Gérard Depardieu has lavished much care and attention to detail on this production of the famous Dumas story. He is most impressive as Edmund Dantes who is falsely imprisoned by his "friends" in the awful Château d'If for some 18 years, then escapes, finds a vast fortune, and as the mysterious Count takes revenge upon those who betrayed him in a very complex series of intrigues. Bearing in mind the great length of the original novel, simplification of the sub plots are inevitable in any screen version, although the extended running time of this TV series allows much of the text to be brought to the screen faithfully. Using some quite stunning set pieces and beautiful scenes to background the action, the cast perform exceedingly well, dominated by Depardieu's portrayal of Monti Cristo. Although a rather overweight Count, his strength as an actor overcomes this minor flaw, and certainly its unlikely we'll see a better performance of the role for years to come. If you have the patience to view the extended version here, it is a rewarding and finally well crafted adaption of a most difficult subject.
64 Reviews
Great miniseries in which the part of revenge is worked out very well..!
bbosman1 February 2007
I'm a big fan of the Alexandre Dumas story' Count of Monte Christo. The atmosphere in as well the book as the 2002 movie directed by Kevin Reynolds is fabulous!! Although in the 2002 movie I would have liked to see more detailed revenge plans, I really liked the part in which Edmond Dantes is educated by his visitor in jail Abbe Faria... In this miniseries the opposite is true.. it's absolutely fabulous in working out the part of revenge (so especially after you've watched the first 1/2 episodes, it gets great). Dantes teached by Faria is less more interesting in this miniseries.. which I think is logical since the French have a totally opposite view on what's interesting in comparison to the Americans. Gerard Depardieu acts great as le Comte le Monte Christo.. and this miniseries sticks better to the original story which I also like... One 2 Watch.. more than 1 time.. :-)
An excellent miniseries, with some cinematic sense.
filipemanuelneto27 February 2022
This TV miniseries is made up of four episodes, each of which takes an hour and a half, the average time for a feature film. The story is well known and the script, therefore, does not need any kind of introduction or introduction. The quality of this adaptation is reasonably good, although I have some criticisms to point out. The first and most significant is how little attention the series pays to the events that precede Dantes' release from prison. To understand the story well, it is almost mandatory to read the original book, or an abridged version of the work, because the miniseries assumes that everyone knows the story. It's not something pleasant, and it becomes almost unacceptable in an adaptation that consumes so much time, with its almost six hours of total duration. A lot of information comes to us by flashback and almost the entire period in prison is reduced to ten minutes. The way in which Dantés and Abbot Faria know each other is never shown, Caderousse is a character that we will only see after Dantés' release and we never see Mercedes until Monte Cristo arrives in Paris. And if Villefort's and Mondego's motivations are clear, we never understand what Danglars could have gained in betraying that naive sailor.
The miniseries is French, and the central core of its cast is also of this nationality: in the leading role, Gerard Depardieu does a very satisfying job, perhaps one of the happiest of his long career, which makes him one of the best known actors. French people today. Jean Rochefort was elegant and sober as Fernand Mondego and Pierre Arditi sounds pleasantly sinister in the role of Prosecutor Villefort. Ornella Muti looks elegant but somewhat bland like Mercedes. We still have good performances from Georges Moustaki, Michael Aumont, Sergio Rubini, Florence Darel and Stanislas Merhar.
On a technical level, the series makes good use of the selected sets and filming locations, and brings us good costumes and an atmosphere that breathes authenticity and historical verisimilitude. It also has a pleasant and elegant cinematography, which is unusual on TV and with some sense and aesthetics of a cinematographic work. The soundtrack, by Bruno Coulais, does an excellent job and stays in the ear.
The miniseries is French, and the central core of its cast is also of this nationality: in the leading role, Gerard Depardieu does a very satisfying job, perhaps one of the happiest of his long career, which makes him one of the best known actors. French people today. Jean Rochefort was elegant and sober as Fernand Mondego and Pierre Arditi sounds pleasantly sinister in the role of Prosecutor Villefort. Ornella Muti looks elegant but somewhat bland like Mercedes. We still have good performances from Georges Moustaki, Michael Aumont, Sergio Rubini, Florence Darel and Stanislas Merhar.
On a technical level, the series makes good use of the selected sets and filming locations, and brings us good costumes and an atmosphere that breathes authenticity and historical verisimilitude. It also has a pleasant and elegant cinematography, which is unusual on TV and with some sense and aesthetics of a cinematographic work. The soundtrack, by Bruno Coulais, does an excellent job and stays in the ear.
Novel changed my life. Series brought back memories.
donaldmaddog19 February 2007
One could say I am an old coot, geezer, at the age of 71. This wonderful series, starring the great Gerard Depardieu, pulled me back to my childhood at about eight years old. The two librarians in my little home town in Louisiana always pushed me to read books that were at least two grades ahead. At the end of the school year we were given the usual Summer Reading List. Presenting mine to the local librarians, they suggested a novel by Alexander Dumas, The Count of Monte Cristo. I had never actually read a "novel" of that size. I was a bit over- come, but began to read this book right then and there, sitting in a bay window overlooking the little river that flowed past the library's huge windows. That experience changed my life from a casual reader to a dedicated and life-long lover of books. I learned that Dumas was French and had written many other books. I read them all that summer. Then on to Victor Hugo, Balzac, George Sand, and others, all recommended by those lovely ladies in the local library. I have seen almost every film adaptation of The Count, going back to the 1934 version with Robert Donat to the last one with Guy Pierce. THIS one, with Depardieu,is my favorite. Although many liberties are taken, as usual with movie producers and directors, it still is an exciting and involving tale. Dumas' story is so sturdy that any injury visited upon it would be only superficial. I found myself an eight year old all over again. Unlike some adaptations of Dumas' novels, this one had very little swash and even less buckle, being more character driven and fueled by last minute escapes and near fatal outcomes. The ending, as several other comments express, is a bit too up-beat, but so what? Life is full of wonderful and unexpected joys. Watching this made-for-television series was one of them. AND I found it on DVD so I can watch it over and over.
Probably the best adaptation of this story we're going to get.
dj_bassett17 March 2004
Eight hours allows for a greater presentation of the many subplots and complexities of the storyline. Depardieu (once you get past his size) is excellent as the Count, a man who, as the reviewer from Amazon says, exchanges one prison for another, a prison of his own hatred. The cast is general is very good and convincing, with Ornella Muti certainly the definitive Mercedes. Set design and production values are excellent.
I have only two criticisms. The first and more minor one is that even this long adaptation doesn't have everything. They couldn't, of course, portray everything -- the book itself is well over 1,000 pages and in truth has padded sections -- but some worthwhile aspects of the story were cut, most notably early sequences with the Abbe Faria (who teaches Dante how to read and write) a very famous part that's usually included in dramatizations of the story. The ending, too, is happier than Dumas's. (I should add that some sequences were very sensibly cut).
A more serious criticism is that Dantes's character is too soft. Depardieu is a fine actor but his portrayal allows Dantes to come off far more sympathetic than I think Dumas intended. The coldness and bloodthirstiness of the Count is not emphasized as much as it might (one sequence at an execution has a very different spin from the way it's presented in the book, for example), nor is the extent of his hatred. This is a real flaw, partly because it makes light of the theme of the story, the effect of revenge on the revenger, and partly because the climax is not as effective if we're already on Dantes side. The flaw here is not with Depardieu, who does his job admirably, but rather with the screenwriter and director.
As such, I can't call this the definitive version -- a little more courage on the screenwriter and director's part would've done wonders. Still, it's probably the best we're going to get. It's hard to imagine anybody else lavishing this kind of care and attention on the story.
I have only two criticisms. The first and more minor one is that even this long adaptation doesn't have everything. They couldn't, of course, portray everything -- the book itself is well over 1,000 pages and in truth has padded sections -- but some worthwhile aspects of the story were cut, most notably early sequences with the Abbe Faria (who teaches Dante how to read and write) a very famous part that's usually included in dramatizations of the story. The ending, too, is happier than Dumas's. (I should add that some sequences were very sensibly cut).
A more serious criticism is that Dantes's character is too soft. Depardieu is a fine actor but his portrayal allows Dantes to come off far more sympathetic than I think Dumas intended. The coldness and bloodthirstiness of the Count is not emphasized as much as it might (one sequence at an execution has a very different spin from the way it's presented in the book, for example), nor is the extent of his hatred. This is a real flaw, partly because it makes light of the theme of the story, the effect of revenge on the revenger, and partly because the climax is not as effective if we're already on Dantes side. The flaw here is not with Depardieu, who does his job admirably, but rather with the screenwriter and director.
As such, I can't call this the definitive version -- a little more courage on the screenwriter and director's part would've done wonders. Still, it's probably the best we're going to get. It's hard to imagine anybody else lavishing this kind of care and attention on the story.
Great version from Alexandre Dumas's novel
pipsapauliina17 July 2001
Le Comte de Monte Cristo is well done. Actors are made for their roles. Gerard Depardieu is fabulous in the role of count and Sergio Rubini makes the servant Bertuccio alive. In the novel Bertuccio was in a much smaller role. In the TV-version other characters have got bigger roles. It's a good thing that not only the count of Monte-Cristo is showing. I really recommend this beautifully done TV-film for everyone. After seeing this I started to appreciate the French in the film world in a very different way.
One of the most powerful television productions ever made!
cmzapffe27 January 2002
One of the most powerful films of any venue ever made. This beautiful production in French with English subtitles faithfully follows the original Alexander Dumas novel with Gerard Depardieu absolutely sensational as the vengeful Count of Monte Cristo. All of the main and secondary roles are played to perfection. In addition, the beautiful photography and the exceptional acting is more than enhanced by the haunting, melodic musical scoring. This version is the best of any of the other more than 30 filmed adaptations of the famous Dumas novel. Furthermore, it is far better than the admittedly entertaining current 2002 production starring James Caviezel, which takes so many liberties with the story as to deserve to be titled, "inspired by" rather than "adapted from." This movie is truly riveting. Once you get into it, you will not be able to turn the television off. **** - Four
A perfect adaptation
HotToastyRag29 July 2019
Alexander Dumas's immortal novel has been treated to many film and television adaptations, but until you watch the 1998 miniseries, you've never really seen it. If you've read the novel-I have an English-translated copy on my shelf-you know that it's impossible to condense every plot point into a two-hour movie, which is why the other adaptations have stuck to the main storyline and cut out the intricate plans of the title character. In this six-hour miniseries, it's almost like reading the book! And, since this is a French version, who else but the incomparable Gérard Depardieu could tackle the leading role?
From the opening scene, with Gérard's son Guillaume portraying him as a young man, you'll be purely captivated. To be brief, Guillaume is innocently involved in a treasonous plot, and before he can marry his sweetheart, Naike Rivelli, he's arrested, tried, and locked away in an Alcatraz-type prison on an island. Imprisoned for eighteen years, Guillaume becomes Gérard, and Gérard vows to escape and exact his revenge on those who did him wrong. Many people have cited the escape scene as their favorite, and it is incredibly exciting in this version. And, since this is a six-hour miniseries, Gérard's friendship with his fellow inmate, Georges Moustaki, isn't rushed like it sometimes is in other movies. Nothing is rushed in this adaptation, allowing the audience to understand every detail and complex plot point, and enjoy the execution of each scene.
How is it possible for Gérard Depardieu to be so wonderful? This role calls for so much, and some who've taken it on have been more successful than others. There's physical acting in addition to the highly dramatic scenes, a need to fit in to the time period, and the ability to take on many different disguises without being comical. Revenge, remorse, sympathy, determination, relief, and intelligence are just a few of the qualities the actor needs to embody. If he doesn't, he'll never convince the audience to root for him as he systematically ruins the lives of others. Gérard puts more of himself into this role than in any of the other thirty films I've seen. It's truly an experience to watch him in this miniseries. It feels that he, and not Alexandre Dumas, wrote the story, and that he, and not Josée Dayan, who directed the camera and his fellow actors to completely revolve around him. He is Edmond Dantès. His expressions are mesmerizing, and at times heartbreaking. He delivers his lines with such passion, understanding, and sensitivity, it's as if he's signed "Finis" in ink so that no other actor will bother to take on another remake.
Jean Rochefort and Pierre Arditi make the most of their deliciously villainous roles, and Ornella Muti plays the older version of Naike's role, Edmond Dantès's sweetheart. In a truly family affair, Gérard's daughter, Julie plays Ornella's daughter, and it's very cute to see their scenes together. You can practically feel his pride that both his children are acting alongside him in this masterpiece. Even if you're partial to the 1975 version, I recommend you watch this one. It's so much more thorough, it'll feel like a different story, so you won't be betraying Richard Chamberlain by liking both versions.
From the opening scene, with Gérard's son Guillaume portraying him as a young man, you'll be purely captivated. To be brief, Guillaume is innocently involved in a treasonous plot, and before he can marry his sweetheart, Naike Rivelli, he's arrested, tried, and locked away in an Alcatraz-type prison on an island. Imprisoned for eighteen years, Guillaume becomes Gérard, and Gérard vows to escape and exact his revenge on those who did him wrong. Many people have cited the escape scene as their favorite, and it is incredibly exciting in this version. And, since this is a six-hour miniseries, Gérard's friendship with his fellow inmate, Georges Moustaki, isn't rushed like it sometimes is in other movies. Nothing is rushed in this adaptation, allowing the audience to understand every detail and complex plot point, and enjoy the execution of each scene.
How is it possible for Gérard Depardieu to be so wonderful? This role calls for so much, and some who've taken it on have been more successful than others. There's physical acting in addition to the highly dramatic scenes, a need to fit in to the time period, and the ability to take on many different disguises without being comical. Revenge, remorse, sympathy, determination, relief, and intelligence are just a few of the qualities the actor needs to embody. If he doesn't, he'll never convince the audience to root for him as he systematically ruins the lives of others. Gérard puts more of himself into this role than in any of the other thirty films I've seen. It's truly an experience to watch him in this miniseries. It feels that he, and not Alexandre Dumas, wrote the story, and that he, and not Josée Dayan, who directed the camera and his fellow actors to completely revolve around him. He is Edmond Dantès. His expressions are mesmerizing, and at times heartbreaking. He delivers his lines with such passion, understanding, and sensitivity, it's as if he's signed "Finis" in ink so that no other actor will bother to take on another remake.
Jean Rochefort and Pierre Arditi make the most of their deliciously villainous roles, and Ornella Muti plays the older version of Naike's role, Edmond Dantès's sweetheart. In a truly family affair, Gérard's daughter, Julie plays Ornella's daughter, and it's very cute to see their scenes together. You can practically feel his pride that both his children are acting alongside him in this masterpiece. Even if you're partial to the 1975 version, I recommend you watch this one. It's so much more thorough, it'll feel like a different story, so you won't be betraying Richard Chamberlain by liking both versions.
One the Greatest Tales of Revenge, but only available in novel form
Alex-5087 December 2005
I like Gerard Depardieu, and I liked much of this movie. I am huge of the book, which provides amazing insight in human suffering, redemption, and revenge. The butchery of the script was benign relative to the recent Hollywood remake (a complete disaster - "It was a nice film about something, but it was not the Count of Monte Cristo."), but apparently the writer(s) could not resist temptation to alter the ending - which was particularly galling given the mostly faithful recreation of the book up to the point of the conclusion. I personally was bitter - you can't take a story of revenge and remake it into Harlequin romance novel. If you know the story, you know what they should have done, and you know what they probably did. Given the time investment in this movie to watch the whole thing, I literally could not believe it as it became apparent that the sell-out was going to happen. They were so close, and that just made the experience that much more sour.
One of the best mini-series ever made
janebob-210 June 2000
I didn't have any particular expectations about the Count of Monte Cristo per se going in. However, I am a fan of literature and costume dramas. I was amazed something this good was on TV -- and in America no less! Cudos to Bravo for having the guts to show a subtitled movie. The story is like a cross between Dracula, Sherlock Holmes and Jeckyll and Hyde, with a plot including poisonings, disguises, true love and revenge. I thought the entire cast was excellent, particularly Depardieu, who is completely masterful and magnetic as the Count. This show was lauded in every critical review I saw, so don't hesitate to rent or buy it -- absoutely outstanding.
the best by far
xlars11 October 2006
Maybe you have read the book? Maybe you have seen the dramatization with Richard Chamberlain in the role of Edmond Dantes? Or maybe even you have seen the poor excuse of a movie with the same title made just a few years ago (after this mini-).
This French series is by far the best dramatization ever made of the Dumas' classic about the young sailor tossed into prison, only to come back to wreak vengeance on his former friends (with friends like these, who needs enemies?).
The portraying of Edmond Dantes posing as a banker, a gazillionaire, a jesuit priest and other characters vital to the story is very good - only I must confess that I would rather picture a different actor in the role as Dantes.
Gerard Depardieu is an actor like the potato, usable for quite a lot of things, but his countenance and body, in my view, doesn't fit the description of Edmond Dantes... so a 10 becomes a 9.
This French series is by far the best dramatization ever made of the Dumas' classic about the young sailor tossed into prison, only to come back to wreak vengeance on his former friends (with friends like these, who needs enemies?).
The portraying of Edmond Dantes posing as a banker, a gazillionaire, a jesuit priest and other characters vital to the story is very good - only I must confess that I would rather picture a different actor in the role as Dantes.
Gerard Depardieu is an actor like the potato, usable for quite a lot of things, but his countenance and body, in my view, doesn't fit the description of Edmond Dantes... so a 10 becomes a 9.
Missing scenes in both VHS and DVD
subskm24 December 2012
I first saw this film on (analog!) satellite TV some 10 to 12 years ago. I distinctly recall at least one scene from that time that is missing in the commercial releases.
The one of which I am certain was a courtroom scene where Villefort confronts his son who publicly identifies himself as such. This seems to have been replaced by a brief scene in which Dantes tells V. about the son being in prison at the same time he reveals his true identity.
I also recollect a more lengthy scene with the young Dantes in Marseilles and another one containing conversations between Dantes and Faria in Château D'If, although I may be confusing these with other productions of this novel.
Has anyone else noticed this? I would very much like to have a copy of the complete production, if one is actually available.
The one of which I am certain was a courtroom scene where Villefort confronts his son who publicly identifies himself as such. This seems to have been replaced by a brief scene in which Dantes tells V. about the son being in prison at the same time he reveals his true identity.
I also recollect a more lengthy scene with the young Dantes in Marseilles and another one containing conversations between Dantes and Faria in Château D'If, although I may be confusing these with other productions of this novel.
Has anyone else noticed this? I would very much like to have a copy of the complete production, if one is actually available.
faithful but not engaging
jss_brown18 May 2005
I have seen most of the versions of this movie and am an avid fan of the book. This version is frequently praised for its accuracy and faithfulness to the book, especially its portrayal of Dantes' very intricate revenge schemes. In this sense, as a transcript of the book, I completely agree and do not fault the movie and, indeed, uphold it as the most gratifying version.
Despite its faithfulness, I felt completely emotionally detached. The movie lacks the emotional involvement and engagement that really bring the story to life and make it more than a recitation of events. The acting performances, while visibly adequate, do not generate real people (not characters). It is difficult to articulate what element was missing, but I felt disengaged, detached, and apathetic. Despite their flaws, I found all of the other versions to be more stirring and true to the spirit, if not the letter, of the book.
To conclude, I would recommend this version to a Dumas purist who wants to see a faithful film reenactment without those irritating changes common to film adaptations. However, to truly feel the emotional impact of the story, I would look elsewhere.
Despite its faithfulness, I felt completely emotionally detached. The movie lacks the emotional involvement and engagement that really bring the story to life and make it more than a recitation of events. The acting performances, while visibly adequate, do not generate real people (not characters). It is difficult to articulate what element was missing, but I felt disengaged, detached, and apathetic. Despite their flaws, I found all of the other versions to be more stirring and true to the spirit, if not the letter, of the book.
To conclude, I would recommend this version to a Dumas purist who wants to see a faithful film reenactment without those irritating changes common to film adaptations. However, to truly feel the emotional impact of the story, I would look elsewhere.
Not the original story
lordex24 August 2004
Given the length (and hence the capacity) of this mini series, and after Kevin Reynold's far-off 2002 version, I was hoping to see a visual duplication of the original storyline. However the way the screenplay was written many of the most dramatic moments were taken out and replaced with almost indifferent narration. One example would be, in the book, when Abbé Faria reveals to Dantes how he was framed, even having been there for more than 10 times, I can always feel the shocking Dantes feels as depicted by Dumas. However, in the mini series, Abbé Faria did it almost like a weather man reporting it's going to be another sunny day tomorrow, and Dantes is like, "OK."
Another big disappointment is Mr. Depardieu. He is a great actor. There is no question about that. But let's be straightforward - this just isn't his role. He is simply too physical and too outward for me to relate to the Count of Monte Cristo. If you ask me, Jereme Irons(10 years younger) would be the ideal actor. Also Depardieu's signature nose makes it almost like a joke for him to switch between the disguises. 8-)
Another big disappointment is Mr. Depardieu. He is a great actor. There is no question about that. But let's be straightforward - this just isn't his role. He is simply too physical and too outward for me to relate to the Count of Monte Cristo. If you ask me, Jereme Irons(10 years younger) would be the ideal actor. Also Depardieu's signature nose makes it almost like a joke for him to switch between the disguises. 8-)
excellent
mairhi7 September 2003
I first saw this at christmas about 3 years ago. I was ill in bed with flu and just wanted to die. I got up for a change of scenery and put the tv on. This was on. I spent the next three days setting the alarm for 3pm and getting up out of my death bed to watch this compelling series. I then found it on DVD, and bought it (the book was included and I have been reading that too). THe story is compelling and the characterisations by all of the actors are amazing. THe detail is fantastic and even though I don't normally "do subtitles" I have watched the entire series several times, finding something new and even more entertaining each time. I would recommend it to anyone - this would make kids WANT to learn french in school so they could watch it without the subtitles.
One of the finest French series...
dxexgx24 April 2019
Without any spoilers, this French mini-serie is by far my preferred one. I speak French so I can tell you everything is excellent, the quality of acting, writing, directing, music, "French language at its finest" and so on. The story of Monte-Cristo is a great one. Making a series out of it is bold because of the complexities involved with the story but no disappointment here. Depardieu is at his best and so are the rest of the cast. If you like drama you will love this story, but more importantly, if you love the "Septième art" you will be pleased by this "chef-d'oeuvre"...enjoy!
Spectacular adaptation
Southkaos1 August 2021
A good adaptation
MoonSander22 March 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I have yet to see an adaptation of The Count of Monte Cristo that does justice to the book. This one comes closer than most, but fails on three main accounts:. For one, as good an actor as Depardieu is, he is not the best choice to play the main role as described by Dumas. Secondly, a new storyline include for no obvious reason affects the character development and diverges from the main plot. Lastly, several great storylines in the book are completely ignored while they could have vastly improved this series.
Nice and adequate adaptation based on classical story from Alexandre Dumas novel
ma-cortes9 December 2017
Set in the turbulent days in which France was transitioning away from Napoleonic rule . This the Classic tale from Alexandre Dumas' The Count of Monte Cristo' with Edmond Dantes (Gerard Depardieu) , a sailor who is falsely accused of treason by his his nemesis , Montego (Jean Rochefort) , who wants Dantes' girlfriend Mercedes for himself . Dantes is imprisoned on the island prison of Château d'If for 18 years, where he plots revenge against those who betrayed him . While imprisoned, he meets the Abbe Faria (Georges Moustaki), a fellow prisoner whom everyone believes to be mad. The Abbe tells Edmond of a fantastic treasure hidden away on a tiny island, that only he knows the location of. After many years in prison, the old Abbe dies, and Edmond escapes disguised as the dead body . He escapes the island and proceeds to transform himself into the wealthy Count of Monte Cristo as part of his plan to exact revenge against his enemies as Villefort (Pierre Arditi) and Danglars (Michael Aumont) .
Good and colorful rendition based on the famous novel with emotional highs and lows , in which Edmond Dantes is unjustly sent to prison for 18 years , with the help of another prisoner he escapes to reclaim his fiancée Mercedes , the gorgeous Ornella Muti , and revenge against Montego and other contenders . A fine but overlong remake of the Alexander Dumas tale by the same name . In the film there are adventures , action , love stories , derring-do and results to be pretty amusing . Although runtime movie is approx. 400 min and some ; it is neither tiring , nor boring but entertaining . Cast is frankly well . Gerard Depardieu interpretation is first-rate . Jean Rochefort plays correctly the evil villain Montego and Ornella Muti is wonderful as the fiancée , now married to Montego . Riveting Georges Mustaki in brief appearances as Abbe Faria , he makes a phenomenal acting . It packs a shining and glimmer cinematography by Willy Stassen . And an emotive and evocative musical score by Bruno Coulais with superb leitmotif . This splendid TV series was well directed by Josée Dayan . The flick will appeal to adventures buffs and emotions lovers . Rating : 7/10 . Good , better than average . Well worth watching .
Other adaptation about this known novel are the followings : ¨Count of Montecristo¨ by Rowland V Lee with Robert Donat , Louisa Landi , Louis Calhern ; El conde de Montecristo" (1953) by Leon Klimomovsky with Jorge Mistral ; ¨Le Comte De Monte Cristo ¨(1961) by Claude Aunt Lara with Lous Jourdan ; TV retelling by David Greene with Richard Chamberlain , Donald Pleasence , Tony Curtis ; ¨Le Comte De Monte-Cristo" series (1979) with Jacques Wever , The Count of Monte Cristo (1992) Kevin Reynolds with Jim Cazievel , Dagmara Domincyk , Guy Pearce , Richard Harris.
Good and colorful rendition based on the famous novel with emotional highs and lows , in which Edmond Dantes is unjustly sent to prison for 18 years , with the help of another prisoner he escapes to reclaim his fiancée Mercedes , the gorgeous Ornella Muti , and revenge against Montego and other contenders . A fine but overlong remake of the Alexander Dumas tale by the same name . In the film there are adventures , action , love stories , derring-do and results to be pretty amusing . Although runtime movie is approx. 400 min and some ; it is neither tiring , nor boring but entertaining . Cast is frankly well . Gerard Depardieu interpretation is first-rate . Jean Rochefort plays correctly the evil villain Montego and Ornella Muti is wonderful as the fiancée , now married to Montego . Riveting Georges Mustaki in brief appearances as Abbe Faria , he makes a phenomenal acting . It packs a shining and glimmer cinematography by Willy Stassen . And an emotive and evocative musical score by Bruno Coulais with superb leitmotif . This splendid TV series was well directed by Josée Dayan . The flick will appeal to adventures buffs and emotions lovers . Rating : 7/10 . Good , better than average . Well worth watching .
Other adaptation about this known novel are the followings : ¨Count of Montecristo¨ by Rowland V Lee with Robert Donat , Louisa Landi , Louis Calhern ; El conde de Montecristo" (1953) by Leon Klimomovsky with Jorge Mistral ; ¨Le Comte De Monte Cristo ¨(1961) by Claude Aunt Lara with Lous Jourdan ; TV retelling by David Greene with Richard Chamberlain , Donald Pleasence , Tony Curtis ; ¨Le Comte De Monte-Cristo" series (1979) with Jacques Wever , The Count of Monte Cristo (1992) Kevin Reynolds with Jim Cazievel , Dagmara Domincyk , Guy Pearce , Richard Harris.
"....The Count has a French mistress in Paris, and the story romanticizes with..."
gwest-0733126 April 2021
In my opinion, the BBC production with Alan Badel is the best version to date, but I really do like this film with Gerald Depardieu...
It is stunning and flamboyant, and beautiful to watch: The film moves along briskly in storytelling in drama and interest: It is like opening a colourful picture book with dazzling images to arouse the imagination.
Gerald Depardieu is colourful and flamboyant in character of the Count, and it is a lavish production...but this version could be a little annoying or confusing if you are expecting to follow the familiar plot details? In this version, for example, The Count has a French mistress in Paris, and the story romanticizes with a different ending to the original.
The music too ( by Bruno Coulais ) is subtle, but is powerful to linger in a chilling memory of danger and uncertainty of revenge .
A lavish production indeed, worthy of wonderful praise -but rather than to express slight criticism, I do endorse this French version as I had great fun watching the film, which runs for 360 minutes! Incidentally, I will also post my review of the BBC production starring Alan Badel!
.
It is stunning and flamboyant, and beautiful to watch: The film moves along briskly in storytelling in drama and interest: It is like opening a colourful picture book with dazzling images to arouse the imagination.
Gerald Depardieu is colourful and flamboyant in character of the Count, and it is a lavish production...but this version could be a little annoying or confusing if you are expecting to follow the familiar plot details? In this version, for example, The Count has a French mistress in Paris, and the story romanticizes with a different ending to the original.
The music too ( by Bruno Coulais ) is subtle, but is powerful to linger in a chilling memory of danger and uncertainty of revenge .
A lavish production indeed, worthy of wonderful praise -but rather than to express slight criticism, I do endorse this French version as I had great fun watching the film, which runs for 360 minutes! Incidentally, I will also post my review of the BBC production starring Alan Badel!
.
Agreed, best version I've seen
Alex-5087 September 2004
Warning: Spoilers
but once again, there is this apparently uncontrollable desire to rape the storyline. Whereas the most recent Hollywood version leaves the reservation early and never attempts to regain a relationship with the source material, the Bravo edition tries to stay on track. However, several story lines are materially altered - to the point of creating new characters. If you familiar with the book, you will probably understand how radically the ending is altered when you know that Haydee is only a marginal character with about 5 minutes of total screen time, if that. Why do people have to tamper so much with the original? I mean, you'd think they'd have a pretty good idea of how the ending is, since in this case, the book has only been around for a couple hundred years.
This was the best version, IMO, but there is a certain degree of bitterness involved when you watch for 6 hours only to find that the ending is a cop out (Yes, that's a SPOILER if you've read the book, because it's super easy to see how it WOULD end if the writers from WHEN HARRY MET SALLY were in charge). Regarding spoiling the end, I only wish I had known in advance (6 hours worth of viewing in advance, I might add) that they were going to rape the ending, I would have THANKED the reviewer...
This was the best version, IMO, but there is a certain degree of bitterness involved when you watch for 6 hours only to find that the ending is a cop out (Yes, that's a SPOILER if you've read the book, because it's super easy to see how it WOULD end if the writers from WHEN HARRY MET SALLY were in charge). Regarding spoiling the end, I only wish I had known in advance (6 hours worth of viewing in advance, I might add) that they were going to rape the ending, I would have THANKED the reviewer...
Goooooood and Loooooong
=G=17 December 2003
This miniseries rendering of pulp novelist Dumas' 18th century "The Count of Monte Cristo" runs about 6.6 hours in length, all of it subtitled for non-French speakers. That's a whole lot of reading. However, the length allows this version of the oft filmed story to bring the characters to life in truer fashion and with greater depth than the many abbreviated knock-offs. The result is an expansive, in-depth telling the young French sailor, Edmond Dantès, who is wrongfully imprisoned for 14 years, discovers a treasure which makes him filthy rich, then uses the wealth to sustain his own cunning schemes as he seeks vengeance under an assumed identity as The Count of Monte Cristo. This film offers a fine cast with Depardieu providing a commanding presence as the charismatic Count and no one does French period films better than the French. Deficits are small, easily overlooked non sequiturs such as having to swallow the robust form of Depardieu as a man who lived for years on the meager sustenance of the dungeons of D'If...etc. An excellent but long presentation which trades the usual swashbuckling and action of the more abbreviated knock-offs for a more faithful presentation of the sagacious Count who seeks to understand who he's become and reconcile that with the man who lusts for vengeance. (B+)
accurate but lacking
jss_brown11 November 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I am a fervent fan of the book and have seen most of its film adaptations. This version is alternately the best and the worst. *SPOILER* The movie practically starts from Dantes' escape; he escapes perhaps within the first thirty minutes of a six hour movie. We hardly meet the Abbe Faria. The rest of the film involves Dantes' elaborate revenge scheme. This scheme is remarkably accurate and is fully satisfying in its step-by-step depiction. This, for me, was the film's best aspect-- a reenactment of the book.
In other ways, however, I was severely disappointed by the film. Although I greatly admire Gerard Depardieu as an actor, Dantes and the film in general lacked true emotional involvement. I didn't feel the rage of Dantes, his connection (good or bad) with others, nor his gradual degeneration. With the exception of Maximilien/Valentine and perhaps one scene with Camille de Richardais, I did not feel at all emotionally invested in the movie. In this, even the rather deplorably inaccurate versions are, in fact, better movies, even if they are inaccurate adaptations.
In sum, see this movie if you're a fan of the book and want to see very accurate adaption. Except for the very end, it was remarkable in its faithfulness. The movie lacks emotional connection, however, and is not a great movie outside of its connection to a great book.
In other ways, however, I was severely disappointed by the film. Although I greatly admire Gerard Depardieu as an actor, Dantes and the film in general lacked true emotional involvement. I didn't feel the rage of Dantes, his connection (good or bad) with others, nor his gradual degeneration. With the exception of Maximilien/Valentine and perhaps one scene with Camille de Richardais, I did not feel at all emotionally invested in the movie. In this, even the rather deplorably inaccurate versions are, in fact, better movies, even if they are inaccurate adaptations.
In sum, see this movie if you're a fan of the book and want to see very accurate adaption. Except for the very end, it was remarkable in its faithfulness. The movie lacks emotional connection, however, and is not a great movie outside of its connection to a great book.
Le Comte de Monte Nothing
wittmann7316 April 2009
I was fooled into buying this DVD set after I saw the high ratings on IMDb, but after one hour of watching I already regretted my decision.
The film/mini series has a running time of about 6 hours, but after already 45 mins you have already seen (or rather NOT seen, and I kid you not!) : Dantes relation to his wife and family, his background, the conspiracy, his 18 year "suffering" in Château D'if, his relationship with Abbe Faria, his escape, the treasure on Monte Christo and his return to the mainland as "Count".
All that in 45 mins! And it is as rushed and stupid as it sounds. Of course everything of the above happens so fast that you can barely see whats going on nor would anyone without background knowledge understand what is going on.
Who is this Dantes? Who is his wife? Why is he imprisoned again? What was the conspiracy against him? Who are the traitors/bad guys? (you see them for about 10 secs!) Who is this Abbe? What is his relationship to Dantes and why does he tell him about the treasure? And so on. People who have not read the book will have a hard time following the plot here.
You can imagine I was shaking my head constantly and was wondering with what they were intending to fill the other 5 hours. Answer : With not much. Talk, talk, talk and no action. They had 6 hours but wasted the most interesting parts of the story in the first 45 mins. Unbelievable. The "revenge" part in the last 5 hours is (of course) very drawn out and not very interesting.
Depadieu is a fine actor, but miscast as the hero. You just need to see his body after so called "18 years in prison with no food". I wonder what they put into that soup there?
The film/mini series has a running time of about 6 hours, but after already 45 mins you have already seen (or rather NOT seen, and I kid you not!) : Dantes relation to his wife and family, his background, the conspiracy, his 18 year "suffering" in Château D'if, his relationship with Abbe Faria, his escape, the treasure on Monte Christo and his return to the mainland as "Count".
All that in 45 mins! And it is as rushed and stupid as it sounds. Of course everything of the above happens so fast that you can barely see whats going on nor would anyone without background knowledge understand what is going on.
Who is this Dantes? Who is his wife? Why is he imprisoned again? What was the conspiracy against him? Who are the traitors/bad guys? (you see them for about 10 secs!) Who is this Abbe? What is his relationship to Dantes and why does he tell him about the treasure? And so on. People who have not read the book will have a hard time following the plot here.
You can imagine I was shaking my head constantly and was wondering with what they were intending to fill the other 5 hours. Answer : With not much. Talk, talk, talk and no action. They had 6 hours but wasted the most interesting parts of the story in the first 45 mins. Unbelievable. The "revenge" part in the last 5 hours is (of course) very drawn out and not very interesting.
Depadieu is a fine actor, but miscast as the hero. You just need to see his body after so called "18 years in prison with no food". I wonder what they put into that soup there?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
