Le Comte de Monte-Cristo

So I have actually read the book, the real book(s), and not the watered down version you find in the book store. That story is compelling, charcter driven, intricate and the details tell how it all comes together. This while a totally ok movie has nothing of that besides the outlines of the main plotlines. There isnt the good besides the bad, there isnt the ambivalent ending and there isnt the base of it all, the relationship between the Abbé and Edmond who basically becomes a son. Also missing is the back story from the escape to Edmonds arrival in Paris that makes the whole revenge plot believable in the first place. I also cant help but miss the old Mr Villefort whose story while peripher is so central to who Edmond really is as a person. So want to see a french drama during the 19th century that is pretty ok with some good actors, go ahead. Want to immerse yourself in the real story of the Count of Monte Christo? Find and Antiquarian because that is the only place you find this masterpiece.

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...

Usually not a fan of action movies, the wonderful cast as well as the choice of a classic of French literature convinced me to go watch LE COMTE DE MONTE CRISTO. And man I wasn't disappointed !

Despite its three-hour runtime, the movie never bores. When it doesn't keep us on our toes, it shows us eye-popping scenes of 19th century France, leaving us wondering how they made that with only 40M euros ! I guess the beautiful cinematography and clever editing have a role to play in making this movie stand out from much costlier Hollywood productions.

Of course much of the credit also goes to Alexandre Dumas for coming up with such a poignant story, but adapting it for the screen sure wasn't an easy task either, and it was done marvelously here.

I sincerely hope this movie will have a career outside of France, as more people deserve to see this.

Merci Alexandre, merci Matthieu :)

I will not deny it, I think the film is really beautiful : production design, costumes, props... and of course lighting (congrats M. Bolduc) and many other details helped make it a wonderful experience for the eyes, in my opinion.

Now with a plot so huge as with Dumas', so many characters, theads, sub-stories and such, the authors had to cut things, adapt, re-write... betray, as is often necessary or critical with any adaptation!

That's a given.

But why dishonor the original author's choices (Dumas')?

Why betray the lessons he wanted to impart : Monte Cristo's moral dilemma, his good nature overall, his help to so many, and unrivaled loyalty to anyone who had been good to him or deserved it in any way ?

Why change Haydée's love for him for a silly romance?

Even Mercedes' understanding of Monte Cristo's actions and why she can't be saved, and why Albert has to follow her are admirable, in the book...

And what are we left with, here?

Pure show?

I can assure you it's not what remains, when you read it.

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.