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.

Usually not a fan of action movies, the wonderful cast as well as the choice of a classic of French literature convinced me to go watch LE COMTE DE MONTE CRISTO. And man I wasn't disappointed !

Despite its three-hour runtime, the movie never bores. When it doesn't keep us on our toes, it shows us eye-popping scenes of 19th century France, leaving us wondering how they made that with only 40M euros ! I guess the beautiful cinematography and clever editing have a role to play in making this movie stand out from much costlier Hollywood productions.

Of course much of the credit also goes to Alexandre Dumas for coming up with such a poignant story, but adapting it for the screen sure wasn't an easy task either, and it was done marvelously here.

I sincerely hope this movie will have a career outside of France, as more people deserve to see this.

Merci Alexandre, merci Matthieu :)

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'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.

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.