O Conde de Monte Cristo

Not once was I bored. Not once did I find inconsistencies. Sceneries and sets were to notch. The acting never pulled me out of the story, it keeps you there from start to finish.

French cinema produces a lot of forgettable movies (in my opinion), a lot of fun ones, some greats and here and there a movie that actually makes me love cinema and the theater. Le comte de Monte-Cristo is of the latter.

Rarely do I find a movie that depicts love, friendship, treason, courage, solitude, caring, vengeance, and much more, in at least a decent manner. Nothing felt rush to me. The three hours were deserved and it felt like less than two.

I encourage you to watch this movie, it has many qualities and it won't be a waste of time.

Now if you are a Dumas enthusiast, you opinion will certainly differ.

The first question I'd love to ask directors adapting novels to movies is: if that book inspired you so much that you wanted to make a movie out of it, why then alter its story?

The Count of Montecristo is another of those cases: those who read the book will be astounded by how the ending was completely distorted; and for no evident reason I'd submit, as the book's ending was dramatic enough.

So, again, if you didn't like it, why make a movie about it? If you want to ride your own ideas by all means do that, use your fantasy and in that case the sky will be the limit.

OK, end of runt...If I had to disconnect my literary memory and judge the movie for its sheer cinematographic merits, The Count of Montecristo is a honest cloak and dagger movie, with good performances by all the key actors, good photography and decent pace.

But then again, my literary memory kicks in again and a bittersweet aftertaste lingers in my mouth...

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.

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.

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.