The Count of Monte-Cristo (1975)

I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

What a beautiful movie!

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

In 1961, Louis Jourdan portrayed Edmond Dantès / Comte de Monte Cristo in what I feel is the most compelling of all portrayals of this hero. In 1975, he returned for his second film version of this classic tale, this time portraying De Villefort.How intriguing to see both films and Monsier Jourdan's two very different roles. In the 1961 film he is the victim who seeks revenge, and I empathize with him. He breaks my heart. In 1975, he is the one who victimizes Edmund (Richard Chamberlain), and he does portray evil very convincingly. He proved that for the first time in 1956's "Julie." I admit that I am a Louis Jourdan completest. I own nearly all of his films, and I watch them each multiple times. Yes, he is breathtakingly gorgeous, but he is a far greater actor than most people realize. This film is worth watching even if you do not have access to the 1961 film (which is in French, by the way). But if you can, I suggest that you watch them both to see just how brilliant Louis Jourdan is in both roles: the hero and the villain.

This is a nice introduction to the Dumas story. Chamberlain is very convincing count. The greatest strength are the scenes at the Château D'if and the relationship of Edmund Dantes with the old priest who saves him. This is really quite gut wrenching. I know it's not the responsibility of the writers to explain everything historically, but it would have been good to have a bit of the Bonapartist issues and the turmoil in France. Once Dantes finds the fortune and begins his quest for revenge, things get so short on detail, but that is the price of a two hour effort with commercials thrown in. Chamberlain makes a good swashbuckler. Louis Jordan and Tony Curtis do quite a bit of overacting, but that's OK. It's a big book and others have tried to put the story on screen, but this has always been fun for me.

This movie was however worse than A Pirate's Heart. In particular the part where the imaginary rat Clifford was left out in the script was very disappointing. Nonetheless, in those days you could get arrested for bonapartheid, which isn't good nowadays either.The walls under his eyes had magically disappeared after making friends with the senior in the prison. It would be useful for the Nintendo brains to make this film into a role-playing game, with the walls as an easter egg. This movie has a few drastic hypnotizing scenes in the beginning with the red and white stripes of the sailors and the climbing up and down the rope ladders of the ships in the background. The metaphor being: holistic approach of fantasy proneness can be soothing as well as disturbing for those ill at heart.

There is obviously a 119 minutes (TV-) version of this movie, but I only know the shorter (theatrical) version. The longer version is probably better than the short one. It really suffers from being so short. The novel is very long, especially the part that deals with Edmond's revenge. Here, there are about 50 minutes for the first part (up till Edmond finds the treasure) and another 50 minutes for the second part (Edmond's revenge). This is much too short because too much of Edmond's revenge is left out.However, I liked this adaptation. I liked the acting, especially Chamberlain is very good. Trevor Howard (Abbé Faria) is also good. I especially liked the scene where he shows Edmond - by means of logical deduction - who betrayed him. Carlo Puri is very good as Benedetto (a.k.a. Faustino). My favourite scene is the end of the court scene when de Villefort moves over to him (Benedetto) and they look into each other's eyes, shattered.Although it's too short the script writers managed to keep the core of the story, and the story stays coherent. As to the plot changes: Caderousse has only a small part, the story of Caderousse and the diamond is left out. The sequence in which Edmond deals with his enemies has been changed. Even the way in which he deals with some of them is different - for example, there is a long sabre duel between Edmond and Mondego. Edmond doesn't show any real mercy to his enemies, whereas in the novel he shows some mercy to Danglars. Even the ending is a bit more drastic, Haydee is nowhere to be seen. At least they did not change it completely (as was done with some other adaptations, where the ending is changed to a happy ending). Some of the lengthy (sometimes too lengthy) subplots of the novel have been left out completely, e.g. the episode in Rome (with Edmond, Albert and Frantz d'Epinay), Maximilien Morrel's love story, how Edmond rewards Maximilien's father for the help he has given Edmond's father, and Madame de Villefort's poisonings.In my opinion, this movie really deserves 8 out of 10 points. Perhaps the longer version even deserves one point more. If you're interested in a long movie version of the story, try the version with Depardieu in the title role (it's actually a mini-series). It isn't perfect - for example, they changed the ending too much - but all in all, it is closer to the novel than this version.