The Count of Monte-Cristo (1975)

Touches You

Simply Perfect

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

I have seen four film versions of this story: This 1975 version, the 1998 French language version with Gerarde Depardieu, and the 2002 version with Jim Kaveizel, as well as one animated version. I have nothing against Kaveizel, or Depardieu. The 1998 version was certainly longer, and the 2002 version had a much bigger budget. But this is the best film version out of all of them.Chamberlain's performance conveys both Dante's initial naiveté, and his later pathological need for revenge, far better than Depardieu, who just does not seem right for this role, or Kaveizel, who seems to be on sedatives during the 2nd half of his film. And, without giving anything away,this version also has the most interesting-and believable-ending.NOV 2015 Update: I have now read the Dumas novel, AND I have also seen the 1934 version with Robert Donat (see my review for that film).I still believe this is the BEST film version, & while not perfect, it nevertheless captures the essence of the novel to the greatest degree.M

If you are a scholar of great books which have laid the foundation of Literary knowledge, then like most modern readers you are interested in the visual version of the book. True there are many works of art which have been put to celluloid, but having been a fan of Alexander Dumas, I have long awaited this one. " The Count of Monte Christo " is one of the finest story of it's genre and I often fancy myself in the part, discovering many versions dating to the 1930's. True, some films make stars of unknowns, while an exceptional actor can make that particular role his trademark. Thus it is with this offering. Here we have the inimitable Richard Chamberlain playing the hero Edmond Dantes. Of all the versions and actors before or after, this is my favorite. He is superb as the innocent Captain-to-be, who is trampled under foot by ambitious and unscrupulous men, stripped of his naval position, livelihood and his beloved Mercedes (Kate Nelligan) and sent to an island prison for life. There as fate would have it, he meets the equally innocent Abbe Faria (Trevor Howard) an Italian monk and teacher who has been entrusted with a fabulous treasure which he bequeathes to Dantes. With such a fortune, Edmond plots revenge on those whom he blames for his imprisonment and his father's death. The superior cast of Louis Jourdan, perfect as De Villefort, the ambitious Prosecuter of the King, Donald Pleasence is excellent as the greedy Danglars and Tony Curtis who is delightfully despicable as Fernand Mondego. Although a bit weak in the substance department of the story, the film makes up for it in the cast assemblage. The result is nothing sort of memorable as a classic come to life. ****

The Count of Monte Cristo as well as The Man in the Iron Mask were both made for television in the mid to late 1970s and starred the talented Richard Chamberlain. Yet, because they were originally made for TV, they seem to have vanished and I haven't seen either on TV since the early 1980s (though I did copy them to now worn out videotapes). It's a real shame, as they were first-rate and every bit as good as any Hollywood production--maybe better.The Man in the Iron Mask was the better of the two stories, but both are about as good Alexander Dumas stories as you can find. This is due to the overall package--exceptional music, acting, writing and pacing. I simply don't know how you could have made them much better.

When you convert a novel of 1100 pages to a film of about 100min, you're inevitably going to lose a lot of details - probably a few important ones. But under the circumstances, this film was about as good as it could get. I love the original novel, and was a fan of the 1973-74 films of "The Three Musketeers" (in which Richard Chamberlain played Aramis, incidentally), and so was interested to see this.The most obvious change is that the first half of the film deals with about the first quarter of the book - making it a little unbalanced. But then, the book has so many subplots, it was probably necessary to let go of a lot of them.The other obvious change is that in the novel, Danglars is the main villain, whom Dantes pardons at the end. In the film it is Mondego - which makes more sense from a film point of view, as Mondego took Dantes' bride. But apart from that, here, Dantes does not show any mercy - whereas in the book Danglars was pardoned, in the film he does not show any remorse until all four villains are either dead or locked up - and only then because Mercedes does not love this new version of himself. So that's a pity.Still, changes aside, this film is about as good as it could be. Someone else said probably best for those who've not read the book. They're probably right. But that doesn't mean you can't enjoy it if you have read it. I'd give this 7/10.