MovieChat Forums > The Count of Monte Cristo (2002) Discussion > Did I watch the wrong movie?

Did I watch the wrong movie?

posted 12 years ago by gohtico_gohvan
30 replies | jump to latest

So, I just finished reading the books yesterday and then I watched the movie today. I could establish some similarities between the 1 hour of the movie and the first part of the book. After that... What the heck was that? Don't get me wrong... the movie was pretty could, but I think you couldn't call it "The Count of Monte Cristo". The second part doesn't have anything to do with the book. And of course, even thought I thought the movie was cool (I'll give it a 7) it doesn't stand a chance ith the story of the book.
Well I guess I'm gonna try to watch some mini-series with Gerard Depardieur. I heard those are the closest you can find to the book

[–] linda10989 12 years ago

Thank you!!! After about 10 minutes ago, I was VERY close to yelling "did the goddamn director/writer even read the book???" This movie is a very good action/swashbuckler but it does NOT deserve to be referred to as CoMC. This follows the source material as much as Liam Neeson's version of Rob Roy. Mind you, I liked that movie too, but other than the title, it had very little to do with the actual book.

thank you again for being so honest while stating the obvious that only readers of Dumas' work can understand.

linda

[–] i-sukurimu 12 years ago

I couldn't rate that movie...
I loved the books (that I finished yesterday) and undecided to watch to movie just after. What was that??!!
I have nothing against changing the storyline but... this was too much.

[–] ContinentalOp 11 years ago

''This follows the source material as much as Liam Neeson's version of Rob Roy. Mind you, I liked that movie too, but other than the title, it had very little to do with the actual book.''

The film 'Rob Roy' is not an adaptation of Scott's book nor does it claim to be. Scott's book was entirely fiction, whereas the film is an embellished version of the real Rob Roy's life and inspired by the equally embellished biography 'The Highland Rogue'.

Formerly KingAngantyr

[–] Cult_of_Kibner 12 years ago

The obvious reason is because it's a two hour movie based on a 1200 page book, but I saw the Richard Chamberlain version and it managed to keep the plot remarkably close to the book and still only be about 90 minutes, so go figure.

The book is not always better.

[–] darkangel2003 12 years ago

I enjoyed this film, I'm usually pretty forgiving of book adaptions and I try and go along with all their deviations. However I found this film quite jarring. I enjoyed it, but understandably compared to the book, the second half seemed to fly past so quickly, with hardly any explanation of what was happening.

I think I watched it too soon after reading the book. I'm sure if I watch it again, when the book plot has faded in my mind I'll enjoy it even more.

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin2 11 years ago

The Count of Monte Crisco is not meant for a stand along film, it should be a Miniseries, one that has as much time as Roots.

"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"

[–] ContinentalOp 11 years ago

''The Count of Monte Crisco is not meant for a stand along film, it should be a Miniseries, one that has as much time as Roots.''

I tend to agree.

And 'Roots' is one of the best shows ever made.

Formerly KingAngantyr

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin2 11 years ago

The most interesting character to me is Eugene Danglars, and she always gets cut entirely, like some other characters.

"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"

[–] Cult_of_Kibner 11 years ago

The Count of Monte Crisco is not meant for a stand along film, it should be a Miniseries, one that has as much time as Roots.

That's right. Dumas wrote the book specifically to be serialized, which means it's really the equivalent of a modern tv series as opposed to a featured length film, and when you remake a tv series into a feature length film it goes without saying that a lot of stuff has to be compressed and/or left out. A miniseries is a much more logical medium for this type of book if you're expecting a 1:1 comparison between the book and the adaptation.

[–] FourFiveEight 11 years ago

Modern books are rarely written with film adaptions in mind much less ones published in 1844.

[–] Mellow-Fellow 10 years ago

haha I did a "lol wut?" in my head reading his post too...

[–] Jane2005 12 years ago

I think you have to just accept that some movies are "inspired by" the book on which they are based. It is a way for people to put their own spin on the story. I happen to like the ending of this movie versus the book. The ending in the book is more real, but not very satisfying.

-Jane

[–] lightbite_4 12 years ago

I agree. It is a very good film and does for the first part of the film follow Dumas' novel; the second part loosely follows the novel, but does differ also. I can see why this has been done though; there are many characters and subsequent intertwining plot lines within the novel, and this would have been very difficult to have been included in a film with time restraints and a budget to keep. I can, therefore, understand why the film has been done the way it has been. And, all in all, it was a good production.

[–] southernman100 12 years ago

Just think of it as how the book should have been written

[–] Sunny-22 12 years ago

Love the movie, read the summary on wikipedia and its too much of story in the book

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DraganaTJones 12 years ago

I also just finished the book and I thought I shall give it a try to the film as well.. And I was really disappointed.. It looks a bit disrespectful to change so many things.. Fine, I understand even if it's only inspired by the book, but then don't call it The Count of Monte Cristo!!

The movie itself is well done. But disappointing.

“They say Football's a matter of life and death - but it's more important than that” Bill Shankly.

[–] Cult_of_Kibner 12 years ago

read the summary on wikipedia and its too much of story in the book

If you didn't read the book you don't have grounds to criticize it.

Bruce Wayne? Why are you dressed up like Batman?

[–] All-thats-gold-does-not-glitter 12 years ago

That's exactly how I felt when I watched it. The Count of Monte Cristo is one of my favourite books of all time and I remember being so excited when I heard that they were making a film of it.
Imagine my disappointment after the first hour (which followed the plot of the book) we suddenly get this alternative story that doesn't follow the book at all!

There was no happy ending! He does not end up with Mercedes; in the book she was privy to the wrong committed against the Count (although he doesn't punish her directly as she was not aware of the plot against him) by marrying one of the plotters.

Argh! The book is AMAZING and this film just sh**s all over it...

"Step up to red alert."
"Sir, are you absolutely sure? It does mean changing the bulb."

[–] Keyser_Soze_Is_Here 12 years ago

The OP is spot on. The only resemblance this film has to the book is the title. Change the name's of the characters and the settings and this would be a completly different story.

I got the tendency to slip when the nights get wild

[–] paige-256-91235 12 years ago

The screenwriter said he purposely wasn't making it like the book because he wasn't trying to recreat it. He wanted to do his own thing with the storyline. Sad but true. I still love the movie.

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 12 years ago

I read The Count of Monte Cristo & saw the 70s miniseries before I saw this film in the theatres. & I love this movie 10/10 for me. The more films you watch especially classic films from the 30s & 40s, you realize that films don't exactly need to be a carbon copy of the source material.

[–] Rascar-Capac 12 years ago

Excactly. This version is by no means as far from the novel as some critics here on this board claim it to be. And what is more, the way, Dumas epic story is retold here (in a not so epic but nonetheless fine way), the filmmakers created a wonderful entertaining adventure movie.
A film adaption isn’t bad just because it failed to clone it’s literary source for the screen. If that were the case then James Whale’s 1930 classic "Frankenstein" would have to rank as pure crap, as it is so loosely an adaption of Mary Shelleys novel, that the original storyline can hardly be recognized.

[–] FuTBoL_HooL 10 years ago

Possible spoilers.

Bit different but main points came across.

Count is a psychopath set on a revenge.

Dangalars was almost starved to death (how dante's dead passed away) but was pardoned by Edmond and left with 50k francs. In movie it was hanging but still spared without ability to talk.

Villefort in the book went to asylum and in the movie to prison.

Now with Fernand/Mercedes/Albert movie went the different way. I remember when reading the book long time ago I was telling myself Albert is his son. Of course math doesn't work out but wasn't thinking about it while reading.

Overall same as the book with some liberty taken by director.