Mr. X
Hollywood does not seem to understand that it isn't necessary to re-invent a classic story to keep it interesting, when the classic story has proven itself most interesting to generations of readers. This is a Disney-fied version of the Dumas story, as "improved" by Reynolds and Wolpert who are given the green-light by test audiences and studio executives to alter the original story. While one couldn't expect to compress a lengthy novel into a a few hours of film, this is a re-make for Americans who aren't literate enough to enjoy reading the book or watching an authentic European version that might require them to read subtitles.I also do not appreciate IMBd promoting this movie, (selecting it automatically without any choice having been made, from several titles about MONTE CRISTO.
luigivampa-970-45571
Going with a generous two. If I had to pick a favourite book Dumas' Monte Cristo would most likely be it. As such I've purposely avoided watching screen adaptations of it knowing how rarely a screen adaptation does justice to a good book.As a film in it's own right it was enjoyable to watch but this barely scrapes the surface of Dumas' work.Where was Edmond's father for one? Where was the Count's well laid plans to ruin Danglars?Most of what made the book what it is is missing!
Filipe Neto
Based on the novel by Alexandre Dumas, this is the story of revenge Edmond Dantes, a man betrayed by his friends and imprisoned for a crime he did not commit. Directed by Kevin Reynolds, has a screenplay adapted by Jay Wolpert and has Jim Caviezel in the title role.This story is well known and is very good in film. Its an appealing story, with romance, good arguments for action and all that general public tends to like. Nevertheless, its not an action film, but a drama, focused on the destroyed life of a man and his thirst for revenge. The script is not brilliant, nor can we be tempted to compare it with the original book. But it does a competent job and transpose to the screen most of the major aspects of the novel, while adapting some points and bringing some new features that don't appear in the book, for dramatic purposes. In my opinion, the greatest sin of this script is the too much focus on Mondego, so that the revenge Dantés exerts on other three conspirators is hardly explained (one of Them ends up not even appear in the film).The main actors are Jim Caviezel and Guy Pearce, respectively in the role of protagonist and the main villain. Both are good investments: Pearce can be annoying with his arrogant attitude and Caviezel gives his character a certain hardness, without losing kindness and sense of justice. But this is not one of the best films of the two actors. It was shot at very attractive locations, from a visual point of view, and has good visual effects and costumes.In short: it's a good movie, which easily appeals to everyone and fulfills its role to entertain and tell a story. However, is not brilliant or particularly remarkable.
spradley-3
I wasn't expecting a lot from this movie and watched it because it had a couple of actors I really like in it. However, it is acted well and even without knowing the story, held my interest throughout. I can't think of any scenes that were poorly done. Richard Harris was good in his role as the prisoner and Jim C. was excellent. I haven't seen him in a role besides 'Person of Interest' (which I really liked and was disappointed when it ended). I had hoped he had more of an acting challenge with this film - which he did. When he changed to the 'Count of Monte Cristo', the transformation was remarkable. It was hard to believe it was the same actor. Well done all around!
AD
