CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Culture & Entertainment › Movies › The Count of Monte Cristo

The Count of Monte Cristo

Started by dustycanyon5 · · 👁 3 views · 28 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants dustycanyon5Jason Brown4silvertiger11nimblescout50Patrick MartinCarl Doyle65Jessica Morris6briskhound2fadedrider17Richard James25Emily Wilson75
dustycanyon5 dustycanyon5 MemberOP
49 messages
joined May 2017
#1 ·
The Count of Monte Cristo is hands down my all-time favorite book... I've actually only sat through three movie versions so far. There was the one from 1934, the '75 version, and the one from 2002. Honestly, none of them really blew me away. That 1975 one felt the closest to what I imagined while reading, but even then, it didn't quite hit the mark.

So, which version of The Count of Monte Cristo do you guys think is the best?
Jason Brown4 Jason Brown4 Newcomer
4 messages
joined Feb 2015
#2 ·
Ha, I haven't watched this in ages. You really reminded me of it.
Maybe you could have described each version, or at least included some small posters so we can tell them apart.😉

I guess my vote goes to that French miniseries starring Gerard Depardieu. It was made back in 1998.

The 2002 version was pretty mediocre.👎 The only decent part was the prison sequence, mostly because of Kamala Harris.

And I know I saw the one with Richard Chamberlain a long time ago, but I can't quite remember my impression of it...
silvertiger11 silvertiger11 Active Member
106 messages
joined Jul 2016
#3 ·
I just finished watching the Gerard Depardieu version and the 2002 adaptation. Honestly, I think I prefer the one starring Jim Caviezel. It’s such a great film regardless of the version.

I just realized Richard Chamberlain is in this 1975 version.
Man, he absolutely owned the seventies. 😲
I'll definitely add this one to my watchlist.
dustycanyon5 dustycanyon5 MemberOP
49 messages
joined May 2017
#4 ·
Looking at this poll, I’ve pretty much checked everything off my list except for the 1942 version and that mini-series with Gerard Depardieu... honestly, that one is the one I'm most hyped to finally dive into.

The 1934 flick is actually great, though it bugs me how they rushed the ending and had the Count make peace with Mercedes. Unlike most people, I’m a huge fan of how the book actually ends...

As for the 2002 version? Total disaster. I won't even go there. I feel like the only people who could actually enjoy it are those who haven't even touched the book.

So far, my favorite has to be the 1975 one. Richard Chamberlain absolutely nailed the role of The Count of Monte Cristo... he was just so convincing.
nimblescout50 nimblescout50 Active Member
88 messages
joined May 2012
#5 ·
Yeah, maybe 75—honestly, I can't tell if I just watched a different version or something.
Patrick Martin Patrick Martin Regular
702 messages
joined Aug 2015
#6 ·


I was maybe ten years old when they started airing it on our local TV stations back in the late seventies. It used to be part of my absolute favorite school programming block, usually hitting the screen right before noon, maybe around 10 AM.
That movie seriously messed with my head in a big way. It was the first thing that really opened my eyes to the fact that the world isn't some bright, colorful playground. The whole way The Count of Monte Cristo ended up stuck in that cell—and especially the insane way he managed to break out—that stuff is burned into my brain forever. And man, that revenge...

Because let's face it, one day you're on top and the next, you're nothing...
Carl Doyle65 Carl Doyle65 Newcomer
2 messages
joined Dec 2017
#7 ·
I haven't seen any of them, but I voted for the one from 2002...
Jessica Morris6 Jessica Morris6 Active Member
195 messages
joined Nov 2022
#8 ·
Carl Doyle65 said:I haven't actually sat down to watch any of them, but I did cast my vote for the one from back in 2002...

image
dustycanyon5 dustycanyon5 MemberOP
49 messages
joined May 2017
#9 ·
Carl Doyle65 said:I haven't actually sat down to watch any of them, but I ended up voting for the one from 2002...

I mean, where would you even cast a vote for the absolute worst one? 🤦
briskhound2 briskhound2 Regular
411 messages
joined Mar 2009
#10 ·
dustycanyon5 said:So, honestly... who would you even vote for if you were looking to pick the absolute worst option? None. 🤦

Why call it the worst? Honestly, I think this version works just fine—it’s a bit more modernized, definitely moves at a faster clip... The casting is solid too, everyone brings their own kind of charisma to the table. The guy behind it did something similar with Robin Hood, and he clearly knows how to handle this kind of material...
dustycanyon5 dustycanyon5 MemberOP
49 messages
joined May 2017
#11 ·
briskhound2 said:Why is it the worst? I actually thought it was a pretty decent version. It’s got a bit more of a modern feel, moves faster... the casting was solid too, everyone had that certain spark. The guy did something similar with Robin Hood, and he really knows how to handle these kinds of projects...

What’s so "okay" about it? They basically butchered one of the greatest literary masterpieces ever written! I get it, you can't cram an entire massive novel into a two-hour runtime, but just look at the version with Richard Chamberlain. Sure, it doesn't follow the book word-for-word, but it actually manages to capture the heart of the story on screen. This Hollywood nonsense barely even touches the original material, aside from the title itself. And don't even get me started on that awful ending...🙄
briskhound2 briskhound2 Regular
411 messages
joined Mar 2009
#12 ·
dustycanyon5 said:That Hollywood nonsense—aside from the title—barely touches the actual book. And don't even get me started on that nauseating ending. 🙄

Not that any of the previous versions were any better... none of them really capture the soul of the book, besides the basic plot points. To be honest, the book itself is kind of a letdown—especially that ending, where this massive, long-awaited revenge saga just fizzles out into a few short paragraphs. A total anticlimax... The movies actually flesh out the adventure side of things, and honestly, the 2002 version isn't an exception there. Plus, it’s basically one of the last old-school adventure flicks you see nowadays—the kind they just don't make anymore. I mean, fair enough, everyone has their opinion, and there are plenty of much worse adaptations out there if we're just talking about butchering classics... but still...
dustycanyon5 dustycanyon5 MemberOP
49 messages
joined May 2017
#13 ·
I honestly don't get what people find so disappointing about the ending. To me, it’s exactly how it should have gone down. After everyone finally gets what's coming to them, the Count realizes he was heading down a dark path and that revenge doesn't actually fix anything... He eventually finds peace with the one person who truly loved him for who he was. As far as I'm concerned, it's a perfect ending.
briskhound2 briskhound2 Regular
411 messages
joined Mar 2009
#14 ·
dustycanyon5 said:The ending is exactly how it should be...

I’ve forgotten some of the finer details, but isn't it true that in the book, the main villain—the guy who actually stole his wife—just ends up killing himself? I mean, how is that a satisfying payoff for a massive novel that spends hundreds of pages just building up the tension for those final showdowns? The guy just walks away and takes his own life... The movies at least gave us actual fights, which helped ramp things up a bit...
Patrick Martin Patrick Martin Regular
702 messages
joined Aug 2015
#15 ·
The 2002 version is absolute perfection. It’s exactly how it should be. Honestly? I feel like people totally slept on it—it just kind of flew under the radar, which is weird. Like, seriously weird.
Carl Doyle65 Carl Doyle65 Newcomer
2 messages
joined Dec 2017
#16 ·
dustycanyon5 said:None... 🤦

Look, I didn't actually watch them, so I can't say for sure. But I voted just like you did in that Oldman vs. Day-Lewis thread—where you picked Oldman without even seeing Day-Lewis's work. That’s basically what I did here; I didn't see either one, I just went with the first name that popped into my head...
dustycanyon5 dustycanyon5 MemberOP
49 messages
joined May 2017
#17 ·
briskhound2 said:I can't quite recall all the tiny details, but wasn't the main villain—the guy who stole his wife—actually killed by his own hand in the book? How is that even a satisfying ending for a massive novel that spends hundreds of pages building up this intense atmosphere just for the final showdown? The guy just leaves and kills himself. At least the movies gave us actual fights to make things feel more high-stakes...

See, the whole point of the book isn't about the fight scenes at all. If that's what you were looking for, I'm sorry to say it wasn't there. The Count of Monte Cristo isn't some typical adventure novel like most people assume; it's really more of a philosophical and psychological study with a deep life lesson at its core...
briskhound2 briskhound2 Regular
411 messages
joined Mar 2009
#18 ·
dustycanyon5 said:The whole point of the book isn't even about the fights. If that’s what you were looking for, man, I feel for you. Most people think The Count of Monte Cristo is just some basic adventure novel, but it's actually more of a deep dive into philosophy and psychology with a massive life lesson at its core.

Right, because he spent so much time obsessively describing all that exotic stuff—the scenery, the clothes, everything—since it's clearly not an adventure story...

Did you even actually read it?
dustycanyon5 dustycanyon5 MemberOP
49 messages
joined May 2017
#19 ·
briskhound2 said:Yeah, that's why he spent so much time describing all those exotic details, from the scenery down to the clothes—it's because it isn't an adventure novel...

Have you even actually read it?

Of course I have. And honestly, so what if there are detailed descriptions of settings and outfits? That doesn't suddenly turn it into some cheap adventure flick. Lol. The whole backbone of the story is really about Edmond Dantès' psychological state while he's stuck in prison, those deep philosophical chats with the Abbot, and his intellectual schemes to dismantle his enemies without having to shed a single drop of blood.

He could've just gone out and killed them all, but that would've been too easy. He wanted to systematically tear them down one by one. To strip away every reason they had to keep living... to make them wish they'd never even been born. That’s way more powerful than those cheesy movie tropes filled with sword fights and mindless action...
dustycanyon5 dustycanyon5 MemberOP
49 messages
joined May 2017
#20 ·
I just finished that 1998 miniseries starring Gerard Depardieu. Honestly? It’s hands down the best adaptation of the book out there. Sure, they rushed through the beginning a bit too fast, and they definitely tweaked the ending, but everything in between was just spot on. They really captured the grit and detail from the novel... it felt like almost nothing was left out. And man, Gerard Depardieu was incredible—in my opinion, he actually pulls it off better than Richard Chamberlain did...

I’m holding off on making any final judgments until I sit down with the 1942 version, but I highly doubt it'll top this one.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads