El conde de Montecristo

Well, this a great piece of cinema, the actors play well, the scenes are well designed and the music is top notch. Yet, at someone that read the book before, a lot of the actual story, is not just missing but heavily modified. This is frustrating and they main reason it's a 8 and not 10, but I guess taking a 6 books story into a 3 hours move isn't that easy. Some of the original characters are missing and grouped into new character (Angelel). So, if you are not a Dumas fanatic, go watch it, you will have a good time ! The 3 hours feel like 20 minutes, with good romance, great costumes, great action scenes and drama.

It's hard not to notice that modern adaptations of classical works often tend to sacrifice depth and complexity for the sake of fast pace and entertainment. As a result, the special atmosphere and emotional depth inherent in the original texts are often lost. "The Count of Monte Cristo" by Alexandre Dumas is not just a twisted story of revenge with many bright twists, it is a reflection on life and how a person is transformed by circumstances and his own decisions. Alas, the new film adaptation, and this, of course, in my opinion, coped with the task of conveying this transformation - satisfactorily, but no more, leaving the characters at a simple and understandable level of archetypes.

Expectations did not come from an empty place, because many people read this fascinating tragedy of revenge and had hopes to see the development and deepening of the characters on a par with the original source. At the same time, the audience was offered a set of events that take place too quickly, as if on a high-speed cinema highway. Deep emotions, nuances of character, dramatic internal conflicts - all this was clearly not enough. But it is these details that make the work alive and truly memorable. Yes, undoubtedly, a thousand pages of a novel cannot be transferred into one film, but this is the power of creativity - the ability to revive images and give the viewer empathy. In the film, all this is there, but dosed, within the framework of the standard form of monosyllabic presentation.

The film is not bad, but spoiling Dumas means being completely incompetent, and, to my joy, I can't blame anyone for that. But I expected more and I'm a little disappointed. The whole film was shot with a 24 mm wide-angle lens, and it was unnecessary: there are clearly not enough close-ups, especially when the actors play well. Despite the decent acting, the characters seem to be unsaid and aimless, reduced to simplified and stripped-down images.

During the viewing, I hoped to see a philosophical reassessment or depth of thought in the scene with "Abbé Faria", but, unfortunately, only the Soviet painting by Georgy Jungwald-Khilkevich with Alexei Petrenko as the abbot was able to prepare the viewer, lay the foundation for the climax, making them realize the suffering of the prisoners and catch the main question: "What are you up to Will you spend your life, for revenge or for good?". After this episode, it became clear that the story would quickly sweep through the pages of the fireproof manuscript, and so it turned out.

The connection with the epoch and with the literary echoes of the past, which give the original its special flavor and indescribable integrity, has disappeared. Perhaps this is a sign of the times. Modern technology allows you to create impressive visual effects, but no technique can replace the power of a story, the ability to convey a mood and invite the viewer into a deep understanding of life. One thing is for sure: trying to adapt classics is always a challenge that requires incredible skill and understanding of the text. This is a difficult task, and, alas, not everyone can overcome this path, but the task was done well, although there was a residue of disappointment.

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.

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...

I read the books and saw two other versions of it as a film.

I asked myself what was the idea to make another version even though 18 exist already.

I watched it in French and realized that it is pretty far off the original storyline. Some characters are missing and others adapted. Apart from the great costumes and the brilliant locations, it seemed to me that only the beautiful, 'rich' sides were shown. The prison seemed too romanticised to me, as did the society. The Count could hardly stand out from the others due to his wealth and mystique, because this didn't always come to the surface.

Nevertheless, the film is entertaining and I was never bored. It managed to tell the whole story, although in a different way. Unfortunately, I couldn't answer the question of why this film was made, because it's just another version.

Watch the film if you don't know the story yet and like a romanticised story. Otherwise, I recommend the book by Alexandre Dumas and the film 'The Count of Monte Cristo 2002'.