Monte Cristo

A simplistic and stupid adaptation. The development of the characters is ridiculous. They mutilated the story to make it too simplistic Reading many Dostoevsky books like The Brothers Karamazov, demons, crime and Punishiment, Notes from Underground, I see how grievances, resentments and hatred are overcome or would never happen. In a simplistic idealism.

THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO is one of Alexandre Dumas père's most successful novels, along with THE THREE MUSKETEERS. Eugene O'Neill's father, James O'Neill, made a career of the role for decades, committing an abbreviated version of it to the screen in 1913. Indeed, the IMDb lists more than thirty screen adaptations of the work. The most successful version was, I feel, the 1975 version starring Richard Chamberlain. Yet all of the versions I have seen -- about a dozen of them -- struggle to simply tell the tale, let alone infuse the story with the depth and breadth of Dumas' novel, which runs to a thousand pages in full translation, a novel which encompasses issues of morality, godliness, the Vampire Theater of Paris which flourished for half a century in France -- and the ultimate futility of vengeance.

Therefore, it is a shock to see this movie, recently restored and issued on DVD by Flicker Alley, directed by little-remembered Emmett J. Flynn in a two-DVD set with the recently rediscovered BARDELYS THE MAGNIFICENT. This is a wonderful retelling of the story, with fine performances in what was heralded as 'an all-star cast'. The script is carefully written to cover the scenes not shown on the screen. If the print seems, at times, to be a bit washed out, this apparent failure can be laid on the film stock of the era: the orthochromatic film that had been a standard of the industry for almost thirty years would be superseded within a couple of years by faster, panchromatic stock that could film blues more effectively.

If the story seems a bit rushed and more straightforward in its telling than seems proper: alas, that's what happens when you try to get so a long story into a two-hour picture, folks, and director Flynn does a highly competent job, given the Augean task.

Other reviewers for the IMDb have written that John Gilbert does not really seem to be John Gilbert in this picture. True enough, but he is not busy being John Gilbert the star, but an actor playing the Count of Monte Cristo, born Edmond Dantes in the fertile mind of Dumas. Although the modern film-goer may have some issues with the conventions of a movie made almost ninety years ago, those who enjoy silent films will find little reason to regret the time they spend watching this version.

Bad adaptation of the book. Hollywood is a failure to adapt the count of monte cristo. Hollywood should learn from the Russians, who made a great adaptation with th count of monte cristo in Uznik zamka if (1988).

This movie had had a big advantage - the story based on which it was made. That had very minimal flaws. In this particular movie version however, the story had been modified and not for good, but exactly opposite. In fact I don't even see any reason for the change that had been done. The plus point is - despite the initial disclaimer on the screen (of preservation), the print on DVD had been sharp, and without any visible discontinuities. The movie more or less faithfully adapts to the classic approximately three-fourth of the way - after which the adaptations start and spoils the taste in the mouth. Some of the sequences had been avoided, and that is understood, to compact the story, and didn't hamper the flow e.g. Morel & daughter, or Pharaoh II. But there had been distortions as well as wrong characterisations which made the story and the character's especially Edmond's actions not as logical as in the classic. The first of such instance came with regards to Mercedes' wedding. The circumstances and her helpless condition was made into 'fickleness of women'. Mercedes, had she been, would have strongly objected. Another very strong error was in the introduction of Princess Heidi. In the story she was kept incognito, a slave girl, till her veil was removed to bring the traitor in open. Here she is a known, and naturally Ferdinand would have smelt a rat. Even the end is not only not in line with classic, but concocted - Heidi can't really forgive the son of her father's killer. I will rather go with the 1954, Jean Marais Version, with much lesser distortions.



Even if it is around 100 years ago, there

I had low expectations of this film, thinking it was a Hollywood bastardization of Dumas's classic, like the corny but enjoyable 1934 version starring Robert Donat. How wrong I was! This is one of the better adaptations of "The Count of Monte Cristo"--not just required viewing for fans of the novel but a good film in its own right.

Let's start with its star. The problem with most actors who play the Count is that they're usually suited to play only one side of him-- the young and naive Edmond Dantes or the suave, revenge-driven Monte Cristo. John Gilbert is the only actor I've seen who excels as both. It helps that he was a young man at the time and plays Edmond with the vigor of genuine youth. He's just as convincing as the older, embittered Monte Cristo, thanks to the intense, smoldering stare that made him a matinée idol. As written by Dumas, the Count might be a swashbuckler but he is also an avenger whose thirst for cold revenge disturbs other characters and even the reader. Gilbert understands this and is perfectly cast.

Dumas's novel is a 1,200 page monster, and even three-hour adaptations have to cut large chunks of it. This version (which draws on several stage adaptations) is less than two hours, yet it manages to preserve the major plot points of the book. This is intelligent distillation is considerably more faithful than the 2002 version. Minor characters have been combined to streamline the story, which gains a surprisingly swift pace. The ending is differs from the original, but the scriptwriters have prepared for it with a melancholy prelude.

I wasn't familiar with the director, Emmett J. Flynn, and feared the movie would be stagy and visually dull. Once again I was wrong. The direction is lively and makes excellent use of superimposition. The lighting and costumes are lavish in the old Hollywood style, and the opulent, airy sets perhaps influenced the 1929 French film of the novel, directed by Henry Fescourt. His three-hour "Monte Cristo" is a greater work than Flynn's, though the most faithful adaptation is a 1979 French TV production starring Jacques Weber. Neither Weber nor Fescourt's versions have English subtitles so my recommendation for those who've read the book is to watch Flynn's film, with Gilbert's excellent performance, and the 1964 BBC TV production starring Alan Badel, which has been released on Region 2 DVD. The 1934 film starring Robert Donat takes too many liberties and the 1998 French TV miniseries suffers from the miscasting of Gérard Depardieu in the central role.