The Count of Monte-Cristo (1975 TV Movie) User Reviews

A Decent Stripped Down Version

[Hitchcoc · 8/10 · 22 January 2015]

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.

Strangely compelling

[stills-6 · 7/10 · 26 July 2000]

As all movies made from books do, it simplifies the plot to a miniscule point and takes as much drama from it as it can. As a movie, this works surprisingly well. Chamberlain is excellent as the conflicted changeling, but others don't do so well. Tony Curtis has never been my favorite actor and Kate Nelligan doesn't have much screen presence. Watching Louis Jourdan try very hard to play to the camera is kind of sad, but Donald Pleasance is very good and almost steals scenes away from Chamberlain.

Unfortunately, this is a TV movie (1970s), so the direction is awkward and stage-y. But a pretty good script and Chamberlain's performance make this a strangely compelling experience.

Richard Chamberlain is Up for the Count

[wes-connors · 6/10 · 1 March 2011]

In this "classic tale of injustice, revenge and ultimate retribution," according to the DVD description, "Edmond Dantes is about to marry the love of his life and become a Captain in the Navy until he is falsely accused of conspiracy and is sent to the hellish island fortress of Monte Cristo. Locked away from his perfect life, he feels only hatred and revenge towards the perpetrators of this horrible injustice, but can see no way of exacting his revenge...

"Told of a secret treasure by a dying prisoner, Dantes finds a new hope and escapes to find the treasure. Now with a fortune, he assumes the identity of the wealthy and influential Count of Monte Cristo. Here, he seeks his revenge using his enemies' greed and corruption to bring about their ultimate downfall."

This is a handsomely mounted ITC-TV production of the frequently adapted Alexandre Dumas classic. There are some hair and make-up distractions, but most of it looks nice, at least.

Richard Chamberlain performs the leading role with focus and style. Of his quartet of veteran co-stars, Trevor Howard (the Abbe Faria) is most impressive. The younger cast includes an early Kate Nelligan (as Mercedes) and the grown-up Dominic Guard (as Albert) kid from "The Go-Between" (1970). But, with piercing sword and courtroom play, the lesser known Carlo Puri (as Benedetto) makes the most memorable impression.

****** The Count of Monte-Cristo (1/10/75) David Greene ~ Richard Chamberlain, Carlo Puri, Kate Nelligan, Trevor Howard

Fine Fun for two hours- captures the essence of the story

[thiinkerca · 8 March 2003]

This movie is excellent, especially compared to the new version with James cavaziel, which is much longer, and still does not touch on the depth and characters, this 75' version was somehow able to do. As well Chamberlain, was able to show through voice and appearance, changes of appearance from the young man of 19 to the man in he would be in his late 30's. If they didnt capture every subplot, they covered most of them, in more pared down fashion. Its a shame this was not made into a miniseries at the time on tv. It would likely have been excellent. You can tell from the cuts in the movie, that there was a longer one there, that couldnt be aired due to time constraints. Nevertheless, excellent, american production of the film, though not as good as the version with Gerard Depardieu, Chamberlain, himself, cuts a finer figure as the count, at least in is look. Chamberlain had assurance, picked a voice to use in the film, which I point out, because in the 2002 version, Cavaziel, had this very problem and never was able to be comfortable in how he delivered his lines or his appearance. Great Film catch it while you can.

Adequate rendition based on the classic tale of romance , revenge and retribution

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 29 August 2019]

Fine recounting packing adventures , action , romance , derring-do and it turns out to be enough entertaining as well as enjoyable . Set in the turbulent years after fall Napoleon, who was banished and isolated at Island of Elba . Stars Edmund Dantes : Richard Chamberlain , he is falsely incarcerated by a fake set-up schemed by his enemies , caused by his good fortune and gorgeous girlfriend : Kate Nelligan . He is wrongly imprisoned in Island of If , where he meets an old prisoner , Abbe Faria : Trevor Howard .Abbe becomes his teacher and mentor , later on , he tells Edmund a fantastic treasure hidden away at a far Island , that only he knows the location of . After long years in prison , Edmund escapes and he seeks a merciless vendetta against his old contenders. After that , Edmund proceeds to become himself into the wealthy Count of Montecristo , taking a new identity by surprising his enemy traitors .The revenge is ready against the nasty traitors who accused him .

This faithful filmization is a good and agreeable remake of the Alexandre Dumas tale by the same name , containing adventures , feats , action , fencing , romance and anything else . Decent and adequate recounting about the famous novel written by Alexandre Dumas . Including thrills, emotion , a betrayed love story and a relentless vengeance .Stars Richard Chamberlain as unfortunate Edmund who transforms into a powerful count , he goes into action to reclaim his ex-fiancee Mercedes : Kate Nelligan and while seeking vendetta . Concerning the known plot in which Edmund Dantes is unjustly sent to jail for 18 years at the Chateau-Island of If , being framed as sender of Napoleon's letters. As at the If prison he plots revenge against those who betrayed him , these are well played by a good plethora of secondaries giving appropriate interpretations , as DanGlars is nicely performed by Donald Pleasence , De Vilefort: : Louis Jourdan , and , of course , the greatest villain , Fernando Montego : Tony Curtis . Adding other suppport cast providing brief acting such as Angelo Infanti , Alessio Orano , Harry Baird , Andrea Fantasia , Dominic Guard , Anthony Dawson and Taryn Power , Tyrone Power's daughter . The motion picture was professionally directed by TV director David Greene. He made several TV series and episodes, such as Roots , Rich man poor man , Playhouse , Prototype , Defenders, Ghost dancing , Princess in love , What happened Baby Jane and ocasionally some films as Gospell, Red alert, I start counting and The people next door.

This is a TV renditíon , other adaptations are the followings : Classic black and white retelling Count of Montecristo by Rowland V. Lee with Robert Donat , Louisa Landi , Louis Calhern . Argentina versión El Conde de Montecristo 1953 by León Klimovski with Jorge Mistral. Le comte Montecristo 1961 by Claude Aunt Lara with Louis Jourdan as Montecristo. Tv series retelling Le conté de Montecristo 1979 with Jacques Wever . Tv nice versión by José Dayan in 1998 with Gérard Depardieu , Ornella Muti , Jean Rochefort , Pierre Arditi , Michael Aumont . And 2002 by Kevin Reynolds with James Cazievel , Daymara Domincyk , Guy Pearce , James Frain and Richard Harris as Abbe Faria.

it tries, but that's about it

[MyLadyLorna · 6/10 · 23 November 2021]

Nothing personal, but this film is far too abridged. And while I admire Richard Chamberlain, I'm still not sure he was the right casting choice for Dantes. Is it worth a watch? Yes. But it's not really an accurate rendering of the novel. Too many things were changed, and I'm sorry, but what in the world is Tony Curtis doing in this movie? I had an issue with Donald Pleasance showing up, but Tony Curtis?! It just doesn't quite work. I would almost rather watch a version with an entirely unknown cast because at least then the film would be allowed to tell the story without having to highlight their celebrity stars.

Death is too good for these guys.

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 28 October 2020]

Although he hasn't the presence of Robert Donat in the same role, Richard Chamberlain exudes a nice dose of directed menace at some people who did him dirt in the end of the Napoleonic era.

As the story goes Chamberlain as Edmond Dantes is a first mate on a cargo ship which he brings in to Marseilles after the captain takes ill and dies. The ship made an unscheduled at Elba where the late captain visited Napoleon Bonaparte on the island and took back a sealed note and entrusted said note to an unsuspecting Chamberlain.

Chamberlain trusts the wrong people and gets hustled off to prison without trial. He spends 15 years there before escaping. When he does escape he finds as directed one fabulous fortune.

Enough money to reinvent himself as the Count Of Monte Cristo. The story is proof in the old adage that revenge is a desert best served cold. And in a cold and calculating way he evens the score by collecting enough data on Louis Jourdan, Donald Pleasance and Tony Curtis all of whom are solid pillars of the French government and society.

Interesting the presence of Tony Curtis in the cast. 20 years earlier he would have been Edmond Dantes if the film had been made then. Hedoesn't quite cut it as a bad guy though by now he'd played a few. But not in the swashbuckler genre

Chamberlain loses too, the love of Kate Nelligan the girl he was going to marry when fate intervened. Quite a bit has come between them over the years. Taryn Power of the power acting clan makes a debut as Jourdan's daughter who does not know of her father's duplicity.

This is a decent version of the story with no real happy ending for anyone.

Beautifully Shot , Intelligently-Scripted TV Version of Dumas' Classic

[silverscreen888 · 9/10 · 10 August 2005]

This is a made-for-television version of "Le Comte de Monte Cristo" which I believe qualifies as a masterwork. The feature was directed by David Greene and written by Sidney Carroll. Its basis is the famous adventure novel by Alexandre Duimas, the father. The feel of the piece is clean, to my eyes, the lighting very bright, the colors intense. I found it to be modern without committing in any sense a violation of its own century. Even those unable to understand something being of another age but not 'dated' can probably still enjoy what I regard as a very superior production of this classic story. The cinematography by Aldo Tinti I find to be memorable, as is the lyrical score by Allyn Ferguson. The attractive and varied settings within the production design done by Walter Patriarca as well as the art direction by Andrew Patriarca with Walter Patriarca are very much above-average even for theatrical-release films. Also, Olga Lehmann's costumes help to establish period and mood admirably in my judgment; the French period illustrated with its Empire dresses and fitted gentlemen's clothing photographed very nicely. The story is actually a fairly simple one. Edmond Dantes, a gifted and honest young seafarer has taken command of a ship belonging to his company and brought it home safely after the death of his captain. Betrayed by enemies he never knew he had, he is accused of the captain's death and taken away from the woman he loves, his life, his world and imprisoned for fourteen years. He at first fears he will go mad; then he is found by the Abbe Feria, who was tunneling to escape the island prison where he too has languished, but ended up in Dantes' cell instead. The two become fellow conspirators, and the learned cleric teaches Dantes all that he has missed in life as they work together to regain their freedom. He tells Dantes of a fabulous treasure on the Island of Monte Cristo, that they will be able to share someday. But he dies suddenly, after they have worked three years more; and Dantes barely escapes before the jailers come, with the map to the treasure and their tools. He returns to the cell where the Abbe's body has been sewn into a bag for disposal into the sea. Substituting himself after shifting the Abbe to his own cell, he waits. Thrown into the sea, he uses a knife to escape and survives the fall and near-drowning in good condition. It is his bad fortune to have to swim for hours before he can find so much as a floating log. Then they rescue him and take him in among them, for his knowledge of seamanship and more. He becomes a valued man, and learns that his father has starved to death during his absence. He vows revenge and seizes the means to it--the treasure of Monte Cristo. Recruiting loyal friends among the smugglers, he finds the five-centuries-old treasure. "The world is mine!" he cries. And with that, he becomes "The Count of Monte Cristo," one of the richest men in the world, a man who can have the revenge Edmond Dantes was denied by those whose business should have been justice. Four men are his target, the men who have profited from their evil deed against him. His sweetheart Mercedes has married one of the four and has a son; but even she fails to recognize him when he turns up as the darling of Paris, the most-sought-after man in French society. One by one, ensnaring them through their weakness and their lust for his unearned wealth, he causes them to be ruined or find death or a prison cell. He has become, in Mercedes' words, an 'avenging angel', no longer a man. But he is passionless about his pursuit of justice; it is for the viewer as if the innocent young Dantes were a man who had been done to death and as if he, the Count of Monte Cristo, were his separate champion exacting punishment for the man who is no more. But when he finishes, Mercedes does not see Edmond Dantes in him, only the vengeance seeker. This film is not about the power of wealth, but rather the wealth that power brings; for with cooperation, men ready to invest in one's schemes, men who can be bought or men who follow an opportunity, there is very little one cannot do. The flaw lies in a French society whose power-holders can be bribed and corrupted, not in the man who makes them offers they should refuse. I believe this to be far the best of the story's many versions. The cast is exceptional too for any film. Richard Chamberlain as the young Dantes, the prisoner, the smuggler, the avenger, the man is award caliber; he became "king of the TV mini-series" largely on the strength of this timeless performance. Among the men he seeks are Donald Pleasance, Tony Curtis and Louis Jourdan. As Mercedes, Kate Nelligan is lovely and suffers as well as she always does; her emotional range is admirably suited to the task of both losing Dantes and grieving over her threatened son, long after she has ceased to love her gamecock husband, Curtis. Trevor Howard is powerful and affecting as the Abbe Feria, lacking only enough lines to deserve awards for his work. Among the conspirators, Jourdan is coldly interesting, Pleasance admirably nefarious and Curtis, despite his accent problems, is energetic and intelligent. This is a film that I never miss, and I invite viewers to discover it. It is hard as a diamond, yet passionate, fast-paced and I suggest intensely-interesting at every point in its logical progression.

Amazing prison scenes, but wanting in certain other scenes. Overall worth watching.

[MegaritzMom · 6/10 · 23 December 2018]

There are several scenes that should have been re-shot. The "arrest that man" scene was done in a clumsy and fake way. The scenes in the prison were marvelous, especially after the two prisoners meet.

Overall, the movie felt rushed and incomplete. Most of the important scenes from the book were left out. Of course, the book was very long and involved and intricately woven together, and a movie of normal length really couldn't do the book justice.

Anyone who loves the book should see this movie anyway, especially for the prison scenes.

wonderful adaptation

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 11 June 2005]

The Count of Monte Cristo as well as The Man in the Iron Mask were both made for television in the mid to late 1970s and starred the talented Richard Chamberlain. Yet, because they were originally made for TV, they seem to have vanished and I haven't seen either on TV since the early 1980s (though I did copy them to now worn out videotapes). It's a real shame, as they were first-rate and every bit as good as any Hollywood production--maybe better.

The Man in the Iron Mask was the better of the two stories, but both are about as good Alexander Dumas stories as you can find. This is due to the overall package--exceptional music, acting, writing and pacing. I simply don't know how you could have made them much better.

Best Served Cold.

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 23 February 2016]

Edmund Dantes is here portrayed by Richard Chamberlain and he's pretty good as the innocent ship's captain in the early 1800s, egregiously handsome, full of probity, and betrayed and framed by three really mean mothers. They include Donald Pleasance, who just wants to see Chamberlain suffering out of sheer meanness; Tony Curtis, who is after Chamberlain's beloved Mercedes, played by a spirited and pretty Kate Nelligan; and another greaseball, Allesio Orana, who has been publicly insulted by Chamberlain. Arana is no more than a sneering villain who feels mistreated. But Tony Curtis is motivated by desire, not revenge, and Pleasance looks good in a rug -- years younger. He's also traduced by Louis Jourdan, the prosecutor, who puts him in a dungeon forever, for political reasons.

It's a period picture of course and is visually very stylish, shot at Cinecittá in Rome, and in Liguria, a fishing port on the Mediterranean coast of Italy. The outdoor scenes are colorful, sunshine, castles, courtyard, and cold stone enhanced by the gaudy but convincing uniforms of the ship's officers and the guardsmen. Well, I've used the word "convincing" to describe the uniforms but I doubt that the French military of 1815 wore uniforms quite so tightly tailored. The guys look like ballet dancers in tights. They have no shame. Kate Nelligan, hélas, reveals nothing more than her face, which embodies both sex appeal and a guarded nurturing quality.

Chamberlain spends eight years in a dungeon at the Château D'Ifre, which can be visited by tourists. His first years were in solitary confinement but then he tunnels into the next cell and is not only taught the wisdom of the ages by the wizened old priest there, Trevor Howard, but is also told the location of a horde of treasure and jewels. The priest dies, Chamberlain manages an escape, finds the treasure, become as rich as Bill Gates, spends much of it on philanthropic enterprises, and emerges from his years of exile looking tall, distinguished, and terribly rich. He's more loathesomely handsome than before, bearded, sweeping around with his stylish silver wig, walking stick, and long black frock coat.

Returning to Paris he begins to take his revenge. He has our enemies and he destroys them with exquisite finesse. The fourth -- Tony Curtis' perfidious general Mondega -- requires a duel with sabers. They're awful weapons. Chamberlain has been properly coaches and though Curtis handles the sword as well as he did in his swashbucklers, it's drama not professionalism being displayed. The moral is that when all is said and done, in destroying your enemies, you inevitably hurt innocent people. What Chamberlain's character does is a little like carpet bombing in war time.

The Hero and the Villain: Louis Jourdan's Second Le Comte de Monte-Cristo Film

[sheilahcraft · 10/10 · 7 February 2016]

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.

Dr Kidare Gets Banged Up

[screenman · 7/10 · 27 September 2008]

The 1960's American television hospital drama called 'Dr Kildare' made then Hearthrob, Richard Chamberlain, such a household face and name that to my generation he became pretty well typecast. I, for one, never particularly liked him; there always seemed to be a lurking smugness in his expression.

That said, he has proved himself to be a fairly enduring actor of considerable ability. He really came into his own as the sleazeball son-in-law in 'Towering Inferno'. That was how I always imagined him.

This movie casts him differently. He is the Grudgemaster General of the title, Edmond Dantes. Imprisoned on bogus charges for years on end in a vile remote dungeon; life seems to have ended in living hell. Then, he befriends an ageing, highly-educated fellow prisoner who teaches him all manner of science, philosophy, and social grace during their confinement. He also grows to understand the wicked deception that has befallen him.

However, his fellow prisoner has a secret. It's the map to an unimaginable hidden treasure which he tacitly bequeaths to his young protégé.

The old man dies suddenly. And in doing so provides the younger Edmond with a fortuitous means of escape. After a little dalliance with some pirates, he locates the stockpile of wealth and embarks upon revenge.

Four villains require his particular attention. Edmond rises from nowhere to be the most fashionable fellow with money to burn. He means to humiliate and destroy each of his enemies publicly rather than just kill them. That untold wealth enables him to investigate the minutiae of their lives and discover their greatest weaknesses.

It's a grudge-bearers pipe-dream. We watch as each in turn is shamed, scandalised and overthrown. He lets no-one and nothing stand in his way. This is how vengeance should be done.

Chamberlain gives a very creditable central performance. He demonstrates that, if anything, the media have under-valued him. He is Mr Ice. His piercing blue eyes positively sparkle with revenge. The familiar smirk assumes the likeness of an acid sneer. How well the movie follows Dumas' book I cannot say, never having read it. Yet I have seen a number of other interpretations on screen and still consider this the most pleasing and convincing.

All of the principal actors give a good turn. And there are several notables such as Donald Pleasance, Louis Jourdan and Tony Curtis. All of them are still in their prime. The costumes are suitably flamboyant, set-pieces convincing, there is some imaginative location work. Other technical aspects seem nicely brought together. Although made for television this was certainly not done on the cheap.

Perfect for the unforgiving of all ages, this movie is a well-presented period drama that deserves to be seen at the cinema instead of being confined to the prison of television. Check it out.

Better than the film of 2002

[sereonadasartre · 5/10 · 22 January 2019]

The film erred in insisting that the count was still in love with Mercedes. He cared for the memory of an old love, Mercedes was just a memory. In Uznik Zamka If, the film did not make that mistake. The count sought revenge without realizing that happiness was to move on and forget the past. For long enough he did not realize he could be happy again with Haydee. "We frequently pass on to happiness without seeing, without regard to it, if we do not see it, yet without recognizing it." (Ch 31).

Dantès declares himself an exile from humanity during the years in which he carries out his elaborate scheme of revenge. He feels cut off not only from all countries, societies, and individuals but also from normal human emotions. Dantès is unable to experience joy, sorrow, or excitement; in fact, the only emotions he is capable of feeling are vengeful hatred and occasional gratitude. It is plausible that Dantès's extreme social isolation and narrow range of feeling are simply the result of his obsession with his role as the agent of Providence. It is not difficult to imagine that a decade-long devotion to a project like Dantès's might take a dramatic toll on one's psychology. Yet Dantès's alienation from humanity is not solely due to his obsessive lust for revenge but also to his lack of love for any living person. Though he learns of his enemies' treachery years before he escapes from prison, his alienation from humanity begins to take hold only when Abbé Faria dies. Until Faria's death, Dantès's love for Faria keeps him connected to his own humanity, by keeping the humanizing emotion of love alive within him. When Dantès learns that his father is dead and that Mercédès has married another man, his alienation is complete. There are no longer any living people whom he loves, and he loses hold of any humanizing force.

This humanizing force eventually returns when Dantès falls in love with Haydée. This relationship reconciles Dantès to his humanity and enables him to feel real emotion once again. In a triumphant declaration of emotion, he says to Haydée, "through you I again connect myself with life, through you I shall suffer, through you rejoice." Dantès's overcomes his alienation, both from society and from his own humanity, through his love of another human being.

Cinema has to remember what feelings may change and after so many years apart from Mercedes, Edmond's feelings have changed. Haydee for having a past similar to Edmond's is the ideal person to understand him and not Mercedes.

As expected ...

[Sis-5 · 20 April 1999]

When you convert a novel to film you are taking a story from one medium to another. To do this you will need to make certain changes in order to preserve the intent of the story. If you do a direct conversion you will be telling half a story at best. In this version of one of Monte Cristo there are many alterations. The changes made in the first hour makes sense and were probably needed given the time to tell the tale,103 minutes. The changes in the second hour make no sense and undermine much of Dumas' dramatic, timeless and romantic epic. If you love the book, watch the flick just for .... Yucks ... But don't expect to see the Count you read about.

Nice acting by Chamberlain

[stimpy_tr · 7/10 · 11 April 2022]

This adaptation is more watchable than the 1922 and 1934 versions, which I have seen recently. Some subplots are different from each other in these adaptations and I wonder which one is the closest adaptation. As the book is so long, the abundance of characters and all those intrigues among them were shortened and even had to be modified. There is never enough time to develop all those characters in a feature-length film.

In this one, Richard Chamberlain performs very well. Dantes's transformation from a decent idealist person to a vengeful one is nicely played. I also liked the background music playing in some scenes. However, the second part still rushes to obey the runtime causing underdeveloped characters. Hence, the 2002 version remains my favorite adaptation because it has a more straightforward story with less complicacy than others, no matter if it is loyal to the book or not.

A Primary and Shallow version but good for those who do not know the Classic

[m-ozfirat · 7/10 · 7 December 2014]

I like the literature of Dumas and I like his novels and Monte Cristo is certainly one of his epic works and one of the best works in the history of literature. The best version I have seen on film is a French language work done in 1954 that is done in two parts that tells the story of the novel scrupulously on film. The other films I have seen based on the novel are shallow and squashed by omission such as the one done in 2002. This one done as a TV film is good to watch as an introduction and summary of the novel that captures the 1800s period it is set in but obviously not with the intention of being an epic which would take about 150 minutes to make.

The problem I have with it is that in some respects it is over simplified that misses simple but important details that do not tell it properly and that would not of prolonged the film. For example we do not see Dantes persuade the smugglers to leave him on the island of Monte Cristo alone to find the treasure or how he alone gets it off the island to singularly become the Count expressing his astute character development and his determination. Chamberlain in my view is poorly cast and does a wooden and aged performance of the lead character who in the novel is more youthful in appearance. The other characters were well cast in this production such as Tony Curtis.

The other misplayed character is Haydee who is represented and shown as a Cliché and Stereotype. In this version her appearance is Arabic which is to do with stereotyping and misrepresenting the diverse Ottoman Empire to the audience. Her description in the novel is the complete opposite as regionally she is from the Balkans not the Middle East. She is fair in physical looks and is a Greek princess whose father was an Ottoman viceroy the historical Albanian ruler of Greece Ali Pasha at the time of Napoleon. Dumas's description of her looks and royal dress is quintessentially Grecian not Arabic. In summary it is a good film to watch if you do not know the story or an introduction to get interested in it. But after watching this read the original book with a wider understanding of its content and context.

An excellent version but not the novel. (See also my comments for 2002 version)

[ozthegreatat42330 · 9/10 · 11 April 2007]

As I have stated elsewhere this was a well made adaptation of the Dumas work, but it is not the novel, which is not this feature's fault. Neither have any of the other American versions that I have seen. With the novel the are so many layers of subtlety and subtext in Edmond Dante's search for revenge, and they are not present here.

That having been said Richard Chamberlain obviously attacks this role with his usual relish and reveals why he has become one of the top picks for many TV mini-series) Trevor Howard gives a reverent and subtle performance as the Abbe Faria. Donald Pleasance and Louis Jordan are both excellent in their roles as well. Tony Curtis is the souring of the milk as it were. His Count Mondego is just not that believable. While I esteem him in many of his roles over the years he was horribly miscast here. The rest of this cast were well picked and the adventure is there. Actually it is a well done feature considering it had to be made on a television program budget. A better script and big screen budget might have taken this film much further. Still, it is worth a watch. I give it nine thumbs up.

too many buttons get you in prison

[funkytapir · 7/10 · 15 December 2008]

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.

" Avenging Angels Cannot ask Forgivness of their Victims "

[thinker1691 · 9/10 · 28 October 2008]

If you are a scholar of great books which have laid the foundation of Literary knowledge, then like most modern readers you are interested in the visual version of the book. True there are many works of art which have been put to celluloid, but having been a fan of Alexander Dumas, I have long awaited this one. " The Count of Monte Christo " is one of the finest story of it's genre and I often fancy myself in the part, discovering many versions dating to the 1930's. True, some films make stars of unknowns, while an exceptional actor can make that particular role his trademark. Thus it is with this offering. Here we have the inimitable Richard Chamberlain playing the hero Edmond Dantes. Of all the versions and actors before or after, this is my favorite. He is superb as the innocent Captain-to-be, who is trampled under foot by ambitious and unscrupulous men, stripped of his naval position, livelihood and his beloved Mercedes (Kate Nelligan) and sent to an island prison for life. There as fate would have it, he meets the equally innocent Abbe Faria (Trevor Howard) an Italian monk and teacher who has been entrusted with a fabulous treasure which he bequeathes to Dantes. With such a fortune, Edmond plots revenge on those whom he blames for his imprisonment and his father's death. The superior cast of Louis Jourdan, perfect as De Villefort, the ambitious Prosecuter of the King, Donald Pleasence is excellent as the greedy Danglars and Tony Curtis who is delightfully despicable as Fernand Mondego. Although a bit weak in the substance department of the story, the film makes up for it in the cast assemblage. The result is nothing sort of memorable as a classic come to life. ****

Just desserts served up with patient poetic panache

[LaffingNow · 8/10 · 9 December 2019]

Ahhh, The Count of Monte Cristo, one of the classics! You'll be riveted once they arrest kind hearted acting captain Edmund Dantes on false grounds that rips him away from his next day bride-to-be Mercedes, and into a 14-year prison sentence to a pit of Hell. Of course jealous johnny-on-the-spot Ferdinand Mondégo takes very good care of grief-stricken Mercedes...until an incredibly wealthy count arises from the ashes of Edmund Dantes to exact precise, but poetic, revenge on the culprits. More than deserving of their just desserts, it was bittersweet for the Count as his commitment to revenge was definitely served on a heart-breakingly cold plate of the lost love of Mercedes.

Misguided

[richkiel · 1/10 · 3 October 2021]

The film does not explore the character of the eponymous count, it doesn't explore his relationship with his love from youth, it doesn't explore his attitude towards revenge, and it ends without leaving any kind of emotional impact. Chamberlain plays his character without giving him any depth at all, and indeed all the characters remain pretty much as cardboard cut-outs. Not a single scene here provoked any emotions in me. Not even the escape scene from the fortress. This film simply goes through the motions but never manages to provoke our investment in any of this. The only reward for watching this might be our curiosity about how he is going to punish these men who wronged him. But here is another flaw: he manages to get his revenge thanks to the fact that these men, apart from their conspiracy to frame him, also did other bad things in life, for which the count could make them pay. The banker is the only one who seems to have not committed any other crimes, although he is presented as a greedy bastard. But the point is that the men in the film deserved punishment not only for what they did to the count, but for other gruesome and immoral things as well. This makes his vengeance a lot easier, from the moral perspective. If these men are all horrible, then taking revenge on them is not problematic. It would have been a lot more interesting if at least some of them were respectable men, whose involvement in framing the count was only tangential, without the knowledge of how severe repercussions it would entail. That would have raised questions about revenge, especially the kind of revenge that leads to death. And the issue of what revenge does to the one exerting it really should have been the key element. But alas, this is not the case. I have not read the novel, and have no idea what concerns are central to it, but from the standpoint of making the screenplay more interesting, exploring the excitement and burden of revenge should have been the focus. This would be especially interesting with regard to his former love and her son, whose lives he destroyed in the process of taking revenge. He condemned his former love, who hadn't done anything wrong to him, to a life of misery, while her son abandoned all his projects and went away to Africa. Why doesn't the film bring to our attention the emotional and moral conflict within the count, as he proceeds to do this? The film fails miserably at providing any rel emotional or intellectual payoff.

As good as it could be

[LiamABC · 22 April 2004]

When you convert a novel of 1100 pages to a film of about 100min, you're inevitably going to lose a lot of details - probably a few important ones. But under the circumstances, this film was about as good as it could get. I love the original novel, and was a fan of the 1973-74 films of "The Three Musketeers" (in which Richard Chamberlain played Aramis, incidentally), and so was interested to see this.

The most obvious change is that the first half of the film deals with about the first quarter of the book - making it a little unbalanced. But then, the book has so many subplots, it was probably necessary to let go of a lot of them.

The other obvious change is that in the novel, Danglars is the main villain, whom Dantes pardons at the end. In the film it is Mondego - which makes more sense from a film point of view, as Mondego took Dantes' bride. But apart from that, here, Dantes does not show any mercy - whereas in the book Danglars was pardoned, in the film he does not show any remorse until all four villains are either dead or locked up - and only then because Mercedes does not love this new version of himself. So that's a pity.

Still, changes aside, this film is about as good as it could be. Someone else said probably best for those who've not read the book. They're probably right. But that doesn't mean you can't enjoy it if you have read it. I'd give this 7/10.

the film worth watching, if you're a person seeking ways of revenge

[The_Light_Triton · 8/10 · 19 May 2005]

This is one of the greatest films based on novels i have ever seen. and if it involves Richard chamberlain, it's always worth the watch.

After his captain dies at sea, Edmond Dantes carries this letter from his captain and returns home to marry his girlfriend. but since this takes place in the 1800's, there are bonapartists, followers of Napoleon Bonaparte. And if you were a follower in those days, you were screwed, one way or another. Anyways, this letter Dantes holds, is what gets him thrown in prison, because it has something to do with his father being a bonapartist. so, Dantes is thrown in prison. after 14 years, he escapes and plots revenge. but will his plan succeed?

After i saw this movie, i felt awesome. it's a 70's movie which was really good. normally 70's movies are badly set and yada yada. but if you want a decent movie on the count of Monte christo, rent this, or borrow it from my grandma.

This takes the 8/10 ranking because it's awesome

1975 TV movie is still entertaining 30 years later

[morenoapb3 · 8/10 · 23 May 2005]

Though this was one of many versions of the book, and was done 30 years ago, it still holds up well in comparison to later productions. It is too bad it was never released on DVD, and the video can only be purchased as used, since it is out of print. That being said, the production itself was beautifully shot in elegant European locations, and the costumes and dialects of the strong and impressive cast add to the authentic feel for the period the movie is portraying. Of course, as in all movies made from wonderful novels, there simply is not enough time to capture the expansive details an author puts forth in their literary work, but as long as you look at the movie as more of a short-handed summary of the book, you should like this particular rendition. What sets this apart from later versions, is that Richard Chamberlain, at the height of his career, fit the description of what the Count physically looked like much better than Gerard Depardieu ( a very fine actor!) Mr. Chamberlain was perfect casting, as he was tall,slender, and elegant, and looked dashing and handsome in the period costumes of the era. In addition, his classical speaking voice is perfect in presenting the Count as the charismatic mystery man depicted in the novel. A great supporting cast completes the movie, particularly Trevor Howard, Louis Jourdan and Kate Nelligan as Mercedes, and I also especially like the two young actors who portrayed Albert Mondego and Jacopo--very talented!! All in all, a very entertaining ensemble piece from the 70's, that is very well paced, and still holds up 30 years later.