Le Comte de Monte-Cristo
- 2024
- Tous publics
- 2h 58min
Une nouvelle adaptation du célèbre roman d'Alexandre Dumas.Une nouvelle adaptation du célèbre roman d'Alexandre Dumas.Une nouvelle adaptation du célèbre roman d'Alexandre Dumas.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 6 victoires et 22 nominations au total
Laurent Lafitte
- Gérard de Villefort
- (as Laurent Lafitte de la Comédie Française)
Stéphane Varupenne
- Caderousse
- (as Stéphane Varupenne de la Comédie Française)
Abde Maziane
- Jacopo
- (as Abdé Maziane)
Résumé
Reviewers say 'The Count of Monte-Cristo' adaptation garners mixed reactions, highlighting visual richness, strong performances, and deviations from the original novel. Praise is given to the cinematography, production design, and Pierre Niney's portrayal of Edmond Dantès. However, the script faces criticism for altering key plot points, characters, and the novel's ending, which many feel reduces the story's depth and emotional impact. Some appreciate the modernization and streamlined narrative, while others miss the novel's complexity and moral dilemmas.
Avis à la une
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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 :)
Have you ever had something really unfair happen to you?
Have you ever been betrayed by people you trusted?
Have you ever had the feeling of wanting to show them all and teach them a lesson?
Have you ever been mad with rage?
Have you ever thought that if you had the chance you would do so much good in the world?
Have you ever wondered about what cost your actions and words have on other people far out in the future?
Have you ever been consumed with an idea you wouldn't separate from?
Have you ever held onto someone even though they moved on?
Have you ever had your life fall apart?
Have you ever convinced yourself that you were right, only to learn that you were wrong?
If you can say yes to just one of these things. This movie is for you. A masterpiece. I sat with profound feelings of mercy and grace towards myself and others after watching this movie.
Have you ever been betrayed by people you trusted?
Have you ever had the feeling of wanting to show them all and teach them a lesson?
Have you ever been mad with rage?
Have you ever thought that if you had the chance you would do so much good in the world?
Have you ever wondered about what cost your actions and words have on other people far out in the future?
Have you ever been consumed with an idea you wouldn't separate from?
Have you ever held onto someone even though they moved on?
Have you ever had your life fall apart?
Have you ever convinced yourself that you were right, only to learn that you were wrong?
If you can say yes to just one of these things. This movie is for you. A masterpiece. I sat with profound feelings of mercy and grace towards myself and others after watching this movie.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesWith a budget estimated in EUR42.9 million, The Count of Monte Cristo is the most expensive French film of 2024.
- GaffesWhen Albert watches Hydee sing and play the guitar, it is very obvious that she is not even touching the strings half of the time.
- Citations
Danglars: The story makes no sense. We're swimming in madness. My boats were still in Marseilles yesterday. I will need a delay to pay you back. If...
Edmond Dantès: You have nothing left, Baron. Everything that was yours is now mine. The only thing you have left are these clothes. Leave Paris, and perhaps I will not let your wife and your daughter starve.
Danglars: But, Count, I...
Edmond Dantès: Do you find me brutal, Baron? "Not only do I know it, but I take pride in it." You should escort your wife home. She looks quite pale.
- ConnexionsFeatured in La grande semaine: Épisode #1.13 (2024)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is The Count of Monte-Cristo?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- El conde de Montecristo
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 42 900 000 € (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 529 830 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 17 426 $US
- 22 déc. 2024
- Montant brut mondial
- 78 348 132 $US
- Durée2 heures 58 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
What is the Canadian French language plot outline for Le Comte de Monte-Cristo (2024)?
Répondre