Der Graf von Monte Christo

When you convert a novel to film you are taking a story from one medium to another. To do this you will need to make certain changes in order to preserve the intent of the story. If you do a direct conversion you will be telling half a story at best. In this version of one of Monte Cristo there are many alterations. The changes made in the first hour makes sense and were probably needed given the time to tell the tale,103 minutes. The changes in the second hour make no sense and undermine much of Dumas' dramatic, timeless and romantic epic. If you love the book, watch the flick just for .... Yucks ... But don't expect to see the Count you read about.

This is a nice introduction to the Dumas story. Chamberlain is very convincing count. The greatest strength are the scenes at the Château D'if and the relationship of Edmund Dantes with the old priest who saves him. This is really quite gut wrenching. I know it's not the responsibility of the writers to explain everything historically, but it would have been good to have a bit of the Bonapartist issues and the turmoil in France. Once Dantes finds the fortune and begins his quest for revenge, things get so short on detail, but that is the price of a two hour effort with commercials thrown in. Chamberlain makes a good swashbuckler. Louis Jordan and Tony Curtis do quite a bit of overacting, but that's OK. It's a big book and others have tried to put the story on screen, but this has always been fun for me.

The Count of Monte Cristo as well as The Man in the Iron Mask were both made for television in the mid to late 1970s and starred the talented Richard Chamberlain. Yet, because they were originally made for TV, they seem to have vanished and I haven't seen either on TV since the early 1980s (though I did copy them to now worn out videotapes). It's a real shame, as they were first-rate and every bit as good as any Hollywood production--maybe better.

The Man in the Iron Mask was the better of the two stories, but both are about as good Alexander Dumas stories as you can find. This is due to the overall package--exceptional music, acting, writing and pacing. I simply don't know how you could have made them much better.

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.

When you convert a novel of 1100 pages to a film of about 100min, you're inevitably going to lose a lot of details - probably a few important ones. But under the circumstances, this film was about as good as it could get. I love the original novel, and was a fan of the 1973-74 films of "The Three Musketeers" (in which Richard Chamberlain played Aramis, incidentally), and so was interested to see this.

The most obvious change is that the first half of the film deals with about the first quarter of the book - making it a little unbalanced. But then, the book has so many subplots, it was probably necessary to let go of a lot of them.

The other obvious change is that in the novel, Danglars is the main villain, whom Dantes pardons at the end. In the film it is Mondego - which makes more sense from a film point of view, as Mondego took Dantes' bride. But apart from that, here, Dantes does not show any mercy - whereas in the book Danglars was pardoned, in the film he does not show any remorse until all four villains are either dead or locked up - and only then because Mercedes does not love this new version of himself. So that's a pity.

Still, changes aside, this film is about as good as it could be. Someone else said probably best for those who've not read the book. They're probably right. But that doesn't mean you can't enjoy it if you have read it. I'd give this 7/10.