The Count of Monte Cristo (2002) Online

I really didn't appreciate this film until the second viewing. Afterwards, I thought, "Wow, that was really a satisfying, great film to watch." Satisfying, of course, to see the typical good guy-gets-revenge tale but also a film which provided some beautiful scenery and photography all the way through: a real treat for the eyes and must-see on a widescreen DVD.

I also put on the English subtitles on the second viewing in parts, which helped me understand a few things I missed on the first viewing and had made the film just a bit confusing in several parts. That was cleared up, and the rest was just enjoying the scenery and performances.

Most fun to watch was Richard Harris as "Priest," the longtime prisoner who tutors young Jim Caviezel, the man (Edmond Dantes) unjustly imprisoned who exacts his revenge in the last hour of the movie. Yes, Harris' teaching stretched credibility as he seems to teach his pupil about everything there is know in life! Harris, too, had some of the best lines in the movie, several very profound statements. Ironic that he would be giving Caviezel - who two years later was playing Jesus in "The Passion Of The Christ" - sermons about believing in God! That's Hollywood! One film you're an atheist, the next you are God.

For those who might think the first 30-40 minutes of this movie are a bit slow, stay with it as the action picks up once Caviezel escapes from the prison. Shortly afterward, he is aided by the other character I found most fun to watch, played by Luis Gusman, who still sounds like he's more at home in the streets of New York but, once again, you suspend belief and just go along for the ride.

Strange how our human nature makes revenge so sweet when forgiveness is the right thing to do, but Hollywood has always capitalized on this human failing, making enjoyable films like this. To be fair, it isn't just revenge, as this film points out, it's "justice" we all like to see. In here, the two words are interchanged, depending upon ones rationalizations.

I hired this one on a whim, remembering that i had seen the trailer and had been vaguely intrigued. I have to admit, having gone in with little expectation, i was flawed! This was one of the better movies that i have seen in a long time. Jim Caviezel's performance is slightly whiny to begin with, but in the context of the whole story, the reason therefore is appreciated and makes his transition and growth as a character that much more riveting to watch. I absolutely loved him as Edmund Dantes then the dynamic Count of Monte Cristo and cannot have imagined a better choice. He was definitely not bad on the eyes either. Every scene had him looking more dashing and more handsome than the one before.

Guy Pierce surprised me with a performance that was totally believable. His dry humour only made him more appealing, very well acted.

The entire epic, though long, never gives you the impression that you have been sitting still for ages. It moves along swiftly and always had me gripped, from the action, suspense, and even to the humour that was evident from time to time. The love story surprised me most of all. Instead of taking on a highly sexual slant, as all these new films do, it was understated, the female lead doing an admirable job of portraying the wounded lover, who has always longed for her Edmund. I loved the innocence that she managed to bring to the role, a really terrific actress and a really beautiful one as well.

Wonderfully scripted, exceptionally carried out! This has to be the best adaptation yet!

An emphatic 10!

The Count of Monte Cristo is such an under-rated gem. Great performances, exciting story, and a fun wit, this film has everything that was terrific in Dumas' original novel and then twists it all up to adapt perfectly to the screen but doesn't stray to far.

But is perfectly to strong a word? Of course not. Monte Cristo boasts the talent of both Guy Pearce and Jim Caviezal as former friends who have turned against each other in the epic-set Napoleanic French era. As Caviezal grows more throughout the film, Pearce becomes more and more a monster basking in his own greed.

The late Richard Harris is very bold in one of his final performances and Luis Guzman is perfect as Monte Cristos right-hand man.

See this film and reccomend it. It truly deserves better than what audiences gave it last year.

"The Count of Monte Cristo" by Dumas is one of my favorite books, it keeps you on your toes the whole time, guessing what will happen next. The movie doesn't accomplish this as well. While the book is subtle with the Count's revenge, the movie screams for all to hear. "The Count of Monte Cristo, formerly Edmund Dantes is going to get revenge on his friends!!!" They left out 3 main characters, and DRASTICALLY changed the ending, they had to, the end involves those 3 characters they left out. But I did like the movie and if you enjoy it too I encourage you to read the book!

Seeing an advance Screening of 'The Count of Monte Cristo', and having only seen one advertising TV spot before hand, I really did not know what I was going into this time. I vaguely recalled it being an Alexander Dumas book, and former film/TV versions featuring rather depressing prison scenes with men tunneling to the freedom of the Sea. Indeed, despite its wonderful locations and details, once the afore-mentioned prison scenes of this version presented themselves I was set to be depressed again and wondered where the story was going. And then several wonderful things happened; A whole new group of characters were introduced to our rather whiney protagonist - some good, some very bad. And by the time said Protagonist had escaped the Prison, he too had become wonderfully evoked and dynamic, and I wanted to see him get everything he wanted and deserved: REVENGE. From then on this film was a barrage of wonderful scripting (the adaption being perfect in its pacing and wit), characters, acting, events, costumes, action, suspense and romance. The audience laughed with genuine awe as each new moment or detail was revealed to us in the plans of the main character's (played perfectly, from his innocent beginnings to his scheming later years)steps towards that end. This movie was amazing, with very cool performances from Guy Pearce and the rest of the supporting cast, each figure getting his or her share of good lines. The tale of vengeance is well-balanced with tales of friendship, questing and plotting, and romance, and all of the implications each relationship holds, be it good or bad. At times the theater openly applauded twists or returning characters. It is perfectly timed and written, with powerful moments and style, and I would recommend it to ANYONE.

One of the most famous revenge stories, The Count of Monte Cristo is here turned into a dashing, old-fashioned swashbuckler. The plot is riddled with unconvincing coincidences and occurences (as indeed was the book), but other than that this is a well-made, enjoyable film, with some literate dialogue and believable action sequences. It is the fact that the action is believable that makes the film memorable, because in too many 2002 releases the action was so overblown and unrealistic (not to mention physically impossible) that the credibility of such films was destroyed.

Edmond Dantes (Caviezel) is a honest young sailor working out of 19th Century Marseilles. His best friend Fernan (Pearce) secretly craves the hand of Dantes's gorgeous fiancee Mercedes (Dominczyk), so he informs to the authorities that Dantes is a conspirator plotting to aid in Napoleon's escape from Elba. Dantes is sent to a terrible, inescapable island prison, while Fernan takes Mercedes to be his wife. After many years of hardship, Dantes makes an audacious escape and, having acquired a fortune by solving a cryptic treasure map, slowly plots his revenge under the new identity of the "Count of Monte Cristo".

Caviezel was a relative newcomer when he did this film, but he really catches the eye as the innocent man driven to despair by his terrible and unjustified punishment. Pearce is good too, perfecting his arrogant sneer as the deplorable Fernan. The prison scenes are well shot, with the hopelessness and horror of the place captured in considerably believable detail. It's quite surprising that The Count of Monte Cristo was a relative disappointment at the box office, since its dramatic storyline, and the themes of revenge, betrayal and loss, are usually guaranteed crowd-pullers. This film deserves to be seen by more people, and the more people that see it the more its reputation will surely grow.

"The Count of Monte Cristo" (2002), a contempo back-to-basics treatment of the famous Dumas novel for new generations, spins its tale of passion and revenge with all the glory and melodrama of Hollywood's golden years. Full of lavish costuming, sumptuous sets, beautiful locations, dashing men, a gorgeous damsel, dank dungeons, the ever popular swashbuckling (whatever that is) etc., all supported with a classic story makes for 2+ hours of solid entertainment. Who could ask for more? Kick back and enjoy this fun adventure flick worth a trip to the video store. (A-)

It's kind of strange, my wife and I just recently rented Rob Roy. I remember hearing that it was quite good when it was released in the 90's. And although I can't say it was a bad film, I can't really say it was all that satisfying. It had it's moments but it is not one that will linger with any real distinction in my mind. Usually films in that time frame intrigue me and it was a little disappointing to see such an average film with a pretty good cast. On the other end of the rainbow, you have this film. Now even though this is not exactly the same time frame, it is that "type of film". You know, old England, old France, old whatever. It is pre-1900's. I put all kinds of films into this category. Anything from Braveheart to Man In The Iron Mask to Quills all falls neatly into this type of category. Just like you would say anything from Nosferatu to Nightmare On Elm Street is horror, anything pre-1900 is in this "type of film" category.

The Count of Monte Cristo is in one word, AMAZING. There are two reasons I wanted to see this film. One is the trailer had me completely intrigued and the second is because I really enjoyed the book and the film version of "Sleepers". That was the Robert Deniro, Kevin Bacon, Brad Pitt, Dustin Hoffman and Barry Levinson film where several youths are sent to a boys prison for an innocent enough mistake that cost someone their life. In the film the boys are tormented by Kevin Bacon and his entourage of prison guards and one of the things that keeps them going is the book, The Count of Monte Cristo. When one of the boys is first given the book, he looks at the authors name and says, " by Alexander Dumb Ass?" and his friend replies, "that's Doomaa, read it, it's about a guy that escapes from prison and takes revenge on the ones that hurt him." That is not the line verbatim, but you get the point. Ever since seeing this film I have wanted to read the book. Never getting the opportunity to do so, when the film was advertised, I was, needless to say, excited.

The Count of Monte Cristo is the ultimate tale of revenge. It is a story that has stood the test of time because it is probably everyone's fantasy to right the unjust wrongs that have been comitted against them. And oh what fun it is to imagine yourself finding a buried treasure and then making yourself a king or a count? To have everything usurped from you only to take it all back twenty fold is not only intriguing, it is absolutely diabolical and gives you a sense of power. Perhaps that is why the story transcends generations and time frames. Because it is a story and a concept that we can all relate to, perhaps not out of experience but because we have all dreamed about it. A simple man makes a decent living, is thrown into prison for a crime he didn't commit and then escapes and finds some hidden treasure and becomes the richest man in the world and extracts revenge. How can that not sound intriguing?

This present version of Monte Cristo is masterfully made. Kevin Reynolds, of Waterworld and Robin Hood fame, was given the director's chair and he doesn't disappoint. There is enough action in here for all of us looking the for next great swashbuckling adventure and there is also a trace of romance and even some humour.

Jim Caviezel plays Edmund Dantes and Guy Pearce plays Fernand Mondego. Together, these two shine. I wasn't a big fan of Caviezel's work thus far. I thought he was alright in Thin Red Line and Angel Eyes but his work in Pay It Forward as the homeless junkie really turned me off of him. In Frequency he was quite good but that was the only film I could really recommend him in. But I think that has all changed now that he has made this film. He is perfect as the average peasant that works to achieve his goals and eventually as the man who has learned from the fountain of knowledge and takes his revenge. Guy Peace, on the other hand is not even recognizable in his role as the insanely jealous best friend. When you look at his last film, Memento and then see him here, you won't even realize this is the same actor. He comes across as a jealous, scheming, whining son of a wealthy man that has been given everything to him on a silver platter. One of the best lines in the film describing his acerbic disposition in life is when Mercedes ( the love interest in the film ) tells Fernando that when he was a little boy, he was upset when he got a pony and Edmund got a whistle because that whistle made Edmund happier that when Fernando had his pony. He is perpetually unhappy and I'm not really sure what could give him any sort of concord. He reminds me a little of the Tombstone character Johnny Ringo. Doc Holliday once described him a man who wanted revenge for being born. Perhaps Ringo and Fernand are distant cousins.

A sure sign that you are enjoying a film is when you laugh at what is not even funny. You are enjoying yourself to the point that you are anticipating with such joy at what is about to happen. You know that sometime in the film Edmund is going to escape the prison that he is in and that he is going to find Richard Harris' treasure and extract revenge on the monsters that put him in prison. But all the while you can't keep that goofy grin on your face. There wasn't one moment in this film when I wasn't having a great time. And that is not easy to do. I think at times it is simple to become a cynic when you see as many movies as we all do. I perhaps see a little more than the next person, so when so many films begin to tread down that familiar path that it usually does, the perpetual groans become standard occurences. But this film kept me laughing, entertained and anxious to see the outcome. I love this film. This is on par with some of the greats like Raiders of the Lost Ark, Empire Strikes Back, Predator, Lethal Weapon and a few others that never stops the action. There is nothing to dislike about it and there is every reason to recommend it.

2001 was one of the weaker years that I can recall for the film industry. There were very few pictures that I really honestly enjoyed. There were so many films that will take the infamous ephemeral dive. Five years from now, ask anyone what the best picture of 2001 was and not many people will recall with reverance what films came out in 2001. But here we are in the second month of 2002 and I have already seen two films that blew me away. Mothman Prophecies and The Count of Monte Cristo are two films that I am proud to recommend to many of my friends. I am sure I have made Mothman an extra couple thousand dollars because of my recommending it. I hope I can do the same for The Count. These are two films that people should not miss. But seeing as this is a review for The Count, let's just end it by saying, I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!

9.5 out of 10 Just see this movie.

The Count of Monte Cristo. It is a famous story written by Alexandre Dumas, even better known from The Three Musketeers. This 2002 adaptation of Le Comte de Monte Cristo is a good one.

The story is about two friends. One of the friends betrays the other and that one is send to a prison on Chateau D'If. He escapes after 13 years, with the help of an older man. I will not tell you the details but this part in prison is a great part. The man tells him where he can find a lot of gold. After he has escaped he wants revenge on all of them who betrayed him. With the gold he finds he becomes the Count of Monte Cristo and his plan can begin. Basically this is the story, with some sub-plots involving Napoleon, some kind of pirates, a magistrate and his father, a new friend and a girl who once was the fiancé of the count, and now is the wife of his former best friend.

Everything looked pretty good. The costumes, the setting, everything. Th actors were all terrific. Jim Caviezel as the count, Guy Pearce as his betrayer and especially Richard Harris as the older man in prison. We see the sheriff of Nottingham from Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves in a same kind of role he has there, perfect for him, and Luis Guzmán as the new friend. They all do a great job together with director Kevin Reynolds (also Robin Hood) and the rest of the crew. 9/10.

"The Count of Monte Cristo" is exactly what I expected it to be - entertaining. A classic? No. However it's far from a dud, and you could do a lot worse if you want to whittle away a bit of time watching a movie.

The movie version of the book leaves a bare bones plot, which is quite simple. Edmond Dantes (James Caviezel) is falsely imprisoned for treason, having been blackmailed by his friend Fernand Mondego (Guy Pearce) who covets Dantes' wife-to-be. Queue languishment in prison where he plots his escape and his ultimate revenge on Dantes in a highly fashionable style.

This movie is a neat little adaptation of the novel, seeing as it manages to retain some great pacing on screen. At times, admittedly, you feel there's certain pieces rushed (particularly towards the end as Dantes' plan unveils), but since it suffices to keep the story moving along swiftly that's OK. The script is nice and witty - there's a real sense of fun permeating the movie. While Caviezel is a serious actor, Guy Pearce is obviously loving his role as the dastardly Mondego, hamming and camping it up with a glee that's delightful to behold - he steals the screen every time he's on it. Other members of the cast similarily light up the movie, particularly Luis Guzmán as Dantes' side-kick Jacopo, and a wonderful turn by Richard Harris as the high-camp -prison-warder Abbé Faria (I found him hilariously nasty).

The direction on the movie is nice and smooth - there's no need for any fancy trickery here on the part of Kevin Reynolds. Indeed the smooth almost gentle nature of it all, including well paced sword fights, is a nice change from some of the more overly-excessive energetic work of today's movies.

Is the movie perfect? No. It's not smart enough, or quite well made enough for that. But it is a hell of a lot of fun, and most certainly enjoyable - and that's often all you want. With it's great sense of fun, and some lovely performances throughout, it's a worthwhile diversion for a while. I'll give it a 7.8.

I'm sure that there are SPOILERS inside.

Okay, this is an entertaining film, but nobody gives a powerhouse performance in it. Calviezal (I hope I'm spelling his name right) does alright as Edmond/the Count and Pearce is great at acting superior as the betrayer. It's a waste of Harris' talent for one of his last movies, but he does a credible job. The most entertaining character is Jacopo but that actor (Luis Guzman?) has played roles like that for at least a decade and a half. He's very good at it, but they all sort of blend together. I think those who think this film is better than the book are kidding themselves. This film might be easier to engage in than the book, but that's because it's a simplified version.

I found the conclusion satisfying and the swordplay was shot in an interesting way. However, I was a little disappointed that after all that build-up, the aristocrat turned out to be a pretender instead of a master with the blade. Maybe his skills had ebbed from fighting weaklings forced to defend their sisters' honor. Ah well--an entertaining film with a cast that's fun to watch. A solid film--by no means the worst of the Dumas adaptations (for a look at a spectacular villain and good action scenes wasted on a horrible film, that's "The Musketeer.").

OK, if you're looking for a faithful adaptation, you're in for disappointment. But given that the book can stack well next to a phone book, it would take six hours to do the whole story justice. I saw a 'faithful' attempt in the Richard Chamberlain version and that was sad crunching of scenes that left little room for meaning to be taken of them. Consider also, a faithful climax would call for at least another half hour to set it in motion.

Jim Caviezel never disappoints me with his performances, and this one had me swimming in awe, almost to the point where I didn't notice the solid performances by Pearce and Harris. Get Jim more work!

The whole movie has you rooting for Dantes to get his revenge and his woman (and then he finds out, HIS SON) back. The villains are convincingly cold and depraved, and you can't wait for them to get theirs. My personal 2002 movie of the year!!!

You've just rented or bought "The Count of Monte Cristo" and enjoyed it. But guess what? It gets better! If you hadn't noticed yet (hopefully you have), this movie is based off of a famous book by Alexandre Dumas. My interest in this movie was sparked because I actually read the book beforehand. I never even knew there was a film version of it until I mentioned my love for the book to a friend who informed me of the recently released movie that she too liked. I did in fact enjoy the movie, but it disappointed me slightly. The book is very much different from the movie. The plot and list of characters were simplified to (in my opinion) make the movie easier to understand and to keep it from being 3+ hours long. If you liked the plot twists and interesting characters in this movie, I must insist you try reading the book. Sure, it's very long and intricate, but if you keep on your toes and keep all of the details in check, you will absolutely love it! You will meet other characters who play a role in Dantes' downfall and a sweet love story (involving characters that do not even exist in the movie!) will unfold. Dantes will take on other roles not seen in the movie. It is truly an incredible piece of work written so many years ago by Alexandre Dumas. Again I say, the movie was indeed good, but the book is better. Please try it!

I don't mean to offend anybody who says they liked this movie. After all, if the producers hadn't used the book's name to lure the crowds into the theaters, I may have thought of this as a relaxing, accessible, superficial flick.

And I am not one to say that I was expecting a perfect adaptation - after all, it *is* an ample, complex book that could probably never be perfectly transposed to film...

But when I saw this movie in the theater, the only thing I could think of was how much the plot line was changed - in a bad way. It almost makes one think of Edmond Dantes as a playboy and a murderer, and of Mercedes as a femme légère... and the entire story is transformed according to the screenwriter's wishful thinking.

To sum up, it basically kills the whole IDEA of Dumas's masterpiece and robs it of all its depth, in favor of a very Hollywood style. So if you have high expectations of authenticity, the book is the way to go - or at least the older adaptation starring Chamberlain.

4.5 / 10 usually, but I just can't understand the sky-high rating.

This adaptation of The Count Of Monte Cristo is not watchable to anyone who has read the classic novel. I read the novel for the first time last year, after hearing a snippet of the Orson Welles old-time radio version (which was probably a bastardization in itself).

After reading the book I learned that none of the movie versions, or the serialization of it, had been true to the novel.

They ALL apparently change the ending to make it a Hollywood ending (not that the original novel doesn't have a satisfying ending on its own merits). But, when you have read the book, what they have done in the movie version is unforgivable.

I caught this one on cable this evening and, I must say, the last hour was unbearable. Dumas must be rolling in his grave. They TOTALLY rewrote the book.

I think this has been done, because it is a difficult novel to start getting into (though the reward for those who do is great). So, the reference point for most people is the film from the 30s, which also apparently was not true to the Dumas story.

It is one thing to leave out some plot elements...this is too sprawling of a novel to film. It is better to do it as a mini-series (though when that was done, they also changed the book apparently...for some bizarre reason). But this book, totally changed the ending and message of the book and thus, eliminated all the meaning of the novel.

Had I not read the book, I could have enjoyed the film on its own merits, but this is NOT the classic Dumas novel.

If you have seen this without reading the book, do yourself a favor, read it. Trust me, nothing has been given away. It will be like discovering a completely different story. The original by Dumas is caviar...this film version is powdered rotten eggs.

What kind of joke is this? They completely butchered the book, Dumas must be spinning in his grave.

There's nothing left from the story; they retained very few elements from the beginning but nothing at all remained from the rest of the book. The common trend: adding more action at the expense of everything else. This film dumbed the book down; full of cheap effects, situations absolutely impossible for the French society of that time, and just piling up cheap effects for a "drama".

The book is much deeper and more moving that this assortment of effects and horrors. I didn't expect a word-perfect version but I couldn't even imagine this absurdity.

It is the trap into which the adapters of many classic novels fall: the supreme arrogance of thinking that you can "improve" a classic narrative. If Dumas were alive today, he would have demanded that his name be stricken from the title and the title itself removed from the movie.

All of the elements of a riveting movie are present in Dumas' novel: intrigue, betrayal, adventure, vengeance, and romance. Unfortunately, Kevin Reynolds used very little of the material in his film version of "The Count of Monte Cristo". He kept a majority of the characters: Edmond, Mercedes, Fernand, Albert, and Danglars. However, he carelessly changed their relationships, motives, background, makeup, and plot points to create his own story. As for the plot itself, Reynolds kept only a bare minimum for his purposes: Edmond Dantes was engaged to a beautiful girl, was betrayed by people he thought were his friends, imprisoned injustly by a man looking to protect himself. In prison, he came upon a father figure who on his deathbed gave him the whereabouts of a great treasure. Dantes boldly escapes, is rescued by a pirate ship, and wreaks vengeance upon his enemies.

Reynolds incorporates these points in his movie. Almost everything else contained in his movie is a creation of his own mind, not that of Dumas.

The movie is entertaining if you can forget it's origin. My only hope is that it might move some viewers to actually read the novel. Therein, they will find a masterwork of depth and resonance. How sad that Reynolds couldn't have trusted that source material enough to bring it to the screen.

This film was an unfortunate waste of time and money. As an English teacher that teaches the classics, including The Count of Monte Cristo,I was amazed to find few similarities between the novel and this film, and these similarities were questionable at best. The vengeful plot of the Count is a beautifully woven, romanticized, psychological, thriller. After Dantes is wrongfully imprisoned on the Château d'If, he plans to take vengeance on the men who were responsible for destroying his life. These men were Danglars, Villefort,and Fernand--who was not a friend of Dantes, but the man who took away his love. Because of these men Dantes lost everything that was dear to him, including the women he loved, Mercedes--who was not pregnant by Dantes and who waited 18 months before she married her cousin. It was from the pressure of prison that Dantes carefully calculated the methods he would use to get his revenge. He wanted it to be a slow and painful suffering--because a quick death was too good for these men. None of this tension is evident in the film. The film bastardized a novel that was full of tension and suspense, which keeps readers wanting to find out what happens next. This was Hollywoods way of chasing the almighty buck. This film did little to make me or my students want to watch it. My juniors and seniors, who are not always focused on reading, are thoroughly engaged in the novel because of Dumas' masterful writing. Several students have seen the film and have made the same comment I have made--this is film for people who have never read the book. So, stay out of the video store, save your money, grab the book out of the library,sit down and let Alexandre Dumas take you on a thrilling adventure that will keep you turning the pages.

This movie doesn't even get closer to the original story by Alexandre Dumas. And it does a serious harm to the original story. Not 5% of the dramatic events in the novel are captured in this movie. Also casting is not all that good. You fail to see the hard determination and the extreme power of the count. Movie is really disappointing. (Specially if you've read the novel) Yeah, its true that many movies made after novels fail to capture the elegance of the original story. But in this movie, they have intentionally deviated from the original plot.

On the other hand, 1975 TV movie is very good and very closely follows the original story. Its way better than this one.

This faithful filmization concerns about the starring named Edmond Dantes (well featured by James Cazievel) who's betrayed by his friends , the count Montego (Guy Pearce who was originally offered the lead role of Edmond) and others , as the astute magistrate chief (James Frain). He's framed as sender of Napoleon's letters who's jailed in island of Elba . Then he's punished to life imprison in island of If where he finds a lot of suffering . Dantes is imprisoned on the island prison of Château d'If for 18 years, where he plots revenge against those who betrayed him . While imprisoned, he meets the Abbe Faria (Richard Harris), a fellow prisoner whom everyone believes to be mad. The Abbe tells Edmond of a fantastic treasure hidden away on a tiny island, that only he knows the location of. Edmond spends years unjustly at the Château-prison but he escapes and gets the treasure of Montecristo . He proceeds to transform himself into the wealthy Count of Monte Cristo as part of his plan to carry out a relentless vendette against his enemies . The revenge is ready against the nasty traitors who accused him.

This is a fine and enjoyable but overlong remake of the Alexander Dumas tale by the same name .In the film there are adventures , action , a love story , derring-do and results to be pretty amusing . Agreeable and attractive rendition based on the famous novel with emotional highs and lows , in which Edmond Dantes is unjustly sent to prison for 18 years , and with the help of another prisoner he escapes to reclaim his fiancée Mercedes and to exact his merciless revenge . Although runtime movie is two hours and some and is neither tiring , nor boring but entertaining . James Cazievel's interpretation is first-rate as his future acting as ¨Christ¨ by Mel Gibson . He leads a magnificent cast in this rousing classic . Guy Pearce plays correctly the evil villain Montego and Dagmara Domincyk is wonderful as the fiancée , though she is only seven years older than Henry Cavill who plays her son . Riveting Richard Harris in a brief appearance , he gives a phenomenal acting in his last film as an old inmate in the terrible island of If . When Disney green-lit the film , they were hoping of making a family movie and having it released through their Disney banner , though it seems to be a Parents Guide movie than a children film . It packs a shining and glimmer cinematography by Andrew Dunn . And an emotive and evocative musical score by Ed Shearmur . This superb motion picture was well directed by Kevin Reynolds (Fandango , Waterworld , Robin Hood ). The flick will appeal to adventures buffs and emotions lovers . Rating : 7/10 . Good , better than average . Well worth watching .

Other adaptation about this known novel are the followings : ¨Count of Montecristo¨ by Rowland V. Lee with Robert Donat , Louisa Landi , Louis Calhern ; ¨El conde de Montecristo" (1953) by Leon Klimomovsky with Jorge Mistral ; ¨Le Comte De Monte Cristo ¨(1961) by Claude Aunt Lara with Louis Jourdan ; TV retelling by David Greene with Richard Chamberlain , Donald Pleasence , Tony Curtis ; ¨Le Comte De Monte-Cristo" series (1979) with Jacques Wever , ¨The Count of Monte Cristo¨ (1992) and the best TV mini-series ¨The count of Montecristo¨(1998) by Josee Dayan with Gerard Depardieau , Jean Rochefort , Pierre Arditi , Ornella Muti and Michael Aumont .

Jesus Christ- I mean, Jim Caviezel plays an affable, naive young sailor whose luck always seems to put him on top and makes him an object of almost insane jealousy of his friend, Count Guy Pearce, especially when Guy lusts for Jim's girlfriend. When Jim becomes an unwitting pawn in a plot of Napoleon's to escape prison, Guy frames him and Jim gets sent to prison, where he meets and is mentored by an ex-soldier/priest (the late Richard Harris), who tells him of a great treasure. Years later, upon Harris's death, Jim escapes, falls in with some pirates, finds the treasure and decides that the time has come for him to take revenge on the ones who did him wrong. To do this he reinvents himself as the suave, mysterious, enigmatic Count of Monte Cristo, and he won't stop until he's made Guy Pearce sorry he ever double crossed him.

Well made swashbuckler with fine acting by Jim Caviezel, Guy Pearce (doing all he can in a one dimensional role) and Richard Harris in a brief role. The last duel is well done and the film boasts some beautiful scenery.

"I'm a priest... not a saint." - Richard Harris character

My best of all! Better than the book and the other movies. Just perfect, awesome, watched over 100 times no joke, memorised every word!

Because The Count of Monte Cristo is possibly my favorite book, I was very excited when I saw that not only were they making another movie version, but that this version would also star the wonderful Guy Pearce. Unfortunately the only real connection between the movie and the book was the title. Now, I'm not one to demand that the movie mirror the original literature exactly...that's just not possible, especially with a book like this. However, the movie simply ignored the entire message of Dumas' story by cutting the final scene (although I suppose that was necessary once they decided to eliminate 3 major characters). In my mind this is inexcusable. Why even tell the story if you're going to controvert the entire point of the book? Outside of that (major) gripe, not much else in the movie impressed. The acting was mediocre at best, as were the fight scenes. And the plot and timing seems very forced at some times; some of this is inevitable when converting a book this long into a 100-minute movie, but it certainly could have been done better. So basically, if you haven't read the book you might enjoy the movie to some extent, but if you've read and enjoyed the book then stay away.

This movie is based on my favorite book of all time, which would make it seem that I would give it a terrible rating, considering how much they changed the book to form the movie, but the movie works. Yes, it is nothing like the book, but they really are just two versions of the same story. The movie contains an ending we expect, while the book is more realistic. One added scene I did greatly enjoy was Abbe Faria teaching Dantes combat, which never happened in the book.

If you have a few hours to devote to reading over 1,000 pages of occasionally dry (but mostly very interesting) literature with greater character development and many more interesting characters and plot lines, read the book. If not, the movie is a fair substitute.

Before I get into the review, may I just say, "Read the book!" It is phenomenal! I could not put it down and I now own it. That said, I must say that the first time I saw the film version starring Jim Cavaziel and Guy Pearce, I was terribly disappointed. Not that the performances were bad, but it was quite unlike the book and I, unfortunately a purist, had major issues with all the divergences from the original plot. I have no desire to spoil the movie for anyone, so if you would like to see what I mean, please read the book. I went away from the movie quite upset, but I have seen it a few times since then and I have to say that, though it is no match for the book, it does stand quite well on its own. If one were to go into the movie knowing nothing of the story, it would be quite enjoyable. The performances by Cavaziel, as the vengeful Count, and Pearce, as the villainous Fernando, are without equal. Cavaziel smolders with pent-up rage and Pearce slithers his way through every scene like the snake his character is. Wonderful! To be honest, I do have to say that the woman playing Mercedes was not convincing, nor was the actor who played her son, Albert, but in the face of the other great performances, this is not really a big issue. It is unfortunate that the leading lady felt her character needed to be a weak, sighing woman, which in the book she is decidedly not, but I choose to forgive this because really, the rest of the movie is fantastic. Every human emotion is captured in this picture, from rage to disappointment, love to hate. I would recommend this movie, though with the proviso that if you have read the book, don't expect the movie to overly faithful. In fact, you may want to watch a few times so you can fully appreciate the differences!