Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Beulah Bram A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

Irtisen I won't discuss the faithfulness to the book at first. To me a matter of era.(Honest warning: this section is seemingly off the point. Read or pass on it: what follows is a point of view, subject to much contradiction.According to me, A. Dumas had genius for drama (fate, revenge, strong characters, breathtaking plots), but not as much for literature, writing. Exactly as V. Hugo. To me, the real genius was G. Flaubert. But his literature was not "romantic" at all. (Or read 'Sentimental Education', and you'll fully understand that he was a disappointed Romantic.) Thus, when you ask the French who is or was the best French-speaking writer of all times (they have read none in fact), they always choose Hugo, then Dumas or another, Verne, Chataubriand, Zola, Balzac... They always forget Flaubert, Maupassant, Stendhal, Proust, etc. A matter of opinion, you could say. Maybe a question of fame, too. More (and less…): as J.M.G. Le Clézio perfectly expresses (this is my translation, not his words), "Polls are so unfair. And to take first or last place in a poll is not what is important... What is serious is to be forgotten." (Sorry, IMDb does not accept (the original) French words, and I must delete...)... Who really read Dumas's novel(s)? - You watch a movie, and say: Dumas (whoever as a matter of fact) is a great writer. – I like Dumas indeed, but such ironic (and sad) limbo…)Well, as to betrayal to novels, do you think "The Quiet American" (1958), which is a great Mankiewicz's movie, was faithful to the book? The thesis of G. Greene (I am very fond of his ambiguous books) is the absolute contrary to the thesis of the shameful script. Mankiewicz's film should have been called "The absolute betrayal of G. Greene's Quiet American". - I know the political background of 1958 could not permit any director to be faithful to Greene. The 'betrayal' of Josée Dayan is nothing compared to that. The problem is, in my mind, that the 'adaptation' is due to commercial reasons: the series were shot to be sold to foreign countries, to be financially viable, and profitable. Era of the market. And of lovable heroes. Producers cannot put up the money for an expected international success starring a character (Dantes) who would be too ambiguous. Political correctness. Sad time of money and "good against evil"... (Where is Welles, and the early Polanski, etc.?)If I should vote for Depardieu's performance (you know he can be perfect, and sometimes appear in minor movies - nevertheless his huge talent cannot fade from those), I would vote 10, though he is not Dumas's Dantes - but he is not responsible for that, if you agree with my point of view. Another sad limbo for Dumas. His acting is so intense that he sucks the lifeblood out of the cast, which is very good. Thus, due to the 'adaptation', in spite of Dayan's great gifts for filming (plus she herself is quite a Dumas's heroine), my vote is 8. Polls are unfair. The result (the 'film') is more than worth seeing. Thanks. Debate: still open.

Jessie I am a fervent fan of the book and have seen most of its film adaptations. This version is alternately the best and the worst. *SPOILER* The movie practically starts from Dantes' escape; he escapes perhaps within the first thirty minutes of a six hour movie. We hardly meet the Abbe Faria. The rest of the film involves Dantes' elaborate revenge scheme. This scheme is remarkably accurate and is fully satisfying in its step-by-step depiction. This, for me, was the film's best aspect-- a reenactment of the book. In other ways, however, I was severely disappointed by the film. Although I greatly admire Gerard Depardieu as an actor, Dantes and the film in general lacked true emotional involvement. I didn't feel the rage of Dantes, his connection (good or bad) with others, nor his gradual degeneration. With the exception of Maximilien/Valentine and perhaps one scene with Camille de Richardais, I did not feel at all emotionally invested in the movie. In this, even the rather deplorably inaccurate versions are, in fact, better movies, even if they are inaccurate adaptations. In sum, see this movie if you're a fan of the book and want to see very accurate adaption. Except for the very end, it was remarkable in its faithfulness. The movie lacks emotional connection, however, and is not a great movie outside of its connection to a great book.

lordex Given the length (and hence the capacity) of this mini series, and after Kevin Reynold's far-off 2002 version, I was hoping to see a visual duplication of the original storyline. However the way the screenplay was written many of the most dramatic moments were taken out and replaced with almost indifferent narration. One example would be, in the book, when Abbé Faria reveals to Dantes how he was framed, even having been there for more than 10 times, I can always feel the shocking Dantes feels as depicted by Dumas. However, in the mini series, Abbé Faria did it almost like a weather man reporting it's going to be another sunny day tomorrow, and Dantes is like, "OK."Another big disappointment is Mr. Depardieu. He is a great actor. There is no question about that. But let's be straightforward - this just isn't his role. He is simply too physical and too outward for me to relate to the Count of Monte Cristo. If you ask me, Jereme Irons(10 years younger) would be the ideal actor. Also Depardieu's signature nose makes it almost like a joke for him to switch between the disguises. 8-)

jkj7 This movie conforms to the book and manages to capture the true story. Revenge ... Girard Depardieu is wonderful and I have watched it twice (subtitles, no less!!) It is well worth the effort. Reading the book first was definitely helpful.