Reviews written by registered user
|8 reviews in total|
This version of the Count of Monte Cristo will indeed remind of the book. It is both true to the descriptions of all the characters and includes all of the sub plots of the book with the ACTUAL ending of the book and not a made up one for the pleasure of the writers and directors (as has been the case on other versions). Jacques Weber is outstanding as the young Dantes who matures into the dark, cold and mysterious Monte Cristo. It is the ideal version and image of the count and the excellence of his acting in all of the various disguises as well as his overall command of the character , he dominates each scene he is in. Excellent cast overall and excellent production values. See it if you can!!
Only one quick thing to point out. If holmes is believed to be born in 1854, then in 1903 he is 49, Rupert Everett was about 45 when he did the film so he was certainly in the correct age range. In fact if stories are really to be done faithfully, then from 1887 to 1893, the actor in the role should be between 33-39. In any event this is never brought up because of the belief that holmes is an elder statesman. Remember he is 60 around the time of world war one. So please give all of us a break with this age nonsense.The overall production was well mounted and since the original stories have been done so well by Jeremy Brett, a new pastiche always fun because it is new. We are sometimes married to these movies being complete retreads of the old stories. The reality is that new stories can also have value of fleshing out and perhaps exploring situations we have not seen Holmes in before.
Excellent bond film with good combinationo of a tough Bond by Moore with good jokes and an excellent villain. Moore's early outings had a real Fleming sense to them, this one catching it best. Not many gadgets, just good action. Moor unfortunately is extremely underrated in the role. He is correct in that the franchise always wanted humour, and truthfully these movies are not real spy films. If they were, anonymity would be valued more than the superspy status he holds. As a result he played it best. This movie, in terms of performance, Moore came closest to the Fleming characterization, though the movie had some funny and bizarre sequences like the dojo. Still that was explained effectively. Christopher Lee, brought the right amount of cool, by being more relaxed and underplaying when talking to Moore's bond. It creates a good contrast. Britt Ekland's part was that of a neophyte agent, and in this was perfect if somewhat bumbling. But again the humour was well placed. The reality is if this was not played with some laughs, it becomes a grime spy tale, that while very Fleming in nature is not agreeable for the public. It is important to remember this movie came out during the Church hearings regarding CIA activities. The Spy game was shown to be one far more despicable than people imagined. As a result films like the Kremlin letter, that came out just a little earlier failed because of their reality and grimness. People should separate the books and films and give the due to Moore's interpretation. Connery who used to be my favourite, over the years comes across to cocky, belligerant and thinks he can seduce his way to victory. Moore was superior and though the movies had humour, is that a bad thing?
The brothers continue to challenge us with their last installment of the saga. This movie has an excellent mix of ideas and action, that lead to a brilliantly realized film. The ideas of greek, christian, and medieval philosophy/theology are a good balance to the action which is phenomenal. Instead of repeating the effects from the first, they have decided to employ other techniques and the results are stunning. Reeves scene with Weaving in the playground is possibly one of the top three action scenes ever. More people should see this and realize its superiority to another triology with robots.
This is a filmed play. Second, his interpretation is a valid one and I didnt know there was a rule that actors could not play characters of different races. That kind of reverse racism is exactly what is to be avoided. Judge the acting for acting's sake. Olivier uses a full octave voice lower for the performance, unatural to his usual tenor voice. If one simply judges the acting, it should be seen as a powerful piece of work. Another performance of this is by Anthony Hopkins, also quite excellent, with different shadings.
This film I initially felt was great, but on further viewings realize, that its fundamental problem is that Steven's who is so caught with the canon of religious art, is trying to recreate that. He does not focus on the performances, sans of Von Sydow, who is excellent, though appears to simply say cliches without context to the listener. The lack of caring in the performances is evidenced by the weak acting ranging from overacting(Heston) to ludicrious(sal mineo, ed wynn, shelley winters and of course john wayne). The only fine acting is by Jose ferrer as Herod antipas, and claude rains as herod the great. Even these scenes were actually directed by David Lean who was uncredited when the film went over budget. Stevens failed in what should have worked. An excellent film version is King of Kings (1961), and of course jesus of nazereth for tv.
This movie is excellent, especially compared to the new version with James cavaziel, which is much longer, and still does not touch on the depth and characters, this 75' version was somehow able to do. As well Chamberlain, was able to show through voice and appearance, changes of appearance from the young man of 19 to the man in he would be in his late 30's. If they didnt capture every subplot, they covered most of them, in more pared down fashion. Its a shame this was not made into a miniseries at the time on tv. It would likely have been excellent. You can tell from the cuts in the movie, that there was a longer one there, that couldnt be aired due to time constraints. Nevertheless, excellent, american production of the film, though not as good as the version with Gerard Depardieu, Chamberlain, himself, cuts a finer figure as the count, at least in is look. Chamberlain had assurance, picked a voice to use in the film, which I point out, because in the 2002 version, Cavaziel, had this very problem and never was able to be comfortable in how he delivered his lines or his appearance. Great Film catch it while you can.
Best spy film of the genre. It has an exceptionally high caliber of actors who, portray the coldness, ruthlessness and reality of espionage, particularly during the cold war. The premise of the film is complex in that things are not what they seem. The reality of what spies do is never depicted more coldly and as a result more negatively in what it entails and the cost it has to one's humanity. If one is interested in a movie that, even by today's standards, would not be made, because there are no 'heroes', see the best spy movie Ever.