I just could not get past the grey/white hair. Too much contrast. So, he aged, but not THAT much. Enjoyed the movie though but it would not be one I would watch again soon. The 2002 James Clavizel (spelling?) version was much better though less true to the book. Want to see the Gerarad Depardeiu version next.
shareYou have to remember, it was the EXPERIENCE that aged him more than the 14 years that passed. This is true to the novel itself. His appearance had to be markedly changed for those who knew him not to recognize him.
shareA very camp and dreadful 70's tv version. Have just watched the 1935 version and then this, have yet to watch the 2002 version, going by what you say I'm hoping I like it as much as the 1935 version. But sad to say,this TV adaptation just screams camp 70's TV show, normally not a bad thing. Oh well.
sharenot as bad as Depardieux´s version of 1998.
Definitely NOT campy!
Everytime I see it, on TV, the message is all too clear. Revenge is a two-edged sword that can inflict as much damage on the wielder as on the target(s).
[deleted]
The novel is too long and complex for a simple movie. This is the best because it takes time to explain the different motivations and charcters.
Richard Chamberlain was born to play this part.
Soy 'un hijo de la playa'
I disagree, I think it was a very good perfomance of Richard Chamberlain in a entertaining and, at once, dramatic version of The Count of Monte-Cristo.
share