 THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO
MPAA Rating:
 for adventure violence/swordplay and some sensualityReviewed by: Douglas Downs Better than Average
Moviemaking Quality:
 ½Primary Audience:
Teen to Adult
Genre:
Action / Drama
Length:
2 hr. 20 min.
 Twelve times Hollywood has turned to this enduring story of conflict, betrayal, revenge, and romance by Alexandre Dumas. It is hard to mess up a well written story. The first time this drama was captured on film was in 1912. I personally enjoyed the 1974 version with Richard Chamberlain in the lead. In this version, Kevin Reynolds directs a masterful presentation for a new generation of viewers. Reynolds, whose films include the lively Kevin Costner films Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and Waterworld is very comfortable with larger than life translations of compelling stories. The scenery of Malta and Ireland give this film a lush richness that is difficult to ignore. Our story begins with our hero Edmund Dantes (James Caviezel) and his friend, Mondego (Guy Pearce) trying to save the captain of their ship. They seek refuge on an island where the emperor Napoleon is living in exile. Napoleon takes advantage of the goodness he sees in Edmund and asks him to deliver a letter. This seemingly innocent request catapults our hero from the rank of Captain into the shame of imprisonment. His greatest crime is that his best friend Mondego is in love with his fiancee, Mercedes (Dagmara Dominczyk). A jealous betrayal and a public official's protection of his father lead Edmund into captivity in the famous Chateau D'If prison located on a barren island. Every year of his imprisonment he is beaten, and daily he traces over the inscription in his cell "God will give me justice". Just when things seem to get worse, Abbe Faria (Richard Harris) pops in (literally).
The "PG-13" rating should be observed. The film is sparse in the area of language (Kids-in-Mind reports "1 scatological term, 4 mild obscenities, several insults, 17 religious exclamations"), but it takes its full share of violence. There are two scenes where we witness someone being run through with a sword (blood included). There is also some premarital sex implied and infidelity excused. It is not a perfect film, but there are some lessons to be learned. I liked this new version of The Count of Monte Cristo and would recommend it with the above reservations. Year of Release -- 2002  Positive - Recently, Hollywood have turned spiritual and have capitalized on the Christian Theme. This is evidenced with "The Count of Monte Cristo." If I wasn't looking behind the magic, the film was excellent but then again, I saw "Cast Away" with Tom Hanks and James Caviezel's character's appearance did not truly reflect that of thirteen years of poor imprisonments. After all, I urge you to go see it. Positive - I was very happy with this movie. It has hardly any objectionable content in it whatsoever. There is no swearing at all. There is two implied sex scenes but you don't see anything. Then there is sword fighting and a couple of times where someone is run through with a sword, but nothing too bad. I would recommend this movie to mostly anyone. Positive - I loved this movie, but I heard it was nothing compared to the book. The French women showed a little more than necessary, and I think there might have been some cussing. Overall I liked it, but I don't think anyone under the age of 13 should see it. NOT a date movie, but a good action story. Positive - I think this movie is getting a bit of a bad rap in this forum. Yes, Edmond wants revenge - or so he believes -- but he spares people he could easily kill; he shows compassion for even the son of his enemy (while admitting that the boy is only a means to an end). At the end he is obviously done with revenge -- and it doesn't seem to me he actually GETS revenge; he meets out justice, usually through the proper authorities. This is a VERY clean film. They didn't show half of what they could have shown (and usually do). I could easily recommend this to teens (with a bit of talk about the premaritial/adulterous sex bit, which is not much more prominent or objectionable than in films like "You've Got Mail".)
I actually enjoyed this more than "Lord of the Rings", which I've seen twice. The characterizations and plot points are much clearer; the goals and motivations of the characters are plain. I have not read the book, so can't speak to that. I thought the movie was very well done, and I would like to see it again. Positive - ...The most important part of this story is the exploration of how revenge can become an all-consuming passion. Edmond all but allows his thirst for vengeance to consume every other emotion, including love, to the point that even his faithful servant (who was once a cutthroat smuggler) begs him not to pursue his vengeance. It is an effective morality play, showing how even Edmond, in his extremity, realizes that revenge is a hollow and cold victory, and how love, in the person of Mercedes, can conquer hate. As with most movies, Christians cannot rely on the flickering screen to impart the message of the gospel; it is up to them to take what is there and use it as the basis for a personal discussion, whether it be with their friends, their coworkers, or their own family. The concepts of sin and forgiveness are clearly present in "The Count of Monte Cristo"; will you, as a Christian viewer, be content to decry the moral faults of the movie, or will you use it as a springboard to reach others? Yes, it has its moral faults--the entire revenge motif; premarital and adulterous relations between Edmond and Mercedes; violence and murder as a means to an end. But, in the words of Mercedes, "Even a sin can become a miracle". The film has a strong moral underpinning (which comes out much more clearly in the novel). Many will go to this movie for the romance and the action; use that moral underpinning to reach them on a deeper level! Neutral - ...Be warned, this is not [the] book [version]! True to form, it was an exciting, swashbuckling tale with romance, adventure and high drama and with the speed of the movie, you don't notice the bad language and two sex scenes are only implied. The impression is left in your mind that the French have affairs and lovers don't wait for marriage, not because they need to save up their money, but because passion is present sex happens. Not much self control in this movie. There are some violent fights and some literal body piercing, but those scenes served to show the violence of that period of history and didn't seem inappropriate. The director captured the essence of Napoleonic France (although it's filmed in Ireland and Malta!) and the sets, the scenery, the acting and costumes were excellent. Richard Harris was great! There are many references to God and His justice, but this is lost in the revenge motif throughout most of the movie with a capital 'R'. In the end you are swept along with Edmond's desire to destroy everyone and everything and you, the movie viewer, don't rest until justice is served. You want to see the bad guys suffer and die horribly. Edmond is urged to forgive and move on with his life, but he sweeps those Christian principles aside with gusto. "Vengeance is mine", saith...Edmond. By the end you feel disappointed in the film for enticing you to enjoy paybacks and for the constant altering of the original classic, so that it becomes a Hollywood invention and not Alexander Dumas's tale at all. Is he turning in his grave? R.I.P. Alex. Many will love it, even if you and God don't! At PG-13 it's not good for a teenager's Christian and educational learning curve at all. Neutral - ...okay, at best. If I had it to do over, I wouldn't spend any money seeing at the theatre, or even renting it; I'd wait until it comes on TV one really lazy Saturday night. I haven't read the book, but from what I hear from two members of my household who have (and from what I caught on my own, being minimally familiar with Alexandre Dumas and early 19th century literature), a lot of things were changed, removed or added--and definitely not for the better. I realize that condensing a 1500 page book to a two hour movie is no small task, which will inevitably end up in a lot of alteration. The director had this to say: "It's just not very cinematic. One of the problems with the book is that it's just a lot of people walking into ornate rooms and spewing exposition to each other... So out of necessity we had to take some dramatic license with it." Dramatic license...you could say that! This "dramatic license" included the addition of fornication between two characters who, in the original story, specifically stated that they were not doing so, and were waiting until they could be married--and many years later they are back in bed together, despite the fact that one of them is married to another person. I heard a Christian reviewer raving about the movie, I assume from the mere inclusion of God's name used for a purpose other than cursing: Edmund (the protagonist) goes from believing in the sovereignty of God to
believing God doesn't exist at all, and then believing again after he has
got his revenge. I suppose that is what so impressed that Christian
reviewer (though I am told that in the book, Edmund's imprisonment does
not cause him to doubt God, but rather to rely on Him more fully). However, I was struck by the statement from the woman at Edmund's protests
that God is not real: "God is in everything. Even in a kiss." And then she gives a kiss: an adulterous kiss. Uh, yeah, babe, you might want to check out a few passages in your Bible to see what God would think of what you're about to do. At any rate, they made quite a few of what I believe to be mistakes (such as turning one of the characters into a far too silly and rather modern sounding oaf, and putting in a scene with a hot air balloon that is supposed to be grandiose but was really just ridiculously corny...the list goes on and on, and I'm sure readers of the book could enlighten us much further). The merit to the movie is that there is little or no language, no on-screen sex scenes (though it is strongly implied), and no gratuitous blood and gore. If you're looking for a diversion and you have no other choice, you may like the movie a bit more than I did. Positive - My wife and I enjoyed this movie. If you are a fan of the book be prepared to see some changes (like most books made in to movies). Some changes seem to be to simplify the story, others to to make it more "Hollywood". As for morality, things are more implied than blatant. The language is clean, the violence is average (two fairly gruesome sword deaths) and the sexuality is less than that of your average soap opera or primetime series. If the end of the story bothers you (revenge seems to be the answer to your problems by the end) read the book. It paints a bit of a different picture. Positive - Best movie I have seen in along time. There are some offensive areas. Enjoyed the action & history. "...Christian worldview portraying an early 19th century story of humiliation before exaltation & many references to the justice & presence of God marred by a revenge motif..." "...An interesting twist focuses on Edmund's rejection of God after his imprisonment, but later references show his return to belief..." "...non-lethal violence...little of it's graphic...non-explicit, sexually related comment...off-screen sex is implied in a few scenes..." |
This priest encourages Edmund, who is wavering in his faith, and the two contemplate escape. At one point of despair, Edmund exclaims "I
don't believe in God!" and the Abbe replies, "it doesn't matter--He
believes in you." Just as the two are nearing an opportunity to escape,
Abbe is injured and gives his trusted friend a map to a large treasure.
Edmund finds the treasure and uses the money to reinvent himself, plotting revenge against his betrayers. His anger almost begins to eclipse his capacity for mercy.