Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

The Count of Monte Cristo

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Count of Monte Cristo

    This is easily one of my favorite movies. I haven't read the book, is the movie a good representation of it? My girlfriend and I watched it recently and she laughted and pointed out the fact that in one of the tunnel scenes (won't say anything more than that for fear of giving a spoiler) the old man blows out his candle but there is still light. I rewinded the tape and low and behold she was correct. I'm surprised they let it slide... but I know I didn't notice after seeing it 3 times!

    Thanos

  • #2
    WARNING! THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS SPOILERS!







    The movie is fairly close to the novel until the point where Dantes finds the treasure. After that, the book and the movie are substantially different. One major difference between the book and the movie is that in the book, Fernand was never Dantes's friend.

    I don't recommend you read the novel--or rather, I recommend you read the novel to the point just mentioned, and then substitute the movie's story for the rest. As Robert Louis Stevenson wrote, "The early part of Monte Cristo, down to the finding of the treasure, is a piece of perfect story-telling; the man never breathed who shared these moving incidents without a tremor . . . [But the rest of the novel] is one long-drawn error, gloomy, bloody, unnatural and dull; but as for these early chapters, I do not believe there is another volume extant where you can breathe the same unmingled atmosphere of romance."

    Comment


    • #3
      AC wrote: [But the rest of the novel] is one long-drawn error, gloomy, bloody, unnatural and dull;

      FYI The Count of Monte Cristo was originally written in a serialized form and appeared in the French newspapers 'La Presse' and the 'Constitutionel' in 1844 and 1845. AC's critique is quite natural for someone with a 'post-modern' mind. For those of us who grew up in the latter half of the twentieth century, this is a normal reaction. We are used to 'sound bites' and Jerry Bruckheimer films that overload our senses with rapidly revolving images and explosions as though we have ADD. The Count of Monte Cristo reflects the thoughts and beliefs of the 'collective unconscious' of that era. Things moved a lot slower back then and people thought differently. We can know (just about) everything about them, but, they can know nothing about us. That is why this novel is so special and why it is one of my favorites.[/quote][/b]

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Anonymous
        AC's critique is quite natural for someone with a 'post-modern' mind. For those of us who grew up in the latter half of the twentieth century, this is a normal reaction.
        If you had read my post carefully, you would have found that I was quoting Robert Louis Stevenson (1850-1894), hardly a "post-modern" author.

        Comment


        • #5
          Watched this again last night. It's a great movie when you're tucked up in bed with a stinking cold and coughing your guts out. I think there's always somthing comforting about a Kevin Reynolds no-brainer.

          Speaking of which, he always seems to put the following in his films (I've only seen this and 'Robin Hood' mind :lol: )

          - The central romantic couple swimming in the sea/lake
          - Casting the long haired gravelly throated bloke from 'The Crow' (sorry, don't know his name) He's always Evil
          - Multi-accented historical figures who are definitely not American
          - Lot's of crap beards and wigs, especially when protagonist has been in jail for A Very Long Time (see beginning of Robin Hood as well)
          - False teeth in Evil Characters - again crap

          At least he wears his heart on his sleeve though. I suppose it harks back to the good old days, when directors were less cynical.

          Comment


          • #6
            This is one of my mother's favorite films - due in part to Jim's portryal and handsomeness :lol:

            I found the movie exciting and a great film for a modern update version, UNTIL the end, where he KILLS his friend, which in the original ended in him suiciding after bankruptcy. It kinda defeated the purpose within the film of Father Faria saying not to take vengeance into his own hands! Aside that, it was an excellent romp, easier on the eyes than the 2nd half of the book was. . . :(

            Comment


            • #7
              By far the best version, imo, is the Gerald Depardieu French, subtitled, serialised version that was on the BBC a few years ago. Very little swashbuckling, lots of superb acting, and a superb script to match the wonderfully convoluted plot (don't know how close it was to the book though.)
              Arma virumque cano.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Kalessin
                By far the best version, imo, is the Gerald Depardieu French, subtitled, serialised version that was on the BBC a few years ago. Very little swashbuckling, lots of superb acting, and a superb script to match the wonderfully convoluted plot (don't know how close it was to the book though.)
                Well, if your gonna throw the BBC in, hands down they did a better adaptation and i don't even have to see it to know that - Masterpiece Theater anyone? :D

                Comment

                Working...
                X