Did I watch the wrong movie?

Years ago I caught the tail end of this movie on television and I was shocked to see how much this version differed from the book. It turned me off of ever watching the whole movie, and for years I never did despite The Count of Monte Cristo being one of my favourite novels.

However I finally saw it from the very beginning a few weeks ago and I have to admit that I was wrong; although this movie does depart from the novel, especially in the 3rd act, it does it in a fashion that I think stays faithful to the spirit of the novel, and even where it doesn't the new story elements are very well done. I was impressed with this production overall and regret having waited so long to see it!

I'm always mystified that people who read books expect the movies made from them to be exactly the same. If you want it exactly the same, then just read the book again! :) Simple. But if you want a movie, the pacing and everything has to necessarily be at least somewhat different. If you listen to the commentary, you'll learn a lot about why he did what he did with the story, and it all makes sense. He mentioned that it was 2002, the country was still in the throes of grief over 9/11, and he wanted a movie where the hero got his revenge and it ended happily for the good guys. I also read the book so many years ago I could barely remember it. All I really knew was it was incredibly long, so I wasn't expecting a 2-hour movie to cover all that. It would have been impossible. Also, from what he said in the commentary, the book was filled with dialogue, too much of which can make for a boring movie. Swordfights, horses galloping down roads through forests, dances, etc. make for much more interesting visuals, and this movie was filled with gorgeous stuff to watch and a beautiful score to listen to. And I thought Jim Caviezel did a wonderful job as Edmond, along with everyone else, including Dagmara. One of the most stunning actors I took special note of was Henry Cavill as Albert who ended up as Superman years later. I would never have thought that would happen, but he's very good with accents, apparently. :) Also, Guy Pearce was the perfect villain in all this. No, for sheer entertainment and satisfaction, this movie does just fine, imho. Apparently, there were a bunch of anachronisms, but I've seen this many times and never noticed any of them. Considering they did the whole thing for just $35 million, I think it's a miracle, and I'm really happy it was done.

however you cut it, this movie stands so well on its own i think it's a masterpiece in its own right, regardless of its source material allegiance or lack of.

i think most people agree. :)


--------------
Life is not a problem to be solved, it's a mystery to be lived.

Hello, I read the book as well and I like the 1975 version with Burton vastly better than this version.