MovieChat Forums > The Count of Monte Cristo (2002) Discussion > An insult to the book.

An insult to the book.

posted 9 years ago by machevillfactotum
37 replies | jump to latest

seriously?I just finished the novel last night and watched that so called "the count of monte cristo movie.What the hell was that?Producers just bought name rights and the director filmed a very, very,very different story!It was really painfull for me to watch this movie.Albert, son of Edmond Dantes? Where is Bertuccio, beauchamp,debray, valentine and bad-ass Noirtier.I should've close the when Bonaparte gave letters to Edmond! ( still laughing omg)Guy Pearce maybe did a good acting but, his character Mondego was just a poor catolonian fisherman in the book and he was living in the same suburban/getto-like village with mercedes.Danglars, just hanged pfft.Read the book and see what happens.Villefort was terribly doomed.They just made a swashbuckling 1800's movie.I can give you many examples about how that movie turned a insult to a rich novel.But there will be many spoilers then.Shortly,book readers be aware:DONT WATCH ?T!

[–] LTUM (1051) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] janelsenor (2048) 6 years ago

This movie, like most adaptations of this story, misses the whole point. In the book, Dantes realizes he's gone too far with his revenge plot and stops. Removing that part of the story really loses the essence of it, in my opinion.

[–] Rascar-Capac (45) 4 years ago

I disagree with you even on that point. There is a moment in the movie, when Dantes realizes exactly what you proclaim he doesn’t: that is to say he has gone too far with his revenge plot. It’s the moment, when Mercedes reveals, that Albert is not Mondegos but Edmonds son. As he becomes aware, that he had been only seconds away from killing Albert, he abandons to execute his revenge on Mondego, telling him to leave instead. This is quite similar to the chapter in the book you mentioned, when Dantes allows a captured Danglars to leave unharmed.
It is only to Mondego himself, who returns for fighting, that the last of Dantes enemies gets killed in that final duel.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8801) 4 years ago

There's also the moment at the end where Edmond says aloud, "You were right, priest. You were right," in regard to taking revenge.

[–] janelsenor (2048) 4 years ago

Hesitating and later having a duel to the death is much different. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too with the film.

That's a far cry from Edmond realizing he's gone too far, his enemy repenting of his crimes, and Dantes allowing him to live. The message of repentance and forgiveness is sacrificed for a cheap action scene in the movie.

[–] Rascar-Capac (45) 4 years ago

"That's a far cry from Edmond realizing he's gone too far": No, I think it’s a free but respectful rendition of what Dumas expressed in the novel: revenge isn't fullfilling (as PrimeMinisterX just mentioned) and it can do harm to the innocents. Just like others you are bashing the film for not being true to novel, but looking beyond the numerous changes that were made I found that it captured the spirit of the tale astonishingly well.

[–] LTUM (1051) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TexasJack (12516) 6 years ago

That's an excellent take on it, and I agree with you. I enjoyed this film a lot.

[–] SeussMyTub (226) 6 years ago

Watch the one with Richard Chamberlain in it- better version and actually stays true to the book's ending, unlike this POS.