The Count of Monte Cristo (2002)

I love this movie. It's not perfect, but what it gets RIGHT it gets VERY right. The acting is solid across the board from everyone involved:
- Caviezel shows great range with the role. His character totally changes over the course of the film and he's always convincing. I like how he keeps his rage just below the surface, only occasionally letting it burst out.
- Pearce gets the showier role and really goes for it. He ALMOST goes cartoonish at points (thank God he doesn't have a handlebar mustache), but he's always believable.
- Harris looks like he's having a blast.
- The supporting actors (Wincott, Guzman, etc) all put in solid and memorable work.

Is it different from the book? Yes. So what. It's quite a bit of fun and is never dull.

I saw this with my wife on opening weekend in a nearly full theater, and the crowd absolutely loved it.

It's Caviezel... There is nowhere that it's Cavasil.

Pretty good movie.

Love this film. I love how Guzman is, at once, Edmond's Alfred and Chewbacca. And the way they photographed Dagmara Dominczyk makes her easily one of the most absolutely stunning women I've ever seen on film.

That's a very astute observation, John.

Yeah, she's definitely a looker. There's a great deleted scene that immediately follows the staircase conversation with Pearce (where he acknowledges his affairs and finds the revelation liberating) where she asserts herself to him, showing that she's willing to play hardball with him if he gets too out of line. They really should have kept that scene in there as it does a nice job of really punching up her character.

Couldn't have said it better, Judas.

Oh lord, yes. It was actually disappointing to see some of her IMDB photos. They didn't do justice to what she looked like in Monte Cristo. But still, Patrick Wilson is one lucky bastard.

I referred to this film as 'mediocre' in the Mediocrity Thread, but Judas was one to put me in my place. In this case, I think I just equated 'not great' with mediocre. Not the same thing, obviously. I think it was mostly colored by some of the tonal inconsistencies in the film.

I feel like Cavizel's more grounded and serious performance (quite a good one) is at odds with the crowd-pleasing nature of the movie. Guzman feels too contemporary an actor to really fit into everything else (though I love that he's there). Pearce rides the line into the world of cartoon supervillainy. Harris plays Yoda. Wincott plays Wincott.

But yea... when it works, it REALLY works. And as I mentioned in the other thread, I love that the film tries to be godly (drop the hate!) while having a ball being a revenge flick (hate is badass!).

And Cavizel's hair is goddamned sexy. Twirly twirly...

I love the scene where Pearce actually betrays Caviezel. The pure anguish in Caviezel's eyes as he realizes what his best friend has done to him is crushing.

I don't remember the exact words, but:

'Why???'
'Because I'm a nobleman and you are the son of a clerk, and I shouldn't want to be YOU'.

And right there, the movie is off and running. That is a fantastic moment, because for that moment, you can actually sympathize with Guy Pearce's character.

Another good moment for him is at the end where he's about to ride off and escape. He stops and sees a far off horizon of nothing. And then turns back out of utter pettiness. It's great.

I watched this last night, actually. Another movie I could put on my personal movie channel. Saw it in the theater when it came out, but I still don't know why I don't own the movie. Maybe I'm waiting for the Blu-Ray.

Saw it in the theater and own it on dvd. Its a terrific flick and really redeems Kevin Reynolds from Robin Hood Prince of Thieves.

Its not great as said but its rock solid and dare I say it a mini classic.

My history teacher took us to see this in January 2002 when it came out, and I thought it was really great. Bought the dvd 2 years ago, and it still holds up. A nice way to spend an evening.

Saw this one in the theater and really enjoyed it. Will definitely pick it up if it ever comes out Blu-Ray.

Guzman is so hilariously miscast in this.

POT has its faults, but not because of Reynolds.

No, it's because it's not two hours of Alan Rickman stomping Costner's face in.

Reynolds has had his moments. 187 is also a surprisingly effective little film.

I disagree. The arc she has is amazing and that would have taken away from the fact she was trapped in this marriage with Fernand, it wasn't one of choice but of necessity. She did these things not for herself but for her son. It would have made the film very lopsided to have her assert herself that early on and then be trampled over at the birthday party as Fernand dithered off to meet with a man who had the love of her life executed. The way she delivered the line "What are they doing here?" was exceptionally well executed, you could HEAR the subtle distain in her voice for Villefort.

The absence of that scene enabled the climax of her standing up to Fernand and revealing the only reason she married him was because she was pregnant with Edmond's child all that much more powerful.

Guzman is the total package in COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO. Intentionally funny when he's a pirate (I run up to Paris, bam-bam-bam-bam....I'm back before week's end!) and unintentionally funny as a manservant with a wig who has serious emotional scenes with Dantes.

"I will PROTEK yu sir."

This is also the only James Caviezel film I like. When he finds the treasure, it looks like he's trying to growl underwater.

The only real problem with this story is that there is so many great versions of it already.

See also: The Beast

That shit is so funny. I laugh every time.

My favs:

The bit when Jesus saves him at the beach.

GUZMAN
I'm your man forever.

Also, when Guzman rolls up in the carriage and offers to buy the castle estate and almost stumbles when he gets off. Not sure if it was intentional or not. Damn funny, though. Also, the owner threatened to beat him. I would too, if I saw a chubby-ass Puerto Rican during that era.

See also: FANDANGO. And I rather liked TRISTAN + ISOLDE.

I actually agree with this, I grew up loving the old 1975 Richard Chamberlain-Tony Curtis version personally.

As enjoyable as the Caviezel (how hard is that, Princess Kate? CAVIEZEL!) version is, the Gerard Depardieu miniseries trumps it...and pretty much every other version.

Really happy to see a lot of love for this movie. It was one I've always really enjoyed, but just kind of assumed it wasn't looked kindly upon.

Wow, I didn't know this film was so well liked. Good for it. I think I've only seen it once, and the woman's absolute non-aging irked me. The only worse example of characters who remain perpetually beautiful for 20 years is in A Head in the Clouds - Charlize Theron, Stuart Townsend, and Penelope Cruz do not age one shred in after decades. In fact I think they get better looking.

Jim Caviezel is sorta flat to me, but very handsome. That and the hot air balloon are really what I remember. The Richard Chamberlin version is very good - he seemed to just burn with hatred.

Oddly enough this makes me want to watch Rob Roy.

Kate, you've grown on me a little bit, and I ask this with all sincerity, and you may have answered this already, but do you have aspergers? I don't mean that as an insult, I'm honestly just very interested. I've known a couple other people in forums that had it, and they had a very similar way of interacting on forums.

Just watched this again and it holds up beautifully. Richard Harris adds so much class to this film.

Only a few things grate on repeat viewings the music being the first in the quieter moments its kind of flat. Second Henry Cavill who is a whiny weak little kid who I just couldn't sympathize with. The lead actors carry him but shouldn't have had to in the first place. The character comes off as spoiled and arrogant and in the " Do your worst " scene I just didn't buy it at all.

Otherwise terrific film. I never saw Reynolds next film after this Tristan & Isolde but will have to. He should be making more films.

I don't know if this was acting, but I like how Harris sounds like he's about to drop dead every time he speaks.

Ok, I should rephrase that. Did a doctor ever tell you that you might have aspergers?

I love this movie. It's got so many great scenes and a lot of great lines.

The balloon scene, EVERYTHING with Guzman, Fernand's "You pleased me...some of the time"-style remarks, and...I could go on. It's little-known gem of a film.

As many of you pointed out, Guzman is so wonderfully miscast in this movie. He does everything with so much sincerity; he makes scenes that would be really stale with a more "appropriate" actor in the role unexpectedly crackle with life -- it may be funny when it shouldn't be, but there's something really magical about that added an off-kilter tonality.


Guy Pearce's Fernand is so goddamn enjoyable as the villain -- he's really talking down his nose at everyone, relishing every pithy remark. The revelation scene regarding his betrayal is great, and I love it when he and Caviezel go full-speed into each other at the climax; the hate is palpable.

As much as I liked her before, Dagmara Dominczyk's breathy voice grates on repeat viewings.

Agree with just about everything JD. They couldn't have done better than Harris, but I think just about anyone would've been better than Cavill.

This is on tonight and I had to dig out this thread to post. A great film, one of those that reminds me why I love movies.

I've always dug the hell out of this movie and I'm glad to see that others feel the same way.

This has aged really well. I kind of love the energy of the film and it's style, but I think it short changes the actual story quite a few times.

Dumas' novel is a bracing kind of read, the sort of novel that would inspire films like Oldboy, whilst the film is fairly light and fluffy. It pays a little lip service to the destructive, unyielding, nature of revenge but it comes across more as romp than a morality play.

Love the final swordfight though, probably one of the most surprising things in the film. The fight is not only choreographed really well, but both actors actually have proper fencing posture and really sell it well. It's up there with Rob Roy and Shanghai Knights in terms of western sword fights, in my book.

You're right that the film comes across more as an adventure-romp than a morality play, that's actually part of what I like about it. Revenge has become pretty heavy business as of late but Monte Cristo really lets you revel in the comeuppance more than most films would.

 

Also, good to see a shout-out to the Shanghai Knights sword fight, it's one of the most astonishing swordfights I've ever seen put to film and Gillen in particular sells it really well.

I'm not a fan of Shanghai Knights, but that swordfight between Gillen and Chan is probably one of the best choreographed fight sequences in the last decade. It's astounding that it has this moment of almost perfection in the middle of a fairly middling movie. I think I made a thread about unexpectedly great moments in films, because of that fight sequence.

Most of Knight's fight scenes are solid if not great. It's probably the last time I can remember really being wowed by Jackie Chan.

Wow great to see some Shanghai Knights praise. I thought it was pretty great back in its day its been awhile though will have to dust off my dvd.