I did not read the novel, and I don't remember if I saw any of the old adaptations. It might not be a very faithful telling of the original source, but it was an entertaining film to watch.
I felt the same way about the two part Three Musketeers films from the same writers who worked on the screenplay of this.
i don't think anything coming out in 2024 could hold a candle to the Jim Caviezel version
The French one with Depardieu is better because there’s more to it. There’s a lot missing in Caviezel version but first half is outstanding. For one, Edmond is not the father of Mercedes’ son. Also, Edmond marries Haydee not Mercedes. Haydee and Mercedes’ son are never together.
shareI haven't seen the Depardieu version, as it is virtually impossible to find unless you want to pay $50+ for the DVD, but I can tell you that this version changes a LOT from the book.
shareThis version meaning this (2024) movie - yes so much is changed and actually they combine characters and stories. I agree with you. I have the Depardieu one. I fell in love with it. Although you can’t compare Niney or Caviezel’s presence with that of Depardieu, that one too added a fictitious other character and the ending was not accurate, but when the dominos started to fall, no one did it better.
shareI wonder why the Depardieu version is impossible to stream. You can't even rent it. There also is no Blu-Ray. I wonder if it's a rights issue.
shareI don’t know. I’d like to watch it right now but I have to get a DVR (correction all-region DVD player). But I noticed there are a lot of movies you can’t find to stream. There is one out now that I would love to see with Depardieu - Maigret. And it hasn’t been released here in the US. I know he’s having a lot of problems right now.
The Depardieu version consists of four episodes and each one is about 1 hour and 40 minutes. So maybe it might be too much. But for some reason, when I recall the downfall of the big 4, and there are 4, I only remember this version.
The 2002 version has a great sense of style and adventure, and the depiction of the Count feels very close to the book. It's a great film, even if the story is highly abridged.
This version was okay but feels weirdly inert in comparison.
I loved Pierre Niney and the look of the film - but I wished they followed the book at bit more. The revenge part wasn’t as sweet. The Count’s well-planned acts ended up a slap in his face. It’s almost counterproductive. This is the most brilliant story of revenge and the message in this version is revenge comes at a cost. But it is beautiful to watch. It’s a darkly lit visual feast with masterful music. They spent quite a lot on this movie and should be seen at a theater. I think Niney is the best actor I have seen so far to play Dantes - he just has the right look.
I did like the Gerard Depardieu’s TV version (1998) because he exacted the best retribution for each of the four offenders and they were timed perfectly. This is most like the book. The Caviezel one was very good up to a point; it skipped over a lot in second half. In all film and TV, Dantes ends up with Mercedes or alone traveling. In the book, he is off with Haydee in Marseille. There are a lot of changes and rewriting in this movie, but it generally makes its point. But for those who know the story, it can be an adjustment. You want glorious comeuppance, not guilt and reflection.
If you were entertained, that means this movie is a good piece of entertainment.
If anyone was looking for an accurate translation from book to movie, this is not it, but it's a pretty decent attempt anyway.
Solid movie, watchable, 4,5 /10.
You did not read the novel? That’s a classic
shareA true classic. I read an abridged version in high school, without realizing it was abridged, and I thought it was excellent. About twenty years later, when I found out that the one I had read was only about half the length of the complete story, I sought out an unabridged version and read the Robin Buss translation. It was also excellent.
The Count of Monte Cristo is, hands down, one of the most entertaining novels ever written.
It was good but it was too long.
shareSurprised they did not split it up like the most recent Three Musketeers movie.
shareThat would've been a good idea, especially if they added an extra hour in. Considering the fact that the Count of Monte Cristo novel is considerably longer than The Three Musketeers, it would've made a lot of sense.
shareEven at three hours, they still cut a LOT out of the novel (and changed a lot of other details, too).
shareI like it. Very good performances (especially Pierre Niney), nice locations, nice costumes, maybe 10-15 minutes shorter would have been perfect but I liked it.
shareI actually think they could've gone LONGER. Tack on another hour and let the film breathe a little more. Maybe it's because I have the book in mind, but much of it feels rushed.
shareJust saw your post. Yes, I agree. They could have gone longer and captured more of the stories which are extremely elaborate in the novel but still it does feel rushed. Stories and characters are combined for expediency. It was too condensed. But I still think overall, it is a beautiful movie. I like the other ones too before this one made by the same people - all French, the best - Three Musketeers and Part 2 with Milady. I had some concerns on Milady - played by the fantastic Eva Green - I was not enthused with her being an action hero rather than the seductress fatale - but still all 3 are gorgeous movies.
share