Add a Review

  • I really didn't appreciate this film until the second viewing. Afterwards, I thought, "Wow, that was really a satisfying, great film to watch." Satisfying, of course, to see the typical good guy-gets-revenge tale but also a film which provided some beautiful scenery and photography all the way through: a real treat for the eyes and must-see on a widescreen DVD.

    I also put on the English subtitles on the second viewing in parts, which helped me understand a few things I missed on the first viewing and had made the film just a bit confusing in several parts. That was cleared up, and the rest was just enjoying the scenery and performances.

    Most fun to watch was Richard Harris as "Priest," the longtime prisoner who tutors young Jim Caviezel, the man (Edmond Dantes) unjustly imprisoned who exacts his revenge in the last hour of the movie. Yes, Harris' teaching stretched credibility as he seems to teach his pupil about everything there is know in life! Harris, too, had some of the best lines in the movie, several very profound statements. Ironic that he would be giving Caviezel - who two years later was playing Jesus in "The Passion Of The Christ" - sermons about believing in God! That's Hollywood! One film you're an atheist, the next you are God.

    For those who might think the first 30-40 minutes of this movie are a bit slow, stay with it as the action picks up once Caviezel escapes from the prison. Shortly afterward, he is aided by the other character I found most fun to watch, played by Luis Gusman, who still sounds like he's more at home in the streets of New York but, once again, you suspend belief and just go along for the ride.

    Strange how our human nature makes revenge so sweet when forgiveness is the right thing to do, but Hollywood has always capitalized on this human failing, making enjoyable films like this. To be fair, it isn't just revenge, as this film points out, it's "justice" we all like to see. In here, the two words are interchanged, depending upon ones rationalizations.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I'll come right out and say that I enjoyed this movie. The acting was well done, the action sequences brilliantly plotted and enacted and the story was well written.

    But, the director is unfortunately burdened with bringing a book to the movies that is distinctive due to its brilliant attention to detail and its phenomenal sub plots that never got lost in the main plot. The brilliance of this movie will be grossly over shadowed by the book, if one chooses to read it.

    This movie will not disappoint. It is satisfying and does not take itself too seriously. But, to understand the true brilliance of the story, the full filling ends to which Edmond Dantes' is able to exact his revenge and the depth of characters present, read the book.

    Happy Readings
  • I think I am a bit spoiled when it came to this film, as I have seen the made for TV version of this story starring Richard Chamberlain. This and Chamberlain's other Dumas tale (THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK) were made so perfectly that I can't help but immediately compare other versions to these nearly perfect films. In light of this, I am surprised that I actually liked this new version so much. While it's hard to say which film I liked better (the Chamberlain or 2002 version), it's easy to agree that they both are wonderful films. Much of the reason I liked this newer version so much is that it was a very romantic film--much more so than the other one. In addition, it was quite polished and beautiful. In fact, for once, I have nothing to really complain about, as it's a good retelling of the story.
  • "The Count of Monte Cristo" by Dumas is one of my favorite books, it keeps you on your toes the whole time, guessing what will happen next. The movie doesn't accomplish this as well. While the book is subtle with the Count's revenge, the movie screams for all to hear. "The Count of Monte Cristo, formerly Edmund Dantes is going to get revenge on his friends!!!" They left out 3 main characters, and DRASTICALLY changed the ending, they had to, the end involves those 3 characters they left out. But I did like the movie and if you enjoy it too I encourage you to read the book!
  • I hired this one on a whim, remembering that i had seen the trailer and had been vaguely intrigued. I have to admit, having gone in with little expectation, i was flawed! This was one of the better movies that i have seen in a long time. Jim Caviezel's performance is slightly whiny to begin with, but in the context of the whole story, the reason therefore is appreciated and makes his transition and growth as a character that much more riveting to watch. I absolutely loved him as Edmund Dantes then the dynamic Count of Monte Cristo and cannot have imagined a better choice. He was definitely not bad on the eyes either. Every scene had him looking more dashing and more handsome than the one before.

    Guy Pierce surprised me with a performance that was totally believable. His dry humour only made him more appealing, very well acted.

    The entire epic, though long, never gives you the impression that you have been sitting still for ages. It moves along swiftly and always had me gripped, from the action, suspense, and even to the humour that was evident from time to time. The love story surprised me most of all. Instead of taking on a highly sexual slant, as all these new films do, it was understated, the female lead doing an admirable job of portraying the wounded lover, who has always longed for her Edmund. I loved the innocence that she managed to bring to the role, a really terrific actress and a really beautiful one as well.

    Wonderfully scripted, exceptionally carried out! This has to be the best adaptation yet!

    An emphatic 10!
  • The Count of Monte Cristo is such an under-rated gem. Great performances, exciting story, and a fun wit, this film has everything that was terrific in Dumas' original novel and then twists it all up to adapt perfectly to the screen but doesn't stray to far.

    But is perfectly to strong a word? Of course not. Monte Cristo boasts the talent of both Guy Pearce and Jim Caviezal as former friends who have turned against each other in the epic-set Napoleanic French era. As Caviezal grows more throughout the film, Pearce becomes more and more a monster basking in his own greed.

    The late Richard Harris is very bold in one of his final performances and Luis Guzman is perfect as Monte Cristos right-hand man.

    See this film and reccomend it. It truly deserves better than what audiences gave it last year.
  • One of the most famous revenge stories, The Count of Monte Cristo is here turned into a dashing, old-fashioned swashbuckler. The plot is riddled with unconvincing coincidences and occurences (as indeed was the book), but other than that this is a well-made, enjoyable film, with some literate dialogue and believable action sequences. It is the fact that the action is believable that makes the film memorable, because in too many 2002 releases the action was so overblown and unrealistic (not to mention physically impossible) that the credibility of such films was destroyed.

    Edmond Dantes (Caviezel) is a honest young sailor working out of 19th Century Marseilles. His best friend Fernan (Pearce) secretly craves the hand of Dantes's fiancee Mercedes (Dominczyk), so he informs to the authorities that Dantes is a conspirator plotting to aid in Napoleon's escape from Elba. Dantes is sent to a terrible, inescapable island prison, while Fernan takes Mercedes to be his wife. After many years of hardship, Dantes makes an audacious escape and, having acquired a fortune by solving a cryptic treasure map, slowly plots his revenge under the new identity of the "Count of Monte Cristo".

    Caviezel was a relative newcomer when he did this film, but he really catches the eye as the innocent man driven to despair by his terrible and unjustified punishment. Pearce is good too, perfecting his arrogant sneer as the deplorable Fernan. The prison scenes are well shot, with the hopelessness and horror of the place captured in considerably believable detail. It's quite surprising that The Count of Monte Cristo was a relative disappointment at the box office, since its dramatic storyline, and the themes of revenge, betrayal and loss, are usually guaranteed crowd-pullers. This film deserves to be seen by more people, and the more people that see it the more its reputation will surely grow.
  • It's 1815. Edmond Dantès (Jim Caviezel) tries to save his captain and seeks help on the isle of Elba. The imprisoned Napoleon Bonaparte exchanges his help with a letter secret delivery. The captain dies nevertheless. Dantès returns and gets promoted to captain. He proposes to Mercedès Iguanada (Dagmara Dominczyk). Dantès' competitive jealous best friend Fernand Mondego (Guy Pearce) gets him arrested. Chief magistrate J.F. Villefort (James Frain) covers up his father's part in Napoleon's escape plan by sending Dantès to prison. Armand Dorleac (Michael Wincott) is the sadistic warden of the island prison of Château d'If. Dantès befriends prisoner Abbé Faria (Richard Harris) who educates the illiterate Dantès. Faria was in Napoleon's army who refuses to reveal the location of Count Spada's fortune. When Napoleon escapes, Villefort schemes with Mondego to keep Dantès in prison and lie to Mercedès about his execution. Faria is killed in a cave-in. Dantès escapes. He spares Jacopo (Luis Guzmán)'s life who pledges his eternal loyalty to him. They set off to find the hidden treasure and seek revenge on all who have wronged him. He schemes to bankrupt Mondego and befriend Albert (Henry Cavill) the son of Mondego and Mercedès.

    It's a traditional literary adventure ripped from the golden age of Hollywood. Some may dismiss its earnest swashbuckling ways. It is melodramatic goodness. It is just so well made with a solid cast. They may not be A-list at the time but they're A-list in talent. Jim Caviezel and Guy Pearce are terrific. They have an amazing final sword fight that is both emotional and compelling. Richard Harris comes in like a call back to another era. James Frain is a great villain and it's fun to see a young Henry Cavill.
  • I agree that the movie doesn't have to be the same as the book. But I have read the book and I know that the story can be better than what's portrayed here in this film. So that's why I give 6-6.5. If I didn't know the original plot, my rate would be higher. The main things that I didn't like were the revenge part (awfully lazy made) and the end (kinda Disney-cheesy). For me, the actual storyline is was more enjoyable and entertaining.
  • Seeing an advance Screening of 'The Count of Monte Cristo', and having only seen one advertising TV spot before hand, I really did not know what I was going into this time. I vaguely recalled it being an Alexander Dumas book, and former film/TV versions featuring rather depressing prison scenes with men tunneling to the freedom of the Sea. Indeed, despite its wonderful locations and details, once the afore-mentioned prison scenes of this version presented themselves I was set to be depressed again and wondered where the story was going. And then several wonderful things happened; A whole new group of characters were introduced to our rather whiney protagonist - some good, some very bad. And by the time said Protagonist had escaped the Prison, he too had become wonderfully evoked and dynamic, and I wanted to see him get everything he wanted and deserved: REVENGE. From then on this film was a barrage of wonderful scripting (the adaption being perfect in its pacing and wit), characters, acting, events, costumes, action, suspense and romance. The audience laughed with genuine awe as each new moment or detail was revealed to us in the plans of the main character's (played perfectly, from his innocent beginnings to his scheming later years)steps towards that end. This movie was amazing, with very cool performances from Guy Pearce and the rest of the supporting cast, each figure getting his or her share of good lines. The tale of vengeance is well-balanced with tales of friendship, questing and plotting, and romance, and all of the implications each relationship holds, be it good or bad. At times the theater openly applauded twists or returning characters. It is perfectly timed and written, with powerful moments and style, and I would recommend it to ANYONE.
  • This is a wonderful screen adaptation of Alexandre Dumas' classic novel "The Count of Monte Cristo".

    James Caviezel's (the Count) transformation from uneducated shiphand to the super-sophisticate-man-of-the-world (and he's quite 'well off', too) Count of Monte Cristo is just great!

    Richard Harris plays the part of d'If mentor, Abbe Faria. What more could be said for Harris. All theater will be a lesser place without him.

    Guy Pearce (Count of Morcerf) and James Frain (Chief Magistrate) play the 'heavys', the evil conspirators who thought they had sent Dantes to a dismal end.

    And 'molto bravo' to the entire cast, director Kevin Reynolds and screen play writer Jay Wolpert, for bringing to the screen one of the great classics of literature; a story of life, love, hate, hope, despair, revenge, good and evil, and a lesson for all!
  • One of the most underrated movies..

    I can watch and re-watch millions of times without getting bored..

    A non-stoppable excitement for the sequential events.. Adventure.. Life changing.. Drama.. Action.. Medieval.. Intelligence.. Love story.. Thriller.. Revenge.. and everything else you'd love to see in a single movie..

    Perfect cast and performance.. soundtracks are well-picked for each scene.. I have no negative feedback on this movie.. I think it's worth the excellence.. I rated it 10/10.

    It's always been in ahead of my list of favorites..

    I wish people re-consider watching this again and give it the real deserved rating..
  • "The Count of Monte Cristo" is an incredible novel. In 1,000 pages the reader is introduced to a man who is wrongly condemned, and proceeds to show the way he excruciatingly manages to get his revenge on every one of those who destroyed the wonderful life he was all set to live. It's a slow moving story and is supposed to be - highlighting the slow and deliberate process he puts his enemies through to make them suffer as much as possible. Alexander Dumas was a brilliant writer and the novel is, in my opinion, a stronger one in terms of plot than his more well-known "The Three Musketeers" which is faster-paced.

    The film, on the other hand, does not do Dumas justice, and obviously, some of this is expected. The book is so lengthy that it is impossible to condense it into a two-hour movie without leaving out certain details of the man's revenge. This in turn makes the revenge a more cut and dried job on the part of Edmond Dantes than a slow and deliberate trap he works upon his enemies. As stated before, this is understandable but not necessarily excusable - if necessary, another hour of film could have been added on just to make the story play out in greater detail. What we have is good, and there is plenty of great action to be seen all around, including some great and realistic sword fighting not seen in the book (if I remember correctly), but all the same, Dumas's novel seems to provide a much more focused version of the tale than any movie could ever do (unless the movie ran more like five hours).

    The main complaint I have, other than the fact the story is extremely condensed, is that throughout the entire movie the audience is entirely aware of who the Count of Monte Cristo is. In the novel, it's left up to the reader to figure out he is Edmond Dantes, and there is a certain ambiguity to who this foreigner who has such large amounts of money truly is. It's this ambiguity that makes the book so interesting, whereas in the movie it's obvious what is going on, there's no shift at all whatsoever and in doing so the film robs the audience of one of the most engaging aspects of the story.

    All this, of course, does not take away from the incredible photography, action, etc. That this movie provides. Technically, it is a very well made film that most audiences would have no problem with, assuming they hadn't already read the book. It is because of this that I would suggest that if one absolutely wants to see this, they skip the book until after having seen it. This will allow an appreciation of the movie at a level I myself will probably never achieve due to having already ruined it for myself by having read the book. Then, after having seen the movie, reading the book will help one appreciate the story better without starting to have prejudice for what is mostly a good film. I wouldn't normally recommend doing this, but in this case it's practically unavoidable due to how different the two of them are. As it is, "The Count of Monte Cristo" is a pretty decent film that is mostly imperfect when one looks at it from a perspective of already having read the novel ahead of time.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This has to be one of the worst book adaptations I have ever seen. I've read the book about 5 years before I watched the movie and I must say that the book is FANTASTIC, compared to this hogwash. Although I forgot most of the characters' names and parts of the plot, I still recognized a crappy scaled down movie. It's simplified in the usual American style. I apologize to the literate part of Americans who have read the novel which is probably the most popular adventure novel in history.

    The plot doesn't even match the book. The only true part of the movie is the prison If sequence, and that's also changed, even though that part of the novel piles up to maybe 100 pages! I possibly exaggerated, but since the whole novel is 1000-1300 (depends on the publisher) that's almost a tiny part of the novel, and they had the nerve not get it right! The other aspects of this novel-to-movie adaptation gone horribly wrong are as follows. Most important characters are either gone or changed altogether. Benedetto, Caderousse, Bertuccio, Haydée, Ali, Baptistin are all missing from the movie, with many more to follow. 99% of the script doesn't have anything to do with the plot of the book. Even the fates of Mondego, Danglars and Villefort have been altered. Mondego doesn't commit suicide, Villefort doesn't go to a mental asylum and, most importantly, Danglars isn't forgiven by Dantes.

    I recommend the mini-series with Gerard Depardieu but it also has changes, but not so much as this brain dead movie. The only complaint about the series, as well as the movie, is the change in the end of the story. Originally Dantes continues his life with Haydee NOT with Mercedes as is depicted in every adaptation.

    All in all, this is a very f#$#*ed up movie. Don't watch it! READ THE BOOK!
  • You've just rented or bought "The Count of Monte Cristo" and enjoyed it. But guess what? It gets better! If you hadn't noticed yet (hopefully you have), this movie is based off of a famous book by Alexandre Dumas. My interest in this movie was sparked because I actually read the book beforehand. I never even knew there was a film version of it until I mentioned my love for the book to a friend who informed me of the recently released movie that she too liked. I did in fact enjoy the movie, but it disappointed me slightly. The book is very much different from the movie. The plot and list of characters were simplified to (in my opinion) make the movie easier to understand and to keep it from being 3+ hours long. If you liked the plot twists and interesting characters in this movie, I must insist you try reading the book. Sure, it's very long and intricate, but if you keep on your toes and keep all of the details in check, you will absolutely love it! You will meet other characters who play a role in Dantes' downfall and a sweet love story (involving characters that do not even exist in the movie!) will unfold. Dantes will take on other roles not seen in the movie. It is truly an incredible piece of work written so many years ago by Alexandre Dumas. Again I say, the movie was indeed good, but the book is better. Please try it!
  • The Count of Monte Cristo was a film my girlfriend recommended to me, and to be honest, I wasn't looking forward to it. Seeing that it was a recent film and was not well known by my friends or colleagues, I was skeptical. After the first 10 minutes, I was hooked. I've never read the book, but I can see why it is such an important piece of literature. The story was riveting and had me at full attention all the way through. This movie was a bit more "Hollywood" then I usually like, but it moved at a fast pace so that even a simpleton would enjoy. After seeing this film I am adding this to my books I need to read before I die. Anyone who's looking for a good evening movie, this is it. The film isn't amazing directed, but the story is so strong it keeps you on the edge of your seat.

    Rating = B+

    • VideoGameHollywood.com
  • =G=11 September 2002
    "The Count of Monte Cristo" (2002), a contempo back-to-basics treatment of the famous Dumas novel for new generations, spins its tale of passion and revenge with all the glory and melodrama of Hollywood's golden years. Full of lavish costuming, sumptuous sets, beautiful locations, dashing men, a gorgeous damsel, dank dungeons, the ever popular swashbuckling (whatever that is) etc., all supported with a classic story makes for 2+ hours of solid entertainment. Who could ask for more? Kick back and enjoy this fun adventure flick worth a trip to the video store. (A-)
  • I wasn't the only one in the audience who never read "The Count of Monte Cristo," or saw the zillion other versions, so I had no idea what would happen.

    Along with everybody else I booed the bad guy, cheered the hero, sympathized with the romance, was warmed by the side kick's loyalty and gasped at the feats and coincidences. Ah, they do make movies like this anymore!

    This is my son's favorite book and my family was bound to see the movie so we could discuss it. (He discovered the book through reference to the author "Dumb-Ass" in "The Shawshank Redemption" that he watches every time it's on cable, which is about once a month, and has since been reading all of the Dumas books. I taped all of the French mini-series off cable, but of course didn't watch it, but he went through my piles of video tapes over school vacation and found and watched the whole thing. Then he complained bitterly that the 8 hours, with commercials, didn't begin to do the book justice so sneered at the previews for this new 2 hour version.)

    Jim Caviezel is simply marvelous, from naif to hairy prisoner to revengeful knight. But Guy Pearce was simply directed wrong to be supercilious. Usually actors tear up the scenery being a villain, so love doing it, but Pearce takes the foppish route instead of the Alan Rickman model, more's the pity.

    Richard Harris puts in another canny mentor role.

    The audience immediately recognized Luis Guzman, who usually plays Puerto Rican drug dealers, and got a big kick out of his amusing Sancho Panza, with his and other modern language asides put in for fun.

    The stunts and effects were effective and believable, while the music was unexpectedly unobtrusive.

    And now I do want to read the book - well, some day.

    (originally written 1/20/2002))
  • Alexander Dumas wrote this inspiring story in 1844 and has since become a mainstay of classical literature, stage plays and films. The story as he penned it, tells the tale of a young and naive sailor named Edmond Dantes (James Caviezel) living during the Nepolonic era. His fortunes are set. He is to be the new ship's Captain, marry his betrothed Mercedes (Dagmara Dominczyk) and live a good and long life. However greedy, envious and jealous men Lt. Fernand Mondego, (Guy Pearce) James Frain as Prosecuter Villefort and Danglars (Albie Woodington) betray him and further conspire to have him arrested and imprisoned. Suffering years of lonely despair in the Château D'if, he is befriended by another prisoner an Italian priest named Abbe Faria (Richard Harris). The kindly old man educates Edmond in return for companionship. Upon the old man's death, Edmond is bequeathed a fabulous treasure map. With his good friend Jacopo (played adroitly by Luis Guzmán) he prepares to return from the grave and exact revenge. This movie is definitely more exciting than most and despite it's having dark dramatic scenes which promises more than is delivered, the result becomes an excellent companion to the original Dumas novel. ****
  • i thought the movie was great until the point when Edmond (Caviezel) stops planning his revenge and puts his planning into action. Then the movie becomes quite boring and looses its suspense.

    It was great watching how Edmond grew from an innocent man who knew nothing of why he was arrested to this determined and powerful count in search of revenge, especially since Caviezel plays his role so well. But after that the fun is simply over, the rest is only good acting with a story you can see in any other movie.

    Even though Caviezel played his role really good it was Guy Pearce who stood for the best acting, from beginning to end he was able to have you both hate him and love him at the same time witch is very rare. Another person who played his role very convincing was Michael Wincott who played the Warden of d'If.

    I give it 7/10 for good acting and a great book turned into an average movie
  • baumer9 February 2002
    It's kind of strange, my wife and I just recently rented Rob Roy. I remember hearing that it was quite good when it was released in the 90's. And although I can't say it was a bad film, I can't really say it was all that satisfying. It had it's moments but it is not one that will linger with any real distinction in my mind. Usually films in that time frame intrigue me and it was a little disappointing to see such an average film with a pretty good cast. On the other end of the rainbow, you have this film. Now even though this is not exactly the same time frame, it is that "type of film". You know, old England, old France, old whatever. It is pre-1900's. I put all kinds of films into this category. Anything from Braveheart to Man In The Iron Mask to Quills all falls neatly into this type of category. Just like you would say anything from Nosferatu to Nightmare On Elm Street is horror, anything pre-1900 is in this "type of film" category.

    The Count of Monte Cristo is in one word, AMAZING. There are two reasons I wanted to see this film. One is the trailer had me completely intrigued and the second is because I really enjoyed the book and the film version of "Sleepers". That was the Robert Deniro, Kevin Bacon, Brad Pitt, Dustin Hoffman and Barry Levinson film where several youths are sent to a boys prison for an innocent enough mistake that cost someone their life. In the film the boys are tormented by Kevin Bacon and his entourage of prison guards and one of the things that keeps them going is the book, The Count of Monte Cristo. When one of the boys is first given the book, he looks at the authors name and says, " by Alexander Dumb Ass?" and his friend replies, "that's Doomaa, read it, it's about a guy that escapes from prison and takes revenge on the ones that hurt him." That is not the line verbatim, but you get the point. Ever since seeing this film I have wanted to read the book. Never getting the opportunity to do so, when the film was advertised, I was, needless to say, excited.

    The Count of Monte Cristo is the ultimate tale of revenge. It is a story that has stood the test of time because it is probably everyone's fantasy to right the unjust wrongs that have been comitted against them. And oh what fun it is to imagine yourself finding a buried treasure and then making yourself a king or a count? To have everything usurped from you only to take it all back twenty fold is not only intriguing, it is absolutely diabolical and gives you a sense of power. Perhaps that is why the story transcends generations and time frames. Because it is a story and a concept that we can all relate to, perhaps not out of experience but because we have all dreamed about it. A simple man makes a decent living, is thrown into prison for a crime he didn't commit and then escapes and finds some hidden treasure and becomes the richest man in the world and extracts revenge. How can that not sound intriguing?

    This present version of Monte Cristo is masterfully made. Kevin Reynolds, of Waterworld and Robin Hood fame, was given the director's chair and he doesn't disappoint. There is enough action in here for all of us looking the for next great swashbuckling adventure and there is also a trace of romance and even some humour.

    Jim Caviezel plays Edmund Dantes and Guy Pearce plays Fernand Mondego. Together, these two shine. I wasn't a big fan of Caviezel's work thus far. I thought he was alright in Thin Red Line and Angel Eyes but his work in Pay It Forward as the homeless junkie really turned me off of him. In Frequency he was quite good but that was the only film I could really recommend him in. But I think that has all changed now that he has made this film. He is perfect as the average peasant that works to achieve his goals and eventually as the man who has learned from the fountain of knowledge and takes his revenge. Guy Peace, on the other hand is not even recognizable in his role as the insanely jealous best friend. When you look at his last film, Memento and then see him here, you won't even realize this is the same actor. He comes across as a jealous, scheming, whining son of a wealthy man that has been given everything to him on a silver platter. One of the best lines in the film describing his acerbic disposition in life is when Mercedes ( the love interest in the film ) tells Fernando that when he was a little boy, he was upset when he got a pony and Edmund got a whistle because that whistle made Edmund happier that when Fernando had his pony. He is perpetually unhappy and I'm not really sure what could give him any sort of concord. He reminds me a little of the Tombstone character Johnny Ringo. Doc Holliday once described him a man who wanted revenge for being born. Perhaps Ringo and Fernand are distant cousins.

    A sure sign that you are enjoying a film is when you laugh at what is not even funny. You are enjoying yourself to the point that you are anticipating with such joy at what is about to happen. You know that sometime in the film Edmund is going to escape the prison that he is in and that he is going to find Richard Harris' treasure and extract revenge on the monsters that put him in prison. But all the while you can't keep that goofy grin on your face. There wasn't one moment in this film when I wasn't having a great time. And that is not easy to do. I think at times it is simple to become a cynic when you see as many movies as we all do. I perhaps see a little more than the next person, so when so many films begin to tread down that familiar path that it usually does, the perpetual groans become standard occurences. But this film kept me laughing, entertained and anxious to see the outcome. I love this film. This is on par with some of the greats like Raiders of the Lost Ark, Empire Strikes Back, Predator, Lethal Weapon and a few others that never stops the action. There is nothing to dislike about it and there is every reason to recommend it.

    2001 was one of the weaker years that I can recall for the film industry. There were very few pictures that I really honestly enjoyed. There were so many films that will take the infamous ephemeral dive. Five years from now, ask anyone what the best picture of 2001 was and not many people will recall with reverance what films came out in 2001. But here we are in the second month of 2002 and I have already seen two films that blew me away. Mothman Prophecies and The Count of Monte Cristo are two films that I am proud to recommend to many of my friends. I am sure I have made Mothman an extra couple thousand dollars because of my recommending it. I hope I can do the same for The Count. These are two films that people should not miss. But seeing as this is a review for The Count, let's just end it by saying, I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!

    9.5 out of 10 Just see this movie.
  • This faithful filmization concerns the notorious starring named Edmond Dantes (well featured by James Cazievel) who's betrayed by his friends , the count Montego (Guy Pearce who was originally offered the lead role of Edmond) and others , as the astute chief magistrate (James Frain). He's framed as sender of Napoleon's letters who's jailed in island of Elba . Then , he's punished to life imprison in island of If where he finds a lot of suffering . Dantes is imprisoned on the island prison of Château d'If for 18 years, where he plots revenge against those who betrayed him . While imprisoned, he meets the Abbe Faria (Richard Harris), a fellow prisoner whom everyone believes to be mad. The Abbe tells Edmond of a fantastic treasure hidden away on a tiny island, that only he knows the location of. Edmond spends years unjustly at the Château-prison but he escapes and gets the treasure of Montecristo .He proceeds to transform himself into the wealthy Count of Monte Cristo as part of his plan to carry out a relentless vendetta against his enemies . The revenge is ready against the nasty traitors who accused him.

    This is a fine and enjoyable but overlong remake of the Alexander Dumas tale by the same name . In the film there are adventures , action , a love story , derring-do and results to be pretty amusing . Agreeable and attractive rendition based on the famous novel with emotional highs and lows , in which Edmond Dantes is unjustly sent to prison for several years , and with the help another prisoner he escapes to reclaim his fiancée Mercedes and to exact his merciless revenge . Although movie runtime is two hours and some and is neither tiring , nor boring but entertaining . James Cazievel's interpretation is first-rate as his subsequent acting in ¨The Passion of the Christ¨by Mel Gibson . He leads a magnificent cast in this rousing classic . Guy Pearce plays correctly the evil villain Montego and Dagmara Domincyk is wonderful as the fiancée , though she is only seven years older than Henry Cavill who plays her son. Riveting Richard Harris in a brief appearance , he gives a phenomenal acting in his last film as an old inmate in the terrible island of If . It packs a brilliant and glimmering cinematography by cameraman Andrew Dunn . As well as emotive and evocative musical score by Ed Shearmur . This superb motion picture was well directed by Kevin Reynolds (Fandango , Waterworld , Robin Hood ). The flick will appeal to adventure buffs and emotion lovers . Rating : 7/10 . Good , better than average . Well worth watching .

    Other adaptations about this known novel are the following ones : ¨Count of Montecristo¨ by Rowland V. Lee with Robert Donat , Louisa Landi , Louis Calhern ; ¨El conde de Montecristo" (1953) by Leon Klimomovsky with Jorge Mistral ; ¨Le Comte De Monte Cristo ¨(1961) by Claude Aunt Lara with Louis Jourdan ; TV retelling ¨Count of Montecristo¨by David Greene with Richard Chamberlain , Donald Pleasence , Tony Curtis ; ¨Le Comte De Monte-Cristo" series (1979) with Jacques Wever , ¨The Count of Monte Cristo¨ (1992) and the best TV mini-series ¨The count of Montecristo¨(1998) by Josee Dayan with Gerard Depardieau , Jean Rochefort , Pierre Arditi , Ornella Muti and Michael Aumont .
  • rbverhoef9 January 2003
    Warning: Spoilers
    The Count of Monte Cristo. It is a famous story written by Alexandre Dumas, even better known from The Three Musketeers. This 2002 adaptation of Le Comte de Monte Cristo is a good one.

    The story is about two friends. One of the friends betrays the other and that one is send to a prison on Chateau D'If. He escapes after 13 years, with the help of an older man. I will not tell you the details but this part in prison is a great part. The man tells him where he can find a lot of gold. After he has escaped he wants revenge on all of them who betrayed him. With the gold he finds he becomes the Count of Monte Cristo and his plan can begin. Basically this is the story, with some sub-plots involving Napoleon, some kind of pirates, a magistrate and his father, a new friend and a girl who once was the fiancé of the count, and now is the wife of his former best friend.

    Everything looked pretty good. The costumes, the setting, everything. Th actors were all terrific. Jim Caviezel as the count, Guy Pearce as his betrayer and especially Richard Harris as the older man in prison. We see the sheriff of Nottingham from Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves in a same kind of role he has there, perfect for him, and Luis Guzmán as the new friend. They all do a great job together with director Kevin Reynolds (also Robin Hood) and the rest of the crew. 9/10.
  • Before I get into the review, may I just say, "Read the book!" It is phenomenal! I could not put it down and I now own it. That said, I must say that the first time I saw the film version starring Jim Cavaziel and Guy Pearce, I was terribly disappointed. Not that the performances were bad, but it was quite unlike the book and I, unfortunately a purist, had major issues with all the divergences from the original plot. I have no desire to spoil the movie for anyone, so if you would like to see what I mean, please read the book. I went away from the movie quite upset, but I have seen it a few times since then and I have to say that, though it is no match for the book, it does stand quite well on its own. If one were to go into the movie knowing nothing of the story, it would be quite enjoyable. The performances by Cavaziel, as the vengeful Count, and Pearce, as the villainous Fernando, are without equal. Cavaziel smolders with pent-up rage and Pearce slithers his way through every scene like the snake his character is. Wonderful! To be honest, I do have to say that the woman playing Mercedes was not convincing, nor was the actor who played her son, Albert, but in the face of the other great performances, this is not really a big issue. It is unfortunate that the leading lady felt her character needed to be a weak, sighing woman, which in the book she is decidedly not, but I choose to forgive this because really, the rest of the movie is fantastic. Every human emotion is captured in this picture, from rage to disappointment, love to hate. I would recommend this movie, though with the proviso that if you have read the book, don't expect the movie to overly faithful. In fact, you may want to watch a few times so you can fully appreciate the differences!
  • I cannot understand why this film got high score. I guess that around 97% of the people that have rated it, did not read the actual book. To those that did though, this film is one of the worst slaughters of a good story. I understand that in adapting a story to the screen, there is a need of shortening it here and editing it there, but this film version is so far from the origin that it becomes a total different story. I'm asking you, why to take a perfect interesting book (that since it was published in 1844) become a bestseller in so many countries and in so many languages) and to change it to a cheap romantic novel? Some would say that it is done so, because of the audience demand, but I say that such demand comes because Hollywood prefer to create bad movies with the commercial attraction to the less intelligent crowd. To any one that had read the unabridged Dumas' The Count of Monte Cristo and enjoyed it, this film is nothing but a terrible why of spending over 90 minutes.
An error has occured. Please try again.