An insult to the book.

This has been discussed in numerous threads before. Who would deny, that this film is loosely based on Dumas novel only. While saying so, the first half is overall quite faithful to it’s source, whereas the second half is very different indeed. And so what? I liked the novel too, but some parts of Dumas revenge story really don’t make much sense. An attempt to have the numerous side characters from the book included in the film, would have made it unwatchable. It’s ridiculous, to expect that degree of faithfulness within a run time of 131 minutes. The way the screenwriter handled the material led to an excellent costume and adventure film. Sure, it is less complex than the novel, but they created a wonderful tale of friendship, betrayal, hatred and love IMO, one of the the best visualisations of a Dumas tale, I have seen.
So, shortly (from another passionate book reader): DO NOT MISS IT!

Oh, and the Noirtier character (the father of de Villefort) is in the movie. Only his name has been changed to Clarion.

Well, why discipline your with 131 minutes then. This novel deservers 3 movie atleats because as you know story is big,complex and you cant even compare this version of the film with the book.Producers just bought the name rights and the director shooted a different storyline.Maybe you can that count of monte cristo for kids.Atleats this movie deserves it.I hope, in the future a good and loyal director makes a trilogy about this novel.

Well, why discipline yourself with 131 minutes then. This novel deservers a trilogy because as you know story is big,complex and you cant even compare this version of the film with the book.Producers just bought the name rights and the director shooted a different idiotic storyline.Maybe you can call that count of monte cristo for kids.Atleats this movie deserves it.I hope, in the future a good and loyal director makes a trilogy about this novel.
And, that clarion character maybe exist but this is not making him a Noirtier.

I agree with Rascar-Capac, it would obviously be ridiculous to transpose the novel into film directly. The book is undoubtedly a masterpiece, but it is, firstly, incredibly long and, secondly, quite vague in places. It simply wouldn't work.
Furthermore, what would be the point in transposing an excellent book to film? Do you have this problem with all film adaptations of novels? If you enjoy something in one format then this need not mean that you can't enjoy an adaptation of it and appreciate the screenwriter's own artistic input.
No, it's not the same as the book. If you want that then read the book again.

Why do we keep seeing people ragging on a movie because it was not completely faithful to the novel. Judge a movie on it's own merits, the source material is irrelevant to the worth of any movie.

The first time I saw this movie, it made me buy the book. Yes, there are differences but that is to be accepted when it comes to movie adaptations.

It didn't exactly miss the mark with the book. Rather, it nuked the mark from orbit, and painted an entirely new one vaguely in the vicinity of the old...

I love the book; I re-read it about once a year or so. But I still enjoyed the film. It was a wonderfully bombastic, theatrical, overblown production. Jim Caviezel is not just a pretty face; he's a very good Dantes and would have done credit to the role even if the role had done credit to the book.

Having also read the book, I thought the movie was pretty close to brilliant. As others have stated, how can you possibly expect a 2 hour movie to accurately adapt an 800 or so paged book? It's a ridiculous notion to expect the film to be identical to the book. It wasn't so much that they left crucial characters out, but instead combined them. For instance, Jacapo, Ali, and Bertuccio are all combined into just Jacapo. There are just so many characters in the book. A standard full length film is just too short to introduce them all with their back stories.

Don't get me wrong, there is some silliness in the movie: Mercedes with the string tied around her finger for over 13-20 years, the annual whippings at the Chateau D'If, the chess piece... A pet peeve of mine was that they made his imprisonment 13 years instead of 14, because I guess, 13 is an unlucky number? I completely understand why these moments are in the movie (as symbols to advance complex relationships and experiences quickly), but I wish they could've gone about it differently.

But in that respect, there's also some major silliness in the book. The Count getting high with Franz, the long list of characters, the long and dull chapter dedicated to Luigi Vampa... in fact, I feel the that at times, the novel is unnecessarily padded, likely due to the fact that it was original published as a serial over the span of two years. It was NOT written as a novel. Just because its the source material, does not mean its immune from useless or silly moments (at least in my opinion). Compare the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory book with the film Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory... the film wins hands down.

With all that said, Dumas wrote an amazing story with all the classic themes: betrayal, adventure, love, vengeance, friendship. It is certainly my favorite novel and the masterpiece many claim it to be, but this doesn't imply its perfection, and the same could be said for the films. They're both different mediums and experiences, which has to be accounted for.

______________________________________

"Life's a pain and God's a sadist."