MovieChat Forums > The Count of Monte-Cristo (1975) Discussion > Best Version Of The Classic Novel

Best Version Of The Classic Novel

posted 15 years ago by joeparkson
8 replies | jump to latest

I've read the unabridged version of the novel and have seen 3 of the movies;
1934, this one and the 2002 version. The story is really too big and complex for a theatrical movie; it should be a miniseries.

This is the only version that follows the novel closely and features a terrific performance by Chamberlain, who was born to play swashbucklers. Tony Curtis as Mondego and Louis Jordan as Villefort were badly cast. They are not as I pictured them in the novel.

Kate Nelligan really hits the mark as Mercedes. You feel as if she suffered the most from Monte Cristo's revenge.

Absurdity: A Statement or belief inconsistent with my opinion.

[–] vividDreams 15 years ago

Born to play swashbucklers, indeed! I love this version too, even though it leaves out huge parts of the novel. But it's still the best version -- mostly because Richard Chamberlain is just excellent :-) I'm struggling to get through the 2002 version, and OMG, that's just painful! I wonder if anyone even bothered to read the book before writing that screenplay! And the mini-series with Gerard Depardieu is good, as in very close to the book -- but, of course, totally ruined the ending. I shall say no more.

[–] njaintthatbad 14 years ago

This version was not half as entertaining as the 2002 version. It is a movie, not the book. Where does it say it must be completely faithful to the book?

The 2002 version changes a few details, no doubt. But, they don't change the spirit of the story.

Consider this, an entertaining film is more likely to interest a young reader in the book. The 2002 version was more interesting.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Stickman38 14 years ago

I might have to agree with the 2002 version as being more entertaining, although putting Luis Guzman in the 2002 movie made no sense at all and when he speaks using today's slang terms it takes away from the period of the film. The 2002 version was certainly easier to follow, I haven't read the book but after watching this version and the 2002 version, I'm very tempted to read the book. Also, the 2002 movie has a slighty higher rating (7.6) right now and I'm not surprised. Of course the rating system isn't reliable but right now I'd have to pretty much agree with both ratings.

[–] rj-27 12 years ago

I enjoyed the 2002 version, except for the ending. There is no way it should have ended any other way than the way Dumas meant it to end: with Dantes and Mercedes forever separated.

For that reason alone, this version is the superior one.

[–] Traianus 12 years ago

For that reason alone, this version is the superior one.

No. 2002 is far better.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] overseas7 (5071) 3 years ago

I agree with you except for the statement about Curtis, he was fine here.