Pluskylang Great Film overall

XoWizIama Excellent adaptation.

Beanbioca As Good As It Gets

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

wes-connors In this "classic tale of injustice, revenge and ultimate retribution," according to the DVD description, "Edmond Dantes is about to marry the love of his life and become a Captain in the Navy until he is falsely accused of conspiracy and is sent to the hellish island fortress of Monte Cristo. Locked away from his perfect life, he feels only hatred and revenge towards the perpetrators of this horrible injustice, but can see no way of exacting his revenge... "Told of a secret treasure by a dying prisoner, Dantes finds a new hope and escapes to find the treasure. Now with a fortune, he assumes the identity of the wealthy and influential Count of Monte Cristo. Here, he seeks his revenge using his enemies' greed and corruption to bring about their ultimate downfall." This is a handsomely mounted ITC-TV production of the frequently adapted Alexandre Dumas classic. There are some hair and make-up distractions, but most of it looks nice, at least.Richard Chamberlain performs the leading role with focus and style. Of his quartet of veteran co-stars, Trevor Howard (the Abbe Faria) is most impressive. The younger cast includes an early Kate Nelligan (as Mercedes) and the grown-up Dominic Guard (as Albert) kid from "The Go-Between" (1970). But, with piercing sword and courtroom play, the lesser known Carlo Puri (as Benedetto) makes the most memorable impression.****** The Count of Monte-Cristo (1/10/75) David Greene ~ Richard Chamberlain, Carlo Puri, Kate Nelligan, Trevor Howard

screenman The 1960's American television hospital drama called 'Dr Kildare' made then Hearthrob, Richard Chamberlain, such a household face and name that to my generation he became pretty well typecast. I, for one, never particularly liked him; there always seemed to be a lurking smugness in his expression.That said, he has proved himself to be a fairly enduring actor of considerable ability. He really came into his own as the sleazeball son-in-law in 'Towering Inferno'. That was how I always imagined him.This movie casts him differently. He is the Grudgemaster General of the title, Edmond Dantes. Imprisoned on bogus charges for years on end in a vile remote dungeon; life seems to have ended in living hell. Then, he befriends an ageing, highly-educated fellow prisoner who teaches him all manner of science, philosophy, and social grace during their confinement. He also grows to understand the wicked deception that has befallen him.However, his fellow prisoner has a secret. It's the map to an unimaginable hidden treasure which he tacitly bequeaths to his young protégé.The old man dies suddenly. And in doing so provides the younger Edmond with a fortuitous means of escape. After a little dalliance with some pirates, he locates the stockpile of wealth and embarks upon revenge.Four villains require his particular attention. Edmond rises from nowhere to be the most fashionable fellow with money to burn. He means to humiliate and destroy each of his enemies publicly rather than just kill them. That untold wealth enables him to investigate the minutiae of their lives and discover their greatest weaknesses.It's a grudge-bearers pipe-dream. We watch as each in turn is shamed, scandalised and overthrown. He lets no-one and nothing stand in his way. This is how vengeance should be done.Chamberlain gives a very creditable central performance. He demonstrates that, if anything, the media have under-valued him. He is Mr Ice. His piercing blue eyes positively sparkle with revenge. The familiar smirk assumes the likeness of an acid sneer. How well the movie follows Dumas' book I cannot say, never having read it. Yet I have seen a number of other interpretations on screen and still consider this the most pleasing and convincing.All of the principal actors give a good turn. And there are several notables such as Donald Pleasance, Louis Jourdan and Tony Curtis. All of them are still in their prime. The costumes are suitably flamboyant, set-pieces convincing, there is some imaginative location work. Other technical aspects seem nicely brought together. Although made for television this was certainly not done on the cheap.Perfect for the unforgiving of all ages, this movie is a well-presented period drama that deserves to be seen at the cinema instead of being confined to the prison of television. Check it out.

Liam When you convert a novel of 1100 pages to a film of about 100min, you're inevitably going to lose a lot of details - probably a few important ones. But under the circumstances, this film was about as good as it could get. I love the original novel, and was a fan of the 1973-74 films of "The Three Musketeers" (in which Richard Chamberlain played Aramis, incidentally), and so was interested to see this.The most obvious change is that the first half of the film deals with about the first quarter of the book - making it a little unbalanced. But then, the book has so many subplots, it was probably necessary to let go of a lot of them.The other obvious change is that in the novel, Danglars is the main villain, whom Dantes pardons at the end. In the film it is Mondego - which makes more sense from a film point of view, as Mondego took Dantes' bride. But apart from that, here, Dantes does not show any mercy - whereas in the book Danglars was pardoned, in the film he does not show any remorse until all four villains are either dead or locked up - and only then because Mercedes does not love this new version of himself. So that's a pity.Still, changes aside, this film is about as good as it could be. Someone else said probably best for those who've not read the book. They're probably right. But that doesn't mean you can't enjoy it if you have read it. I'd give this 7/10.

warlock This movie is excellent, especially compared to the new version with James cavaziel, which is much longer, and still does not touch on the depth and characters, this 75' version was somehow able to do. As well Chamberlain, was able to show through voice and appearance, changes of appearance from the young man of 19 to the man in he would be in his late 30's. If they didnt capture every subplot, they covered most of them, in more pared down fashion. Its a shame this was not made into a miniseries at the time on tv. It would likely have been excellent. You can tell from the cuts in the movie, that there was a longer one there, that couldnt be aired due to time constraints. Nevertheless, excellent, american production of the film, though not as good as the version with Gerard Depardieu, Chamberlain, himself, cuts a finer figure as the count, at least in is look. Chamberlain had assurance, picked a voice to use in the film, which I point out, because in the 2002 version, Cavaziel, had this very problem and never was able to be comfortable in how he delivered his lines or his appearance. Great Film catch it while you can.