O Conde de Monte Cristo

As all movies made from books do, it simplifies the plot to a miniscule point and takes as much drama from it as it can. As a movie, this works surprisingly well. Chamberlain is excellent as the conflicted changeling, but others don't do so well. Tony Curtis has never been my favorite actor and Kate Nelligan doesn't have much screen presence. Watching Louis Jourdan try very hard to play to the camera is kind of sad, but Donald Pleasance is very good and almost steals scenes away from Chamberlain.

Unfortunately, this is a TV movie (1970s), so the direction is awkward and stage-y. But a pretty good script and Chamberlain's performance make this a strangely compelling experience.

In this "classic tale of injustice, revenge and ultimate retribution," according to the DVD description, "Edmond Dantes is about to marry the love of his life and become a Captain in the Navy until he is falsely accused of conspiracy and is sent to the hellish island fortress of Monte Cristo. Locked away from his perfect life, he feels only hatred and revenge towards the perpetrators of this horrible injustice, but can see no way of exacting his revenge...

"Told of a secret treasure by a dying prisoner, Dantes finds a new hope and escapes to find the treasure. Now with a fortune, he assumes the identity of the wealthy and influential Count of Monte Cristo. Here, he seeks his revenge using his enemies' greed and corruption to bring about their ultimate downfall."

This is a handsomely mounted ITC-TV production of the frequently adapted Alexandre Dumas classic. There are some hair and make-up distractions, but most of it looks nice, at least.

Richard Chamberlain performs the leading role with focus and style. Of his quartet of veteran co-stars, Trevor Howard (the Abbe Faria) is most impressive. The younger cast includes an early Kate Nelligan (as Mercedes) and the grown-up Dominic Guard (as Albert) kid from "The Go-Between" (1970). But, with piercing sword and courtroom play, the lesser known Carlo Puri (as Benedetto) makes the most memorable impression.

****** The Count of Monte-Cristo (1/10/75) David Greene ~ Richard Chamberlain, Carlo Puri, Kate Nelligan, Trevor Howard

This movie is excellent, especially compared to the new version with James cavaziel, which is much longer, and still does not touch on the depth and characters, this 75' version was somehow able to do. As well Chamberlain, was able to show through voice and appearance, changes of appearance from the young man of 19 to the man in he would be in his late 30's. If they didnt capture every subplot, they covered most of them, in more pared down fashion. Its a shame this was not made into a miniseries at the time on tv. It would likely have been excellent. You can tell from the cuts in the movie, that there was a longer one there, that couldnt be aired due to time constraints. Nevertheless, excellent, american production of the film, though not as good as the version with Gerard Depardieu, Chamberlain, himself, cuts a finer figure as the count, at least in is look. Chamberlain had assurance, picked a voice to use in the film, which I point out, because in the 2002 version, Cavaziel, had this very problem and never was able to be comfortable in how he delivered his lines or his appearance. Great Film catch it while you can.

This is a nice introduction to the Dumas story. Chamberlain is very convincing count. The greatest strength are the scenes at the Château D'if and the relationship of Edmund Dantes with the old priest who saves him. This is really quite gut wrenching. I know it's not the responsibility of the writers to explain everything historically, but it would have been good to have a bit of the Bonapartist issues and the turmoil in France. Once Dantes finds the fortune and begins his quest for revenge, things get so short on detail, but that is the price of a two hour effort with commercials thrown in. Chamberlain makes a good swashbuckler. Louis Jordan and Tony Curtis do quite a bit of overacting, but that's OK. It's a big book and others have tried to put the story on screen, but this has always been fun for me.

When you convert a novel to film you are taking a story from one medium to another. To do this you will need to make certain changes in order to preserve the intent of the story. If you do a direct conversion you will be telling half a story at best. In this version of one of Monte Cristo there are many alterations. The changes made in the first hour makes sense and were probably needed given the time to tell the tale,103 minutes. The changes in the second hour make no sense and undermine much of Dumas' dramatic, timeless and romantic epic. If you love the book, watch the flick just for .... Yucks ... But don't expect to see the Count you read about.