"The Count of Monte Cristo" is an incredible novel. In 1,000 pages the reader is introduced to a man who is wrongly condemned, and proceeds to show the way he excruciatingly manages to get his revenge on every one of those who destroyed the wonderful life he was all set to live. It's a slow moving story and is supposed to be - highlighting the slow and deliberate process he puts his enemies through to make them suffer as much as possible. Alexander Dumas was a brilliant writer and the novel is, in my opinion, a stronger one in terms of plot than his more well-known "The Three Musketeers" which is faster-paced.
The film, on the other hand, does not do Dumas justice, and obviously, some of this is expected. The book is so lengthy that it is impossible to condense it into a two-hour movie without leaving out certain details of the man's revenge. This in turn makes the revenge a more cut and dried job on the part of Edmond Dantes than a slow and deliberate trap he works upon his enemies. As stated before, this is understandable but not necessarily excusable - if necessary, another hour of film could have been added on just to make the story play out in greater detail. What we have is good, and there is plenty of great action to be seen all around, including some great and realistic sword fighting not seen in the book (if I remember correctly), but all the same, Dumas's novel seems to provide a much more focused version of the tale than any movie could ever do (unless the movie ran more like five hours).
The main complaint I have, other than the fact the story is extremely condensed, is that throughout the entire movie the audience is entirely aware of who the Count of Monte Cristo is. In the novel, it's left up to the reader to figure out he is Edmond Dantes, and there is a certain ambiguity to who this foreigner who has such large amounts of money truly is. It's this ambiguity that makes the book so interesting, whereas in the movie it's obvious what is going on, there's no shift at all whatsoever and in doing so the film robs the audience of one of the most engaging aspects of the story.
All this, of course, does not take away from the incredible photography, action, etc. That this movie provides. Technically, it is a very well made film that most audiences would have no problem with, assuming they hadn't already read the book. It is because of this that I would suggest that if one absolutely wants to see this, they skip the book until after having seen it. This will allow an appreciation of the movie at a level I myself will probably never achieve due to having already ruined it for myself by having read the book. Then, after having seen the movie, reading the book will help one appreciate the story better without starting to have prejudice for what is mostly a good film. I wouldn't normally recommend doing this, but in this case it's practically unavoidable due to how different the two of them are. As it is, "The Count of Monte Cristo" is a pretty decent film that is mostly imperfect when one looks at it from a perspective of already having read the novel ahead of time.
The film, on the other hand, does not do Dumas justice, and obviously, some of this is expected. The book is so lengthy that it is impossible to condense it into a two-hour movie without leaving out certain details of the man's revenge. This in turn makes the revenge a more cut and dried job on the part of Edmond Dantes than a slow and deliberate trap he works upon his enemies. As stated before, this is understandable but not necessarily excusable - if necessary, another hour of film could have been added on just to make the story play out in greater detail. What we have is good, and there is plenty of great action to be seen all around, including some great and realistic sword fighting not seen in the book (if I remember correctly), but all the same, Dumas's novel seems to provide a much more focused version of the tale than any movie could ever do (unless the movie ran more like five hours).
The main complaint I have, other than the fact the story is extremely condensed, is that throughout the entire movie the audience is entirely aware of who the Count of Monte Cristo is. In the novel, it's left up to the reader to figure out he is Edmond Dantes, and there is a certain ambiguity to who this foreigner who has such large amounts of money truly is. It's this ambiguity that makes the book so interesting, whereas in the movie it's obvious what is going on, there's no shift at all whatsoever and in doing so the film robs the audience of one of the most engaging aspects of the story.
All this, of course, does not take away from the incredible photography, action, etc. That this movie provides. Technically, it is a very well made film that most audiences would have no problem with, assuming they hadn't already read the book. It is because of this that I would suggest that if one absolutely wants to see this, they skip the book until after having seen it. This will allow an appreciation of the movie at a level I myself will probably never achieve due to having already ruined it for myself by having read the book. Then, after having seen the movie, reading the book will help one appreciate the story better without starting to have prejudice for what is mostly a good film. I wouldn't normally recommend doing this, but in this case it's practically unavoidable due to how different the two of them are. As it is, "The Count of Monte Cristo" is a pretty decent film that is mostly imperfect when one looks at it from a perspective of already having read the novel ahead of time.