Monte Cristo

Bad adaptation of the book. Hollywood is a failure to adapt the count of monte cristo. Hollywood should learn from the Russians, who made a great adaptation with th count of monte cristo in Uznik zamka if (1988).

This movie had had a big advantage - the story based on which it was made. That had very minimal flaws. In this particular movie version however, the story had been modified and not for good, but exactly opposite. In fact I don't even see any reason for the change that had been done. The plus point is - despite the initial disclaimer on the screen (of preservation), the print on DVD had been sharp, and without any visible discontinuities. The movie more or less faithfully adapts to the classic approximately three-fourth of the way - after which the adaptations start and spoils the taste in the mouth. Some of the sequences had been avoided, and that is understood, to compact the story, and didn't hamper the flow e.g. Morel & daughter, or Pharaoh II. But there had been distortions as well as wrong characterisations which made the story and the character's especially Edmond's actions not as logical as in the classic. The first of such instance came with regards to Mercedes' wedding. The circumstances and her helpless condition was made into 'fickleness of women'. Mercedes, had she been, would have strongly objected. Another very strong error was in the introduction of Princess Heidi. In the story she was kept incognito, a slave girl, till her veil was removed to bring the traitor in open. Here she is a known, and naturally Ferdinand would have smelt a rat. Even the end is not only not in line with classic, but concocted - Heidi can't really forgive the son of her father's killer. I will rather go with the 1954, Jean Marais Version, with much lesser distortions.



Even if it is around 100 years ago, there

A simplistic and stupid adaptation. The development of the characters is ridiculous. They mutilated the story to make it too simplistic Reading many Dostoevsky books like The Brothers Karamazov, demons, crime and Punishiment, Notes from Underground, I see how grievances, resentments and hatred are overcome or would never happen. In a simplistic idealism.

The dashing John Gilbert is really quite good in this two-part adaptation of the Alexandre Dumas adventure. He is the wronged "Edmond", who finds himself the subject of jealousy and ambition before being sentenced to life imprisonment in the fearsome "Chateau D'If" prison. After many years in captivity, he is visited by the elderly Abbé Faria (Spottiswoode Aitken) who has been trying to tunnel his way out for many years, but has actually only managed to get to this nearby cell. Both victims of huge injustice, they become friends with the elder man teaching the younger a myriad of skills and languages before, just as he is dying, imparting some news about the legendary treasure of Monte Cristo. Substituting himself for the corpse, he manages to find safety, the treasure and is soon on the trail - in part two - of the three men he holds responsible. "de Villefort" (Robert McKimm); "Danglars" (Albert Prisco) and "Mondego" (Ralph Cloninger) who also managed to seduce his betrothed - the young "Mercedes" (Estelle Taylor). His clever entrapment of these three is based on allowing their greed, avarice, ambition and mistrust to do his heavy lifting for him - and he sits by facilitating and enjoy their destruction of each other. The first part of this works better, I felt. The sense of betrayal and the claustrophobic nature of his imprisonment better suited the rather static, though decent quality, of this production. It also featured the scene stealing performances of William V. Mong as the duplicitous "Caderouse". The second part climaxes well, with effective efforts from just about all - including a lovely series of scenes from the "Princess Haidee" (Virginia Brown Faire - a lady with very expressive eyes); but the swordplay and the general denouement fall a little flat as the technique of director Emmett Flynn relies more on a barrage of inter titles, single character scenes and lingering - if quite potent - close ups a little too much. This story of betrayal, bitterness, revenge and ultimately happiness is a great one and whilst this is maybe not the best version, it still packs a lot into 100 minutes.

Edmond Dantes is not a generic fox as Homer simpson believe. He is a dark, powerful, unforgiving figure, but he can be generous. Here he looks like a generic fighter and sme his dark charm as in the book. Lower than the French version of 1929.