Rating: 
Summary: Let me Count the ways
Review: One of the most popular tales of love, betrayal and revenge, this flick is ideal for anyone who happens to be in a vengeful type of mood or ... at their ex- because he/she dicked around behind their back or for anyone who never forgot about that schmuck who made fun of them in high school. In fact, it's pretty much the most extreme example of one's man incredible drive to avenge the wrongs done onto him. He gets backstabbed and suffers. Then, he suffers some more and then he suffers a little extra after that, until he finally frees himself from the chains of pain, plans his revenge and let me tell you...it's a beautiful thing to see! Granted, I'm not one to advocate this type of retribution in my own life (the whole "eye for an eye" thing never appealed to me-we all end up blind, dammit!), but this is a movie and I suppose that to a certain extent, it allows for you to live vicariously through this man, and boy...was it ever sweet! And speaking of the man, Jimmy Caviezel...let me count the ways. Both Caviezel and Guy Pearce come through in their respective roles, with the former racking up major points for the greater arc in character. The truth is that both of these guys are at the top of their game and have respectively been known to choose projects based on their quality, rather than the size of their checks, and in this case, they continue to bolster their reputations as superior actors. And if I mention the name Luis Guzman...would that delight you even further? (And how about Michael Wincott?) Of course it would! We all love Luis and the man is a charm in this film. He doesn't have a very big role, but for what he does have, he makes the most of it. You can call him "comic relief" if you like, but in a film with such dark themes as jealousy and revenge, a scene in which Guzman tries to convince the Count to give him the order to whack out some Parisians before they take off into the sunset, is absolutely priceless. By the way, any movie based on such a weighty novel would be assumed to cover at least three full hours, but props go out to director Kevin Reynolds, for being able to lasso this baby in under two bucks, and without the abundance of plot holes, lengthy dialogues or the slow-paced years of passing. In fact, even though this story is actually broken into three separate parts (first, everybody's friends...then, one gets backstabbed and goes to prison for (what seems like) ever...and then, the ultimate comeback), the whole ties together really well, and you can't help but root for the man in the goatee as he follows through with his vengeful tactics. Sure, the film did have its small flaws: it's kind of a stretch that despite changing very little physically after 15 years, most of his former friends can't recognize him anymore, the smoke machines seemed to be working overtime in the interior scenes for some reason, Guy Pearce's character was a consistently uncompromising a-hole (read: one-dimensional?) and one could argue that Reynolds doesn't really bring all that much "spunk" to the proceedings (will the movie stick with you much after your viewing...not really). But, I quite enjoyed the film while I was there, appreciated the actors' hard work, was absorbed by its storyline, impressed with its ending and left with a smile on my face and less stress on my mind and isn't that what good movies are supposed to accomplish? Forget about that ... MUSKETEER flick from last year and see a swashbuckling movie that actually offers an interesting story, action, drama and sword fights! All in all, a good time is had by all.
Rating:
Summary: A wonderful movie all-around...
Review: I saw this one during its theatrical release and couldn't wait to see it on DVD. In over ten years of marriage I do not believe my husband has ever liked a movie I chose, so imagine my utter surprise when he turned to me midway through this movie and said, "This is really good!" The movie is stunnigly beautiful and the actors are superb. James Caviezel is excellent and picks up many sides of the character. The supporting cast is excellent as well. In my opinion, there are very few "must-see" movies but this one is definitely one I would recommend.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Book by Dumas, horrible movie.
Review: I can't belive they dis such a horrible work on this movie, if they would have stuck to the plot that went on in THE BOOK, you know, where they got the idea from, then the movie would have been a success. But since hollywood likes to ruin great works of art, then they do what they did with this movie, they BLEW IT!!!! If you really want to get the true feel of The Count Of Monte Cristo, then READ THE BOOK, YOU WON'T BE DISSAPOINTED THERE.
Rating:
Summary: Fantastic!
Review: This movie is absolutely amazing. It adds a whole new dimension to medieval movies. Not even the most severe of critics can label this film as "full of mindless violence, void of any worth," as they doubtless have done to other medieval movies. This movie is just the opposite. Not to say that this movie doesn't have its share of sword action, it does - it's just not as packed as some films. But unless violence is the only thing you crave in a movie, that won't concern you. You'll be too busy concentrating on all the other things this movie has to offer. Namely, the beneath-the-surface elements that are portrayed so clearly. The Count of Monte Cristo can be called many things: a story of revenge, a battle for survival, a riveting romance... and it is all of these. That is what makes this movie so great; there is so much to it, yet it all expertly fits together. It's true that the movie does not follow the book in all respects. Some characters from the book don't appear, and some parts of the plot are changed or removed (but there are several new twists), but these are not good excuses to pass this great film by. If you've read the book and you're the type of person that would be mortally wounded, scarred for life, if every single detail from the book did not appear in the motion picture, then don't watch this movie. While we're at it, I'll give you a few more warnings that just may save your life: don't ever see any film adaptation of a great book. Count out Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, A Walk to Remember, and every other awesome movie simply because it doesn't include every minute detail of the book. I'll say it again: this movie is incredible. You can feel the pain Edmond is in when he is betrayed by his former friend, as well as the evil in Fernand as he does the terrible deed. The characters are round and developed. Each of them has something to offer, and nothing in this film should be missed. That's only a small fraction of what this movie has to offer; I'll leave the rest for you to discover on your own!
Rating:
Summary: Powerful Remake
Review: This inticing story of sweet revenge is brought to life in a recent remake of the famous original classic. The acting is excellent and convincing--James Caviezel grips our sympathy as we watch his character walk into an undeserving destiny, and then return with an intelligent and tactical fury with the audience serving as his cheering section. Guy Pearce performs well the cocky and arrogant role of his character...so well that when the story comes full circle, the final scenes are an exuberant relief. Adventurous, entertaining, and intriguing, it is one of the finest movies I've ever seen.
Rating: 
Summary: Good movie, mediocre Action movie.
Review: I acquired this movie because my son loves movies with the three things that make a movie great. 1. swords, 2. lots of sword fights and 3. no long boring sections that he has to fast forward through. He would give this 1 star. But I loved this movie and have never read the book. Everything worked for me. I even found the "long Boring part" in prison to be interesting, thanks to "the priest". So if you don't know it already, get the PRINCESS BRIDE for your son or daughter (because they won't "fast forward" through it) and get THE COUNT for yourself.
Rating:
Summary: The Count of Stupidity is more I like it
Review: This is the second to worst movie I have ever seen. The director has completely mutilated the book in this film - changing it from a fabulous, meticulous, extravagant story of revenge in which the Count plays a great role, into a movie which contains the story of revenge, but only in the slightest amount compared to the book, and without any of the extravagence. They took the work of a genius and turned it into a flashy, blockbuster movie. Swordfights only enhance the movie's suspence, and not to the level of the book. I understand completely that the movie could not contain the entire essence of the book; however, this film fills me with loathing due to its complete misinterpretation of the novel.
Rating: 
Summary: A good effort, but ultimately cheesy and unlike the novel
Review: To those of you who have recently read The Count of Monte Cristo, I would advise against this film. The story in the movie is so completely different than what Dumas writes - perhaps revenge is the only common denominator. Examples: A) In the novel, Fernand is Edmond's enemy from the beginning - they are never pals. In this movie, the two are very close friends, so it's more dramatic that Fernand betrays Edmond. B) In the novel, Mercedes waits several years after Edmond's "death" before marrying Fernand. In the movie, she marries Fernand right away, and we learn later, it's because she is pregnant with Edmond's child, Albert (who is actually Fernand's child in the novel). This was a very disturbing alteration to me...a little too Hollywood. C) In the film, Mercedes and Edmond get back together and live happily ever after. Cheesy?! In the novel, after so many years and different events, Mercedes and Edmond realize (realistically, I think) that they do not belong together because they have grown in different ways, and Edmond starts a life with his servant (who is a better match for him). D) In the film, everything has to do with sword fights! I thought people used guns in the 1800's??? Anyway, a very liberal interpretation of the text. E) Edmond's revenge against Villefort and Danglars is not even remotely similar to what it is in the novel. All in all, this movie is a sad disappointment to me. It should not say "Alexandre Dumas" anywhere on the screen at any point in time, because his story has been butchered.
Rating:
Summary: feedback
Review: Excellent service from Video Habitat - I received this item ordered from them before any of my other items from Amazon came. This is exceptionally good considering that this is during the holiday rush!!
Rating:
Summary: huge credibility gaps doom the film
Review: "The Count of Monte Cristo" is a handsome, ultimately rather lackluster version of the Alexander Dumas' classic. The story - densely packed with action, adventure and plot complications, and boasting a visually appealing early 18th Century setting - would seem a natural fit for the movies. Yet, the film, oddly enough, winds up reminding us why certain works of literature do best when they stay on the printed page. Few people, I'm sure, are unfamiliar with this story, having been exposed to it generally in their youth and occasionally in the form of numerous film and TV adaptations (for many boys, in particular, this is often the first "big" novel they feel grown-up enough to tackle). This latest version stars Jim Caviezal as Edmond Dantes, the dashing young man who is falsely imprisoned for treason in 1815 France, betrayed by the man he trusts the most, Fernand Mondego, the Count of Morcerf (Guy Pearce). The latter, driven by bitter jealousy of both Edmond's rising fortunes and his beautiful fiancé, takes it upon himself to ruin his best friend's life, going so far as to marry Edmond's sweetheart once the hapless victim has been put safely out of the way. After a remarkable escape from prison, Edmond returns with a fortune in gold, assumes the guise of a wealthy count, and initiates a plan to extract his revenge against Mondego and the others responsible for his unjust imprisonment. The movie suffers from two major lapses in credibility that ultimately undercut the story's effectiveness. First, although sixteen years supposedly elapse between the first half of the film and the second, none of the actors appear to age a single day - not so much as even one gray hair among all their flowing locks. That leads us almost directly to the second and, perhaps more onerous, problem which is that, despite the lack of change in his physical appearance (except for an added, still jet-black goatee), no one seems to be able to recognize our hero after he has returned from his stint in prison (come to think of it, maybe that's one reason why they DON'T recognize him; like us, they would expect him to look so much older). We can suspend our credibility in such matters much more while reading a novel than watching a movie for the obvious reason that literature is not so heavily reliant on the visual element as are movies. But actually show us people speaking face to face with this "count" - somehow utterly unaware of his resemblance to one of the key players in their lives - and the illusion is shattered. All we are left to conclude is that these people must be thoroughgoing idiots to not see what is so obvious. Such a troublesome lapse in credibility is somehow not very conducive to our becoming absorbed in the action on screen. And, indeed, even the action scenes in the film are not all that impressive. The few sword fights have been staged in a rather listless manner and often feel strangely aborted and truncated as well. This ends up robbing the movie of the one thing it should have going for it - its spirit of derring-do adventure. Moreover, the actors in the film seem to be merely going through the motions, rarely making us believe in or even care about their characters' plights. Caviezal hardly seems like a man consumed by bitter revenge, and Pearce gives virtually a one-note performance as the piece's central villain. "The Count of Monte Cristo" is a pleasure to look at most of the time, but it ultimately winds up feeling more like a plot summary of a classic work of literature than a full-blown adaptation.
|
