The Count Of Monte Cristo
Directed by Kevin Reynolds
The Count of Monte Cristo is a
cheerful adventure/revenge flick set in the
early-ish nineteenth century based on - but
not faithful to - the classic novel by Alexandre
Dumas pere. A sea farer from the wrong side
of the tracks is betrayed by his surly upper
class best friend who successfully plots to
steal and marry his lover. This dastardly treachery
sees our poor sea captain rotting in an island
dungeon, where a comi-psycho dungeon master
entertains him with a flogging every year. To
his credit the comi-psycho dungeon master does
promise not to do it if God appears before him
and asks him not to. You can't say fairer than
that. Our hero loses his sanity through shear
boredom. For one so starved of stimulus, even
Scream 3 would have
made a welcome distraction. OK, maybe not. By
a stroke of luck a fellow inmate (Richard Harris)
burrows into his cell and they join forces in
their quest to escape.
The Count of Monte Cristo passes
the time with enjoyable turns by luvvies in
fancy costumes. The movie zaps you with a few
bizarre modern references such as when one grunt
jokes to another something like, " I
thought we could have handled that better."
It's a fun gag, but this sort of prank evaporates
the illusion of the story universe.
This movie was pretty, watchable and pleasingly
free of music video-style gimmicks. But on the
other hand The Count of Monte Cristo
left me lukewarm. Maybe I expected to be moved,
maybe I expected more intelligence from a film
like this. Intelligence? From Hollywood? What
ever was I thinking?
|
|
|
spoilers corner
Spoilers!!!!
Warning: this box contains a movie post-mortem analysis that freely gives away important plot twists and details. If you have not yet seen this movie and intend seeing it, avoid this spoilers box until afterwards. Bookmark the page, see the movie, see if you agree with my review then write an arsy comment saying I am talking total b*ll*cks :-)
|
| |
The Count of Monte Cristo
is a film of two halves. The first half
- the betrayal, imprisonment and escape
is far more interesting than the second
half about the revenge. When our hero
became a rich count with a silly beard
I stopped caring about his plight. I remember
losing interest in the entire story at
this point. The protagonist was now fighting
from a position of strength and so there
was no suspense. The movie spent far too
long showing us his relationship to his
spoiled brat son and half baked romance.
The vengeance scenes somehow didn't seem
fulfilling.
After spending several years in a dark
cell living on a piss poor diet, how did
our hero find the strength and energy
to a) rescue his friend from the tunnel,
b) escape, c) kill the dungeon dude, d)
swim through two miles of ocean, e) run
down the beach, f) defeat a smuggler in
a fight?
The ending was wrapped up too neatly too.
Not a loose end was left untied. O how
I abhor the juvenile American penchant
for contrived happy endings.
|
|
There are no more spoilers below this
point, except maybe in any user talkback
comments.
End of spoilers corner
|
|
|
Something more in keeping with the novel
Add your comment to this page
 | | | | | | From: |
James | Subject: | 2002-10-02 19:20:02 |
| | | | | | From: |
hahaha | Subject: | 2003-06-28 04:44:21 |
| | | | | | From: |
Heather | Subject: | 2003-10-10 10:21:15 |
| | | | | | From: |
cecilia | Subject: | 2003-12-15 04:55:27 |
| | | | |
help: how to add your comment Page hits: 10278
|
|
|
On the talkback comments
|
| |
In reply to
James' "Not enough credit to Monte
Christo" talkback, I will rise to
the bait. Reviewing movies professionally
would be fun, but it is not my dream job.
Also, what makes you think that professional
reviewers write honest reviews? All the
evidence is to the contrary. Professional
reviewers are bribed by the movie industry:
inside information, gifts at premieres
and even hard cash are exchanged for positive
reviews of bad movies. The level of corruption
is high, most if not all reviewers, particularly
in the States, I might add, are movie
industry stooges. I am equally corruptible,
but no one would bother bribing me, so
I am kept honest and sincere not by my
integrity but by my impotence to affect
box office one iota :)
It should also be noted that professional
reviewers need to be wary of what they
say: they must be true to what their editors,
publishers and target audience expect
to hear, in terms of opinion, quality
of writing and tone. I would not enjoy
writing so much under such constraints:
after all professional writers are highly
prone to self-censorship. Professional
critics are not at liberty to voice their
true opinion. That is one advantage I
have over them.
Incidentally just because most other movies
are more terrible than Count of
Monte Cristo does not qualify
that movie as being automatically good.
Thirdly, how do you earn the right to
give a thumbs up or thumbs down? Either
way, who cares? I am the first to admit
my opinion is utterly worthless, I never
say otherwise! Unlike most critics I do
not take myself seriously. Reviewing movies
is a bit of pointless fun and a total
waste of time :)
Thanks
- Jim
|
|
|
|
|
