sophisticated and debonair Count of Monte Cristo that Dantes becomes; It is truly a character transformation to behold! It falls along the lines of the pygmallion theory where unsophisticated women in literature and film are turned into gems, sometimes lethal ones (La Femme Nikita)!... Guy Pearce's performance is also riveting. He plays the evil and jealous Mandango, "best" friend of Dantes with such a dry and cunning catty wit that at times there's dark humor underlying in Pearce's ruthless portrayal. Though, the nature of his malicious character is anything but for comedic banter or humorous purposes, Pearce's way of playing the role serves as a sort of counterpoint (coy without being contrived) to the more serious and down to earth nature of Dante's personality... The action and story telling with twists and plots make excellent use of the 2 hours plus in enjoying this spectacluar re-make. The Count of Monte Cristo is definitley not one to miss !
Rating:
Summary: a movie to see over and over again!
Review: This is a great movie! I never read the book about this old tale, so I don't know how close to the orginal tale the movie was....but the movie is thoroughly entertaining and will keep you on the edge of your seat even after you've seen it 20 times!
Rating: 
Summary: The Count of Monte Cristo
Review: For those of you who have read the book (abridged or unabridged), be prepared to be dissapointed! The only similarity that the movie and the book share is the name itself. It is a travesty that somebody can re-write a classic literary work into something like a made-for-tv movie! Check that...there is a made-for-tv series in French (made by Bravo, I believe) that is the closest depiction of The Count of Monte Cristo that I have ever seen. I would not waste my time watching thismovie! See the bravo flick...not this one!
Rating: 
Summary: Good Adaption Of Revenge Classic
Review: Certainly one of the best books ever 'The Count Of Monte Cristo' is a fairly faithful adaption of the classic novel.
Recounting the story of Edmond Dantes (Played fairly good by Jim Caviezel) who is falsely charged of treason then sent off to an island prison where he resides for years before one day a priest (The late Richard Harris in one of his last screen roles) digging a tunnel, breaks through the floor of Edmond's cell.
For a few years thereafter the priest teaches Edmond everything he knows until one day the priest dies and Edmond switches places with him so he can escape off the island.
Edmond meets up with a gang of pirates and finds the lost treasure of Monte Cristo, thus becoming the richest man alive.
He gains esteem and bends his power and wealth to avenge himself from the false charges filed by his best friend (Guy Pearce, displaying the same emotion he did in his 'The Time Machine', released this year) and a shipmate.
There are some truly good extras to top off this swashbuckling epic. While nothing extradinary, 'The Count Of Monte Cristo' never fails to entertain and is well worth your time and money.
Rating:
Summary: Swashbuckling period fun
Review: I went to see 'Count Of Monte Cristo' with low expectations, thinking that a period swashbuckler made by the guy behind 'Waterworld' would be formulaic at best. However, a bored Thursday night quickly turned into something else. This is a period drama of the best kind. The classic Dumas story is pretty faultless, basically guaranteeing that its audience will remain interested, but there's plenty of elements thrown in here to make this a classy reworking of something that's been done several times before. The plot concerns Dumas (Caviezal), wrongly accused for treason and plotted against by his supposed best friend (Pearce). Sent to a lonely prison called Chateau d'If, after eight long years of hard work with fellow prisoner Richard Harris he finally escapes, hoping to put his enemies through the same hell that he has had to endure in prison. The obvious thing to pick up on here is the acting. Caviezal manages to convey innocence corrupted as the movie progresses, Harris is suitably sympathetic as the priest and Pearce is wonderfully foppish in a role that injects a sense of fun into a serious story. However, the real surprise comes not from the expected good performances from the actors (pretty much any fan of 'Memento' would be a fan of Guy Pearce) but from a variety of elements that together make this a truly gripping story, in spite of the fact that it is a little longer than your average Hollywood blockbuster. Of partcular note was the excellent camera work and cinematography. The use of colour to convey situation and emotion is used to great effect, from the bright hues of the hopeful beginning, through the murky prison cell and the grey, dusky arenas where Dumas achieves his revenge. There's also a particularly impressive, albeit short, fight sequence at the end. Add to this a very good adapted screenplay; I have never read the book but whoever conceived of the storm speech at the birthday party did a very good job of writing a highly impressive bit of dialogue. Quite frankly, this deserved to be one of the biggest Hollywood blockbusters of the year. It's accesible, interesting, involving and well-acted. What more could you want?
Rating:
Summary: Wow, a really great re-doing of the story
Review: I very much enjoyed this iteration of the Count. It was well filmed and well acted. It makes a person think of what they would do if they suddenly got very rich and had blood enemies. Would you seek revenge or would you be fat and rich?
Guy Peirce gives a wonderful performance.
Rent this movie you will like it and probably want to purchase it.
Rating: 
Summary: Fine movie but a bit too slow.
Review: It's a decent adaptation of Dumas book. There is a good storytelling, fine playing, nice scenery, interesting plot, and colorful costumes and make-up. The movie has some ups (Monte Cristo revenge with climax scenes by the end of the movie) and downs (Monte Cristo prison time). For my taste I prefered old French movie with Belmondo. It was faster and more swashbuckling. This adaptation attempts to concentrate on characters rather than adventure. It's still worth to watch it.
Rating:
Summary: A Hidden Gem!
Review: I have never read the book or seen any other screen adaptations of it. In fact, I had not even heard of this film until very recently. My wife and I rented it and loved it. It is a great film. Great acting, well directed and staged, great sets and locations, full of intrigue and twists and turns, with a whip-smart script. The DVD extras are nothing to brag about-standard fare, but the film itself is a treat. Don't miss it. Recommended.
Rating:
Summary: If they only would have stuck to the script...
Review: I was stunningly disappointed with this adaptation of Dumas' "The Count of Monte Cristo". At least the makers of "The Musketeer" earlier this year changed Dumas' title enough to indicate that this wasn't a screen adaptation of his famous novel. "The Count of Monte Cristo" was not similarly blessed and I rented it expecting to see the story brilliantly told in Dumas' book. How wrong I was... Don't get me wrong. It wasn't a bad movie. It just wasn't a good one. The screenwriter took everything of merit out of the original story and turned it into a happy-go-lucky "cheaters never prosper" tale where everyone good lives happily ever after and everyone bad dies. What rot! The brilliance of Dumas' novel is that Dantes has been in prison so long (more like 25 years, not a mere 13!) that his hate and desire for revenge consumes him to the point that he isn't "good" anymore, or even himself. In the movie, Abbe Faria warns Dantes about his desire for revenge once and later his manservant also tries to deter him from his vengeful course - once. What a pathetic representation of one of the main themes of the story! In the book, this is constant: is Edmond becoming the thing he hates? That is the beauty of Dumas' work. That is the fatal flaw of the main character. Will his revenge ultimately bring him happiness? It cannot. In the book, after his escape, Edmond is rescued by some sailors who he saves from a storm. These sailors turn out to be pirates and he "works" for them for a short time until he has enough money to buy himself a little boat. He has a boat constructed with a secret compartment to hide the treasure and goes to find it ALONE. After claiming the means for his revenge, he goes away, presumably to Italy and thence to Turkey, where he spends years aiding the just and punishing the wicked with his newly-acquired fortune. After MANY years, he returns from Turkey and presents himself to Paris society. NO ONE recognizes him (except Mercedes in a brief moment, but she convinces herself she is wrong) and no one else knows of the treasure. The novel goes on to illustrate scenes in which the self-proclaimed Count of Monte Cristo (it's an island of rocks and everyone knows this is a pseudonym, probably assumed because of some dirty dealing, as Fernand's title was) tangentally touches the lives of those who helped him (the shipowner and his family) as well as those who were his downfall. The ideas are subtle and you may not see the result of his actions until the very end. But this is the beauty of the novel. If the movie had taken even one of these plots and followed it as Dumas wrote it, it would be a masterpiece and not just another Hollywood action film. The most true scenes are those in the prison with Abbe Faria, but even there the writers screw it up. Faria dies of a recurring condition, not a tunnel collapse. And Dantes certainly doesn't blow his cover as a corpse by dragging the jailer along with him. And the "anniversary scourging" is entirely fantastical. No such thing happens in the book. Matter of fact, until Danted meets Faria, he has lost track of how many years he's been in prison. I understand that the novel is almost 1500 pages and that something had to be cut to fit into a two-hour movie format. But the screenwriters not only cut but changed the essence of the story. Fernand isn't the son of a Count (he's as poor as Edmond and Mercedes; he pays for his title with the money he earned cheating people), Mercedes son isn't really Edmond's (Edmond has been in prison too long to have a 16-year-old son! - besides, how does one have a 16 year old son when one has been in prison only 13 years?), and Edmond and Mercedes don't live happily ever after. Frankly, too much has happened for them to have a life together at all. This is the tragedy of the novel -- all the treasure in the world can't buy your youth back. But it is a better ending than the namby-pamby Hollywood "and they were a family..." Do yourself a favour. Read the book.
Rating:
Summary: Better than the book
Review: This is the first time I have preferred a movie over the book on which it was based, something I thought would never happen. The movie is only loosely based on the Dumas novel. Some reviewers have complained that the movie is not true to the book. It would be impossible to make it true to the book in a two-hour period. There are so many subplots in the book's 118 chapters that a movie would have to be several hours long to portray it faithfully. While I loved the book, I actually liked some of the departures from the original storyline. When reading the book I wanted to sympathize with Edmond but found it harder as the story went on. In the book Edmond in the end is a rather unlikable, arrogant character (despite the good he does). In the movie he regains the decency he had before his imprisonment. In the book he abandons Mercedes to a life of loneliness despite her obvious love for him and settles down with a girl young enough to be his daughter. In the movie he reunites with Mercedes. In the book he harms people who were not responsible for what happened to him and doesn't care about consequences until a woman and child end up dead as a result of his behavior. In the movie he metes out justice and harms only the people who deserve it. The movie is a great moral tale, a great struggle between good and evil. In the book the line between good guy and bad guy is blurred, and Edmond becomes, in many ways, no better than Fernand, Danglars and Villefort. By removing the moral ambiguity I feel that the screenwriters have actually improved on what Dumas wrote, which is rare for film adaptations. This appears to be a fairly low budget movie, so be prepared for some imperfections, such as the lack of great background music that I would have expected of a period piece. I also agree with some reviewers that Fernand was miscast. Having said that I still highly recommend buying this movie.
| 
