The Count of Monte-Cristo

I have not read the novel but I had the sense that the film made multiple changes to the story to abbreviate it. And I cannot imagine that anyone thinks a film can entirely capture or reproduce a timeless masterpiece.

That said, this was a gorgeous, beautifully filmed and acted movie. The cinematography was never less than artful and there was never a weak link in the acting or script. With the Three Musketeers movies and this, I have the sense that the French are applying modern film making (and financing) to their great patrimony just as they have in other ways, for centuries. We are the beneficaries.

It enchanted both my 11 year old daughter and me, this is a can't-miss experience, both as a representation of a great novel, but also as movie equal to the best theater experiences we can enjoy today.

Not once was I bored. Not once did I find inconsistencies. Sceneries and sets were to notch. The acting never pulled me out of the story, it keeps you there from start to finish.

French cinema produces a lot of forgettable movies (in my opinion), a lot of fun ones, some greats and here and there a movie that actually makes me love cinema and the theater. Le comte de Monte-Cristo is of the latter.

Rarely do I find a movie that depicts love, friendship, treason, courage, solitude, caring, vengeance, and much more, in at least a decent manner. Nothing felt rush to me. The three hours were deserved and it felt like less than two.

I encourage you to watch this movie, it has many qualities and it won't be a waste of time.

Now if you are a Dumas enthusiast, you opinion will certainly differ.

The first question I'd love to ask directors adapting novels to movies is: if that book inspired you so much that you wanted to make a movie out of it, why then alter its story?

The Count of Montecristo is another of those cases: those who read the book will be astounded by how the ending was completely distorted; and for no evident reason I'd submit, as the book's ending was dramatic enough.

So, again, if you didn't like it, why make a movie about it? If you want to ride your own ideas by all means do that, use your fantasy and in that case the sky will be the limit.

OK, end of runt...If I had to disconnect my literary memory and judge the movie for its sheer cinematographic merits, The Count of Montecristo is a honest cloak and dagger movie, with good performances by all the key actors, good photography and decent pace.

But then again, my literary memory kicks in again and a bittersweet aftertaste lingers in my mouth...

So I have actually read the book, the real book(s), and not the watered down version you find in the book store. That story is compelling, charcter driven, intricate and the details tell how it all comes together. This while a totally ok movie has nothing of that besides the outlines of the main plotlines. There isnt the good besides the bad, there isnt the ambivalent ending and there isnt the base of it all, the relationship between the Abbé and Edmond who basically becomes a son. Also missing is the back story from the escape to Edmonds arrival in Paris that makes the whole revenge plot believable in the first place. I also cant help but miss the old Mr Villefort whose story while peripher is so central to who Edmond really is as a person. So want to see a french drama during the 19th century that is pretty ok with some good actors, go ahead. Want to immerse yourself in the real story of the Count of Monte Christo? Find and Antiquarian because that is the only place you find this masterpiece.

It is always tricky to approach something as complex as this novel and try to get a coherent movie that features all the plots, and sub-plots, and sub-sub-plots, let alone book accurate characters.

I enjoyed the Richard Chamberlain TV movie, and the 2002 film despite some wholesale plot chopping in both. Even the 1998 6 hour 23 minute miniseries couldn't do the complete story and that's been my definite adaptation for the last 25 years.

The point being that to fit into 3 hours it was clear that some plot-lines were going to axed, characters changed and a streamlining of the narrative.

It then becomes a case of whether it was done in a way that allows those who don't already know the story, those who may have read the book three or four times, and all those in between to enjoy it.

Clearly the producers understood the underlying themes and (apart from one quibble I had which I'm not going to post as a spoiler) did great service to the original and still managed to include some sub-plots I thought they were going to cut out.

Of course, if you're a purist who hated Lord of the Rings because Peter Jackson changed characters and aspects from a 100% faithful adaptation of the book then you aren't going to like this either.

Totally entertained and it never once felt like a 3 hour film.

It also has a great soundtrack, the reprise of which had me stay for the whole credits.