Edmond Dantés's life and plans to marry the beautiful Mercedes are shattered when his best friend, Fernand, deceives him. After spending 13 miserable years in prison, Dantés escapes with the help of a fellow inmate and plots his revenge, cleverly insinuating himself into the French nobility.
If you don't like this, we can't be friends.
The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.
Mathilde the Guild
Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.
It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,
For a classical period, excellent adventure/action story with also excellent acting*, well worth your time. All the characters, which include Guy Pearce who is a fine all around actor, are top notch in their roles. Photography, locations, (Malta/Ireland) and a story you want to know is based from Alexander Dumas's book of the 1800's, remember this is a great entertainment. Remember that the movie puts you exactly early 1800's and not a Hollywood flick. The single drawback is the lead female character, "Mercedes" of which the attempted actress Dagmara ..... just drives you up the wall with her wispering, mouth full of marbles, what she thinks is projecting dialogue is impossible. You have to get the volume way up to try to understand her. How they avoided dubbing in any good actress's voice onto her's is a mystery. Otherwise, you will be entertained of the first order. Personally, I wanted to see it again to get a lot more out of the movie.
Can you seriously not understand the difference between the two mediums of art? Books are read and movies are watched. Of course this movie isn't anything like the book. But Kevin Reynolds does a great job of pacing this movie and making it beautiful for viewing which is the point of movies. Guy Pearce gives an outstanding performance as mondego. He's slimy ( the character) not the actor. Please stop criticizing this nice movie from the standpoint of "it's not like the book" be a book critic
This film begins with the words "Alexandre Dumas' The Count of Monte Cristo" appearing from the black. This could not have been a more false statement. Jay Wolpert (the writer of the movie's screenplay) took this classic novel to the chopping block from the beginning, hacking the masterpiece to pieces, throwing two thirds of it away, and then attempting to rearrange the leftovers and make something better. The plot was changed at every turn, trading Dumas' magnum opus for some trashy paperback complete with shallow affairs, "whore" name calling and a stupidly sadistic jail keeper. The characters, their backstories, and their relationships to one another were butchered for no improvement, gain, or benefit whatsoever. This movie reduced a complex fascinating story of genius to simple uninteresting child's play. The writing of this slap-in-the-face "adaption" was its main flaw and ultimate ruin. It's not even worth the time to go into the film's other faults(which are numerous). The movie itself isn't worth anyone's time in watching it either.
I consider Alexandre Dumas' original novel to be probably the best adventure story I've ever read and would recommend everyone to immerse themselves in it as I did. However it was some years ago that I did so and as it recedes from my memory, I can't recall in detail the incidents from the book as they correlate to this film dramatisation by Kevin Reynolds, late of Kevin Costner's career-torpedoing "Waterworld", so that I can't take the point of view of some of the reviewers here about disparities with the source.For me then it was just a case of just sitting back, identifying enough with the main characters and following again the twists and turns of the story but not slavishly carping with any major deviations from Dumas' written word. It would be impossible anyway to condense such a massive tome into a two hour movie (watch the worthy French language six-part version starring Gerard Depardieu for that), so I just let myself be royally entertained with this sumptuously filmed, sharply written and well acted tale of jealousy, comradeship, enduring love but most of all, of course, revenge.The costumes and sets are a sight for sore eyes as are the well-chosen actual locations, particularly for the climactic scene at the ruined cloisters plus I liked the way film flagged its plotting intentions in planting in advance the little motifs by which Dantes will ensnare all his future prey, carefully dotting the i's and crossing the t's as he lures them to their deserved fates. All the leads perform well, Jim Caviezel mysterious but twisted as the too-trusting innocent taken in by best-friend Colin Farrell's covetous, asinine Mendango, Dagmara Dominczyk exotic but vulnerable as the woman they both love but who ultimately never wavers in her true devotion and Richard Harris in an effective cameo as the old priest who initially supplies the means by which Dantes can embark on his grand plan of payback but who also plants the seed for his moral redemption by the film's close.I almost couldn't believe that this was the same director who helmed Costner's expensive folly. Here Reynolds' direction flows excellently, always at the service of the story, nicely mixing up the action and suspense and while detractors might demur at the liberties taken with the text, I think the film still managed to purvey the underlying themes of the book and most importantly, entertained and thrilled this viewer at the same time.