The Count of Monte Cristo (2002)

Nice effects though.

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Based on the novel by Alexandre Dumas, this is the story of revenge Edmond Dantes, a man betrayed by his friends and imprisoned for a crime he did not commit. Directed by Kevin Reynolds, has a screenplay adapted by Jay Wolpert and has Jim Caviezel in the title role.This story is well known and is very good in film. Its an appealing story, with romance, good arguments for action and all that general public tends to like. Nevertheless, its not an action film, but a drama, focused on the destroyed life of a man and his thirst for revenge. The script is not brilliant, nor can we be tempted to compare it with the original book. But it does a competent job and transpose to the screen most of the major aspects of the novel, while adapting some points and bringing some new features that don't appear in the book, for dramatic purposes. In my opinion, the greatest sin of this script is the too much focus on Mondego, so that the revenge Dantés exerts on other three conspirators is hardly explained (one of Them ends up not even appear in the film).The main actors are Jim Caviezel and Guy Pearce, respectively in the role of protagonist and the main villain. Both are good investments: Pearce can be annoying with his arrogant attitude and Caviezel gives his character a certain hardness, without losing kindness and sense of justice. But this is not one of the best films of the two actors. It was shot at very attractive locations, from a visual point of view, and has good visual effects and costumes.In short: it's a good movie, which easily appeals to everyone and fulfills its role to entertain and tell a story. However, is not brilliant or particularly remarkable.

I wasn't expecting a lot from this movie and watched it because it had a couple of actors I really like in it. However, it is acted well and even without knowing the story, held my interest throughout. I can't think of any scenes that were poorly done. Richard Harris was good in his role as the prisoner and Jim C. was excellent. I haven't seen him in a role besides 'Person of Interest' (which I really liked and was disappointed when it ended). I had hoped he had more of an acting challenge with this film - which he did. When he changed to the 'Count of Monte Cristo', the transformation was remarkable. It was hard to believe it was the same actor. Well done all around!

Dumas would be rolling in his grave if he could see what disaster of a movie plot claims this fantastic work of his. The story has been butchered in the worst possible ways, including miscasting and mediocre acting. It is not even worth watching if you are a fan of the novel by the same name.A scene with a hot air balloon, 4 women sliding down ropes, announcing the arrival of the Count was preposterous. Other ridiculous scenes include his servant (in the book he is a mute Nubian), which is a Hispanic right out of Puerto Rico.The end is also confusing. In a word, this story is wrong on so many levels, it is no wonder it cost $35 million and grossed $54 million, hardly enough to pay the cast and support staff.

I consider Alexandre Dumas' original novel to be probably the best adventure story I've ever read and would recommend everyone to immerse themselves in it as I did. However it was some years ago that I did so and as it recedes from my memory, I can't recall in detail the incidents from the book as they correlate to this film dramatisation by Kevin Reynolds, late of Kevin Costner's career-torpedoing "Waterworld", so that I can't take the point of view of some of the reviewers here about disparities with the source.For me then it was just a case of just sitting back, identifying enough with the main characters and following again the twists and turns of the story but not slavishly carping with any major deviations from Dumas' written word. It would be impossible anyway to condense such a massive tome into a two hour movie (watch the worthy French language six-part version starring Gerard Depardieu for that), so I just let myself be royally entertained with this sumptuously filmed, sharply written and well acted tale of jealousy, comradeship, enduring love but most of all, of course, revenge.The costumes and sets are a sight for sore eyes as are the well-chosen actual locations, particularly for the climactic scene at the ruined cloisters plus I liked the way film flagged its plotting intentions in planting in advance the little motifs by which Dantes will ensnare all his future prey, carefully dotting the i's and crossing the t's as he lures them to their deserved fates. All the leads perform well, Jim Caviezel mysterious but twisted as the too-trusting innocent taken in by best-friend Colin Farrell's covetous, asinine Mendango, Dagmara Dominczyk exotic but vulnerable as the woman they both love but who ultimately never wavers in her true devotion and Richard Harris in an effective cameo as the old priest who initially supplies the means by which Dantes can embark on his grand plan of payback but who also plants the seed for his moral redemption by the film's close.I almost couldn't believe that this was the same director who helmed Costner's expensive folly. Here Reynolds' direction flows excellently, always at the service of the story, nicely mixing up the action and suspense and while detractors might demur at the liberties taken with the text, I think the film still managed to purvey the underlying themes of the book and most importantly, entertained and thrilled this viewer at the same time.