thiinkerca

This version of the Count of Monte Cristo will indeed remind of the book. It is both true to the descriptions of all the characters and includes all of the sub plots of the book with the ACTUAL ending of the book and not a made up one for the pleasure of the writers and directors (as has been the case on other versions). Jacques Weber is outstanding as the young Dantes who matures into the dark, cold and mysterious Monte Cristo. It is the ideal version and image of the count and the excellence of his acting in all of the various disguises as well as his overall command of the character , he dominates each scene he is in. Excellent cast overall and excellent production values. See it if you can!!

Only one quick thing to point out. If holmes is believed to be born in 1854, then in 1903 he is 49, Rupert Everett was about 45 when he did the film so he was certainly in the correct age range. In fact if stories are really to be done faithfully, then from 1887 to 1893, the actor in the role should be between 33-39. In any event this is never brought up because of the belief that holmes is an elder statesman. Remember he is 60 around the time of world war one. So please give all of us a break with this age nonsense.The overall production was well mounted and since the original stories have been done so well by Jeremy Brett, a new pastiche always fun because it is new. We are sometimes married to these movies being complete retreads of the old stories. The reality is that new stories can also have value of fleshing out and perhaps exploring situations we have not seen Holmes in before.

Excellent bond film with good combinationo of a tough Bond by Moore with good jokes and an excellent villain. Moore's early outings had a real Fleming sense to them, this one catching it best. Not many gadgets, just good action. Moor unfortunately is extremely underrated in the role. He is correct in that the franchise always wanted humour, and truthfully these movies are not real spy films. If they were, anonymity would be valued more than the superspy status he holds. As a result he played it best. This movie, in terms of performance, Moore came closest to the Fleming characterization, though the movie had some funny and bizarre sequences like the dojo. Still that was explained effectively. Christopher Lee, brought the right amount of cool, by being more relaxed and underplaying when talking to Moore's bond. It creates a good contrast. Britt Ekland's part was that of a neophyte agent, and in this was perfect if somewhat bumbling. But again the humour was well placed. The reality is if this was not played with some laughs, it becomes a grime spy tale, that while very Fleming in nature is not agreeable for the public. It is important to remember this movie came out during the Church hearings regarding CIA activities. The Spy game was shown to be one far more despicable than people imagined. As a result films like the Kremlin letter, that came out just a little earlier failed because of their reality and grimness. People should separate the books and films and give the due to Moore's interpretation. Connery who used to be my favourite, over the years comes across to cocky, belligerant and thinks he can seduce his way to victory. Moore was superior and though the movies had humour, is that a bad thing?