Le comte de Monte-Cristo

How many versions of the famous novel are there in the world?Even the "best movie of all time "(sic) ,according to the IMDb users ,"Shawshank redemption", owes a lot to Alexandre Dumas and his count: Andy is Dantès and Red is Faria.

Robert Vernay loved this novel so much he filmed two versions of it;the first one,reportedly the best (I have not seen it yet)was made in 1942 and featured two parts .So does this one :to see the whole ,the audience was requested to come back to the theater and pay again.One thing for sure,Jean Marais 's aristocratic look and his harsh face make him the perfect actor for this Nemesis role .The fifties version was in color , then something rare in the French cinema ,and was made with care and respect for the public.From start to finish ,Robert Vernay holds his audience spellbound because he knew to tell a story,a thing the N.W. used to ignore,with a few exceptions of course.

Part 1: Betrayal Once again,Dumas combined history with fiction with talent.It begins in 1815,when king Louis the Eighteenth was on the throne and Napoleon was about to come back (Les Cents Jours).More than an innocent's plight,it's the opportunism of the magistrates ,waiting to see where the wind blows which is masterfully shown.On the king 's desk,there's a music box with a bird singing an old nursery rhyme which goes like this:

"J'Ai Un Beau Château Ma Tantirelire ..................... Nous Le Détruirons Ma Tantirelirelo" (I 've got a beautiful château .............................. We shall raze it to the ground..)

When Napoleon arrives ,for a short while ,just before Waterloo,the first thing he does in the king's office is to play the little tune.

The sinister Château D'If and its dark spooky dungeons ,the meeting with L'Abbé Faria ,and the escape are depicted brilliantly.

Part 2: Revenge (is a dish best eaten cold)

Generally ,in these movies in two parts (the French used to say "Epoques"= eras ),there was a summary (for people who could not have seen the first part);sometimes lines on the screen, more often a voice-over.Here Robert Vernay found a more interesting way: the hero tells his story to his henchman .The plot becomes very melodramatic with plenty of new characters and the story is not always as clear as in "betrayal" .There's even a touch of "Oliver Twist",written seven years before "Monte Cristo" .Marais is as impressive as the statue of the Commendatore and he 's got his duel in the end ,finally!

All in all,if you like a good story,told with gusto and panache,this version of the famous novel was made for you

It is easy to say - it is the best version. First , for the care of Robert Vernay for each detail. Second, for the brilliant elegance and perfect facies of Jean Marais to become one with his character. For the atmosphere and small so significant details - the musical box from the room of Louis XVIII is the memorable one -, for costumes and for atmosphere, for remarkable abbe Faria. A special ,in profound sense, film.

The plot of the classic need not be retold here - it was one what we loved in our teen and pre-teen ages about half a century back, along with other classics (of course translated) of Dumas (and his contemporary - of same year of Birth) Hugo, of course along with many others - but these two names strike the mind - the Musketeers (all three of them), Black Tulip, the Hunchback - of recently ravaged Notre Dame, are some of the names I still recall.

This movie is well adapted to the original one, and with Marais in the central role, not much can be improved in acting department. Despite the long duration, about 3 hours - it doesn't bore, of course neither did the huge novels of those times, due to the well paced rendition. Both the parts had been more or less faithfully adapted from the novel.

Some of the factors are of course missing- for example the method of tunnel digging and disposing off the grits, or the way Dante managed to be inside the sack - but probably they were required for the written version, for the screen version they were not mandatory.

Another major difference - again it didn't matter in the adaptation - was foresaking the Baron Dangler - and rather merging it into two avatars - or mainly into the Caderousse role (Villefort only used the name, for his secret affair) - that would be a missing aspect, especially since instead of the four Marseilles, it was brought down to three, but only for those who have read it. And also probably it reduced some running time - that character and the retribution would have brought in at least another half an hour. And it would have been important - since the side-plot of Morel's daughter and Dangler's son also would have to be retained, to keep Dante's level of revenge in control. But over all this had been quite faithful adaptation - in two episodes - probably avoiding the third - which would definitely have cause audience exasperation., and without missing much from the main story line, trimming the branches, and characters where it could be. And it didn't much mess up with history either. Of course neither did the novel. I wonder who was Morel's daughter in (in First part), she was quite pretty, but there is no name in credits or even outside it. She had half the screen time at least, as her father, and may be much more than some other figures - say Emperor Napoleon, King Louise XVIII etc.

Worth watching - if there is still child in you, it won't bore.