Reviews written by registered user
Chevalier de Spindletop

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

3 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Kidnapped (1995) (TV)
3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Excellent adaptation, 17 March 2006
9/10

This is an excellent movie in its own right and seems to be quite faithful to the book. There are elements of the movie that do not show up in RLS's Kidnapped, but there is a sequel, entitled David Balfour, which I have yet to read. I imagine that some of ragmop's complaints of inaccuracy may be answered by this book. My one suggestion would be for the viewer to do a little studying of the this period of Scottish history, as this will help make the movie flow better.

As others have mentioned, this movie is made even better by the fact that it is even suitable for young children to watch. It would be nice if filmmakers followed this movie's example and made more action and adventure movies that are really safe for the entire family.

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Weak adaptation of a powerful novel, 1 February 2002



As someone who has read the 1,097 page Count of monte Cristo three times, I was fairly dissapointed with this adaptation.

Allow me to be positive first. I enjoyed some parts of the movie. The sword fight between Fernand and Dantes was quite enjoyable, the first one I mean. Pierce looked very convincing with a sword, as a fencer I enjoyed his blade work. Unfortunately, the final duel between the protagonist and the antagonist look like a cross between the finale of Mission Impossible II and Gladiator; Ridiculous and hard to follow.

I also enjoyed the prison scene. Where did they get the idea for a yearly beating? Michael Whiton was wonderfully sadistic as the warden, but he was a figment of the screen writers' imagination. I prefer to see books put on film exactly as they were on paper, so I do not appreciate changes in the artists work. With that thought in mind, major liberties were made to the story. I understand that it is impossible to make a 1,100 page book fit into a 2 hour movie, but some things didn't need to be made.

Point in case 1: Villefort's father is named Clarron???? In the book, it is Noirtier. Little things that didn't need to be changed were. Fernand Mondego was actually a spanish fisher who was made Count of MORCERF, not Mondego, because of his military "accomplishments" in the years after Dantes imprisonment.

The book made a good point that Dantes' enemies rose from humble positions to men of great power because of their greed, ambition, and dishonesty. Much of this is missed in the movie.

James Caviesel may look the part of the enigmatic Monte Cristo, but his speech is so 21st century. He lacks the fine breeding and politeness that made him such a craze in Paris.

One thing that I did enjoy was that the Carnival at Rome scene was included, although significantly condensed; it originally took over 100 pages. However, we had to make Monte Cristo's rescue of the young Visount de Mondego action packed. Much is lost of Monte Cristo's powerful persona which can bend people's wills to his own with ease.

If you really want to find a great story in this movie, read the book. It lacks the action that the movie has, but in place, you get one of the most intricate plots ever to be put on paper.

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Very Ambitious, overall a Classic., 9 August 2001
10/10

Well, first allow me to say that I was over all very pleased with the movie.

As a fencer, I greatly enjoyed the foil - like duels between the Musketeers and the Guards, contrary to the rough and undisciplined swordfights in the 1973 version. However, a lot of times when one of the musketeers was engaged with more than one person, he'd parry 4 & 6 the entire time (meaning he defended his upper body) Why didn't one of the guards lunge to 7 or 8 (the lower body)? D'Artagnan and Jussac's duel was great! There were many fencing moves used such as the Disengage and the Coupe'. The only movies I've seen with this Calbre of fencing could be the old version of Cyranno de Bergerac, and The Mark of Zorro.

As far as plot and story line goes, I am glad that I've read this book 3 times because otherwise it would have been hard to follow. After the diamond studs affair, women, war, and the troubled past of Athos hit the viewer all at once. Someone watching this movie and knowing nothing of Dumas' classic charaters might find this just a touch overwhelming. I was however pleasantly suprised to find that D'Artagnan's affairs with Kitty and her mistress Milady were laid out in similar fashion to the book, something I thought too complicated for the length of time devoted to this subplot. The attention to detail was very good over all, however, why did they make Athos a Baron, he was a Count!! It just doesn't make sense to portray the story as accurately as they did and then change Athos' title. There were some parts of the book such as Buckingham's assassination that were modified to be less complicated, and the sword was drawn far more than in the book, but I was still happy with the movie. Once again, Lord de Winter, brother of Milady's 2nd husband, Athos being the first, is omitted from the story, howerver, adding another main character to this story may have bogged it down too much even for my taste. But it at least explains how and why Charlotte Brackston has assumed the name of Lady de Winter.

The players: D'Artagnan, a little annoying, but a brilliant and elegant sword.

Athos, moody, depressed, and a cavalier all the way. He was possibly better than Oliver Reed in the 1973 version.

Porthos did not get much time, but was still enjoyable. His appearance and build was perfect for the role, too bad they didn't give him more of a lead than they did.

Aramis, they showed his fickle view on life well. Provided that his mistress would write, he was a man of the world. When he despaired that she no longer loved him, he was ready to enter the church.

Richeleau, Vincent Price is the best Cardinal I've seen, even better than Heston.

Milady, too much like the book! (that's a GOOD thing) Lana Turner was excellent. Far better than the too-old-to-play-the-part Faye Dunnaway.

Constance, I liked her, she was certainly pretty enough. -- but in the book, she was the landlord's husband!

Rochefort, um.... was he in this one more than 1 scene?

Buckingham, the 1973 version is far better.

Anne, Angela Lansbury would have make a very good queen, had her character been given more screen time.

Louis XIII, the 1921 and 1973 versions had much better kings. The 1921 version's Louis was very strong, while the 1973's was a nitt witt and fop.

Over all, I really liked this version of the story, and consider it to be the best version I've ever scene. Some people have commented on its depressing side, but I liked that. If you ever end up reading all 5 books on the Musketeers, you will find that the other books have that depressing aspect as Athos watches his son be ruined by love. Happy reading!