Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

Edmund Dantes is here portrayed by Richard Chamberlain and he's pretty good as the innocent ship's captain in the early 1800s, egregiously handsome, full of probity, and betrayed and framed by three really mean mothers. They include Donald Pleasance, who just wants to see Chamberlain suffering out of sheer meanness; Tony Curtis, who is after Chamberlain's beloved Mercedes, played by a spirited and pretty Kate Nelligan; and another greaseball, Allesio Orana, who has been publicly insulted by Chamberlain. Arana is no more than a sneering villain who feels mistreated. But Tony Curtis is motivated by desire, not revenge, and Pleasance looks good in a rug -- years younger. He's also traduced by Louis Jourdan, the prosecutor, who puts him in a dungeon forever, for political reasons.It's a period picture of course and is visually very stylish, shot at Cinecittá in Rome, and in Liguria, a fishing port on the Mediterranean coast of Italy. The outdoor scenes are colorful, sunshine, castles, courtyard, and cold stone enhanced by the gaudy but convincing uniforms of the ship's officers and the guardsmen. Well, I've used the word "convincing" to describe the uniforms but I doubt that the French military of 1815 wore uniforms quite so tightly tailored. The guys look like ballet dancers in tights. They have no shame. Kate Nelligan, hélas, reveals nothing more than her face, which embodies both sex appeal and a guarded nurturing quality.Chamberlain spends eight years in a dungeon at the Château D'Ifre, which can be visited by tourists. His first years were in solitary confinement but then he tunnels into the next cell and is not only taught the wisdom of the ages by the wizened old priest there, Trevor Howard, but is also told the location of a horde of treasure and jewels. The priest dies, Chamberlain manages an escape, finds the treasure, become as rich as Bill Gates, spends much of it on philanthropic enterprises, and emerges from his years of exile looking tall, distinguished, and terribly rich. He's more loathesomely handsome than before, bearded, sweeping around with his stylish silver wig, walking stick, and long black frock coat.Returning to Paris he begins to take his revenge. He has our enemies and he destroys them with exquisite finesse. The fourth -- Tony Curtis' perfidious general Mondega -- requires a duel with sabers. They're awful weapons. Chamberlain has been properly coaches and though Curtis handles the sword as well as he did in his swashbucklers, it's drama not professionalism being displayed. The moral is that when all is said and done, in destroying your enemies, you inevitably hurt innocent people. What Chamberlain's character does is a little like carpet bombing in war time.

My mom learned about Alexandre Dumas's "The Count of Monte-Cristo" in the movie "Sleepers" and recommended it to me. I read the novel and was quite impressed by this version. Portraying sailor Edmond Dantes (Richard Chamberlain) getting falsely accused of being a "Bonapartist" in early 19th century France, and then escaping from jail and taking revenge, they really got the movie right. Two really dramatic scenes are the trial scene (because of how they film it) and the sword fight. One can certainly see how the novel influenced the boys in "Sleepers". The 2002 version with Jim Caviezel wasn't half bad either. Also starring Kate Nelligan, Tony Curtis and Donald Pleasance.Oh, and that school project? I made a video done like "Masterpiece Theater" and used scenes out of this movie.

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.

As all movies made from books do, it simplifies the plot to a miniscule point and takes as much drama from it as it can. As a movie, this works surprisingly well. Chamberlain is excellent as the conflicted changeling, but others don't do so well. Tony Curtis has never been my favorite actor and Kate Nelligan doesn't have much screen presence. Watching Louis Jourdan try very hard to play to the camera is kind of sad, but Donald Pleasance is very good and almost steals scenes away from Chamberlain.Unfortunately, this is a TV movie (1970s), so the direction is awkward and stage-y. But a pretty good script and Chamberlain's performance make this a strangely compelling experience.