El conde de Montecristo

I do not know if it is the best or the worst version of the classic novel. It is only the occasion for Louis Jourdan to propose his Edmond Dantes . And his work is more than decent against, in few moments, of the script.

Beautiful costumes and decent solutions for fair adaptation.

The spirit of "60's is obvious and this excuse part of the manner of adaptation.

But it is just a clean Count of Monte Cristo, preserving in the clothes and gestures of revenge the same Edmond . And this not very succesful metamorphosis, for me, a simple reader , far to be or become admirer of mister Dumas is just enough.

Romance and revenge. And the familiar emotion, sure, in soft style, from the reading of book.

In short, the good work of Louis Jourdan is the axis of this Count . Could be better ? Off course, if you ignore the expectations of its period.

How many versions of the famous novel are there in the world? Even the "best movie of all time "(sic) ,according to the IMDb users ,"Shawshank redemption", owes a lot to Alexandre Dumas and his count: Andy is Dantès and Red is Faria. Lewis Wallace 'said that "Ben Hur" was inspired by Edmond Dantès' fall and vengeance .And so on and on and on....

In France , the versions considered best were both Robert Vernay's (1942,black and white ,1953,,color) but it seems that it's now overshadowed by the 2024 film featuring Pierre Ninney,the unexpected blockbuster of the year.

Claude -Autant Lara 's effort was made at a time as a potboiler so that he was able to finance the works he was anxious to make ;the follow -up to his "Monte Cristo" was a taboo subject,the case of the conscientious objector ("tu ne tueras point" 1963)and he spent every last penny for a movie which scared everybody and of course was not a box office hit

So it's obvious that "le comte de Monte Cristo " is a commissioned film ;but it does not mean that it's a bad movie :it shows respect for the audience ;like Vernay's previous versions , it was divided in two "époques" (eras) , and the audience had to come back to the theater to see the whole (a three-hour French production was not profitable ;so the audience had to pay twice; the 2024 version was released as a whole of course and it's about as long as the 1961 effort)

Louis Jourdan was of course too old to portray a 22-year-old sailor ,but as the story spreads over twenty years , it's not a big problem ;Jourdan ,like Jean Marais in the fifties ,had the aristocratic look and a dash of mystery that work quite well in the second part ;the best scenes in the first part are those with Abbé Faria whose philosophy will be more important than the famous treasure ;the second part was simplified ,and sweetened as far as Mercédès's fate is concerned ;her husband's is much different from the novel ,and the part of Haydée is reduced to the minimum .

Although impersonal,for a man who was one of the greatest directors France had ever had ("douce" "le diable au corps" "la traversée de Paris" )the movie was made with care and is never dull ;it's certainly enjoyable, even for today's audience.

I watched the 1975 version with Richard Chamberlain as Edmund Dantes and Louis Jourdan as Prosecutor Villefort. In this 1961 version, Louis Jourdan portrays Edmund Dantes, and does a far superior job of it. The emotional highs and lows, the torment--in his voice and on his face--every ounce of Edmund's soul pours forth as never done by any other actor I have seen in this role. Yes, it is a French film, spoken in French, but even if you do not know much (or any) French, that is no barrier. The actors are so brilliant at imparting the emotions and actions, that the plot is evident. (I happen to know some French, so that helps when watching Mr. Jourdan's French films.) This is, in my opinion, the perfect film version of this Dumas novel.

How is it possible for the people from whom Alexandre Dumas and Edmond Dantes hailed, to make such a miserable, sad, crappy rendering of the masterpiece novel of Dumas?

I have seen several variations of this story, in several languages, but this is by far the poorest. Opulent as it is in costumes - one would expect better, though I am not so sure whether the description from the book of the ship Le Pharaon is even close to the real stuff.

The worst, however, is the twisting of the story. Changing vital parts of the story to make an intense story more action-filled can only lead to crap. Even Depardieu's version is better than this - even though that is not very good either.

In hope that someone will make an epic - that doesn't mess around with the true story. I am truly saddened.

No pun intended - actually there seems to be a longer version than the one I watched. Which was over two hours already and therefor already long - but I might have missed out on 10 or 20 minutes or something like that. I can't imagine what that would be I missed out at. I also can't imagine this being better, because it is even longer.

What I can say for certain: the set design and department really did a great job. It has "old movie flair" to it - at least that is what I reckon some would call it. Maybe there is a better name for it. But it is really good looking, especially if you like really colorful pictures (no pun intended). The acting is good too - and you may know the story, that has been filmed a lot. I have not checked if it is the most filmed story. There is also the Three Musketeers, Robin Hood and other things that have been filmed a lot. But it must be in the top 5 at least.

But even if you don't know the story, it is simple to follow to say the least. Even the version I saw felt a bit blown up and too much. There are things in here that the movie or rather the story could have done without. But it has the pace of the time and it really lets you explore many things (human nature, downfall, revenge and so forth). If that is up your alley ... the movie may be exactly your thing too.