Count of Monte Cristo

[Ell]

Well, I just saw this on video last night. All I can say is that I'm glad I didn't see it while it was still in theatres.

It wasn't a "bad" movie, just not the same story as the book!

My beef: The characters were changed, they added things that never happened in the book, and left out (what I consider) significant parts of the story.

Basically, they tried to make it into a swashbuckler, action movie. My son, who hasn't read the book, found it quite entertaining.

My problem was that I kept thinking, "that wasn't in the book"! After "Lord of the Rings" maybe my expectations are too high that a good movie can be made of a classic and still remain true to the story.

Has anyone else seen the movie? Your thoughts?

Maybe I'm just being too critical and I should just enjoy the ride.

Ell

 

[lies]

I've never read the book, but I did see the movie and the series (with Gerard Depardieu). I liked the series better than the movie, though I didn't think the movie was that bad... just not "good". But I guess I would feel differently about it if I'd read the book. (which I'm planning on doing btw)

 

[Ell]

Maybe I should try the miniseries version. I like Gerard Depardieu. Or maybe I'm just setting myself up for more disappointment?

I agree, the movie wasn't that bad, I was just disappointed in the way they changed the relationship between Fernand and Edmund - among other things.

I watched the interview on the DVD with the screenwriter and he was rationalizing that he just wanted to get the 'essence' of the story rather than the entire story right - - that he was trying the get the "revenge" aspect right. He got that, but not as effectively as in the book.

Ell

 

[lies]

If I recall correctly, I think I rather liked the 1998 version with Depardieu. I know I had some trouble with the French, but other than that it was OK. Then again, I'm not sure if it was "true" to the original story or not.

I looked on IMDb, and quite a few adaptations of it have been made over the years.

If you're interested:

In French:
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0220212 (1979)
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0204207 (1943)
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0054761 (1961)
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0046866 (1955)

In English:
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0072824 (1975)
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0025004 (1934)

Surely there must be an adaptation worth watching?

 

[Ell]

Lies, thanks for all the links.

Alas, after reading the various reader comments on IMdb, I've come to the conclusion that I'll never be happy with any of them

On the other hand, the 1975 TV adaptation with Richard Chamberlain and Tony Curtis looks like it might be at least campy fun!

Ell

 

[lies]

Originally posted by lies
Surely there must be an adaptation worth watching?

Originally posted by Ell
Alas, after reading the various reader comments on IMdb, I've come to the conclusion that I'll never be happy with any of them

Apparently it is possible. A possible solution to this problem is of course to make your own movie. And then we all get to go to the premiere?

 

[lies]

I did it! I finally started reading the book... I'm finding it a bit hard-going cause my French's a bit rusty (plus I don't know all the ship-related terms), but I really want to read it. My sister can't stop telling me what a great author Alexandre Dumas père is, so I have to do something to shut her up, right?

Besides, I'm hoping the going will get easier --since I saw the movie and the series and I know what it's about-- so I can focus on the language a bit more. (this reminds me of a discussion I had with Tobytook... I wonder where he went?)

Only "problem": 1400 pages is much...

 

[Hollis]

I loved the movie, but then again, I love anything that Jim Caviezel does. Is the book really so different - I have it sitting on my shelf waiting to be read.

 

[Kaz]

I have seen this movie that I really enjoyed it but I haven't read that book. It is on my list.

 

[arctic]

After "Lord of the Rings" maybe my expectations are too high that a good movie can be made of a classic and still remain true to the story.

i often wonder this a lot myself these days. i can't decide if it's just that the movies lately have been unusually low quality or if i've be spoiled by lotr. aside from potter and lotr, nothing's really grabbing me these days and demanding that i run to the theater to see it asap.

My sister can't stop telling me what a great author Alexandre Dumas père is, so I have to do something to shut her up, right?

well, you're sister's right you know. the three musketeers and the black tulip are my favorites, but all his work is high quality in my book, especially if you like adventure stories. it's a pity that his books in general don't seem to translate too well to film. there have been umpteenhundred versions of the three musketeers made, but less than a quarter of them are of any value to me.

I loved the movie, but then again, I love anything that Jim Caviezel does. Is the book really so different - I have it sitting on my shelf waiting to be read.

i can definitely identify with the jim caviezel thing :lol. he's got fabulously intense eyes. the book is different yes, and much better than this most recent film of it.

 

[Ell]

Hollis, definitely read the book.

It's different and better than the movie in several respects. There is greater detail about how the Count plots his revenge, the secondary characters are more fleshed out so you understand their motivation better, and you'll discover several more characters in the book than in the movie (where they were combined into one).

It may be long, but IMHO, really worth the time.