“Disaster on film”: This film is the worst adaptation of The Count of Monte Cristo according to viewers

Alexandre de la Patelliere and Mathieu Delaporte’s The Count of Monte Cristo recently crossed the 3.5 million mark in French cinemas. The highest-rated French film on AlloCiné, with an average audience rating of 4.5 out of 5 stars, Pierre Nin’s feature film is adapted from the literary work of Alexandre Dumas.

Since the release of the film on June 28, booksellers have seen a surge in sales of the novel. Folio has already had to reprint the novel three times. And although the film is not faithful to the novel in every way, the public is fascinated by this great revenge mural.

The Count of Monte Cristo version 2024, Pierre Nin Plays Edmond Dantes, a young sailor who falls victim to a conspiracy. Arrested on his wedding day for a crime he did not commit, he was imprisoned at Chateau d’If. Fourteen years later, he managed to escape. Vastly enriched, he returns as the Count of Monte Cristo to seek revenge on the three men who betrayed him.

Over 30 screen transpositions

If it was less adapted from the novel”This is a musketeer“, “The Count of Monte Cristo“There have been about thirty transpositions on the small and big screens. The first screen adaptation dates back to 1908, an American Francis Boggs film, The Count of Monte Cristo, with Hobart Bosworth in the title role.

The most recent is Kevin Reynolds, released in 2002, La Vengeance de Monte-Cristo in 2002 with Jim Zwienzel, and the Jose Dian miniseries (aired in 1998) starring Gerard Depardieu remains one of the most famous. This revenge story loosely inspired Mike Kelly’s American Revenge series with Emily VanCamp, Madeleine Stowe and Gabriel Mann.

If the Dimitri Rassam-produced film is – to date – the best adaptation of the Alexandre Dumas novel according to AlloCiné’s press and audience ratings, what is the worst adaptation of the French author’s literary work?

Worst movie adaptation of The Count of Monte Cristo

Judging by the number of ratings and reviews, this is an American blockbuster Kevin Reynolds, The Revenge of Monte Cristo worn by Jim Caviezel Which is the worst film adaptation of Dumas’ work.

With 307 ratings and 38 reviews, the film receives an average rating of 3 out of 5 stars. Which is not a shame. In this version, Jim Caviezel portrays Edmond Dantes, while Guy Pearce is Fernand Mondego (the equivalent of Fernand de Mortseff), future Superman Henry Cavill – then 19 – his son Albert, Dagmara Dominczyk plays Mercedes, Richard Harris is Abba Faria, Luis Guzmán is Jacobo. Frayne lends her features to Villefort, Albie Woodington is Danglars and Helen McCrory is Valentina Villefort.

While some viewers appreciate the acting and the actors, most deplore the too many liberties taken with the plot and characters, which they find too simplistic. The public also complains that the complexity of the novel and the political and social intrigues have been erased in favor of action scenes.

Internet user Afon writes:The story of the Count of Monte Cristo is an exciting story full of twists and turns and a very interesting central character. Only when Americans take this beautiful story, cut out many of its best passages, and bring in actors who sweat charisma to portray characters who are usually shallow and who here only play stereotypes badly, it is a disaster.

As we see the plot and character carnage in the way, we hope that the film can save itself with great action sequences and sword fights as the trailer suggests. Not at all, even in terms of action, the film never fails to impress and it’s hard to believe that a master of arms was behind these lazy and improbable fights. So this movie is a big disappointment. If the Americans are the best at action movies, we have to admit that we French are far superior to them when it comes to spoof movies.

So instead of discovering Monte Cristo with this shoddy and not-so-faithful adaptation, rush to TF1 (in a few TV movies) for the version of the time. Gerard Depardieu Much more faithful, much more accurate, with better atmosphere, charismatic actors and a much more impressive Edmond Dantes. Therefore, this Revenge of Monte Cristo is just a completely failed adaptation that doesn’t deserve your attention and shouldn’t even exist. It’s a bad movie.”

Redzing of Club AlloCiné wrote in 2013:Another adaptation of Alexandre Dumas’ novel, whose very rich and painful story (love, politics, business, revenge, betrayal…) always fascinates me. This is a simplified version, obviously aimed at a US audience. The first part works quite well (the Château d’If scenes are successful), but the second, which deals with revenge, is too fast.

Thus, the plan developed by Monte Cristo is very weak compared to what is possible in other adaptations. As for the characters, they remain very basic, especially the “bad guys”, rotten to the core. Still, we’re a long way from a 1998 “Iron Mask” tourniquet or an incredible adaptation. The film is easy to follow and the lead actors are charismatic (Guy Pearce as a traitor Jim Caviezel frankly becomes manipulative).”

There was no film for the visitor.Nothing surprising or scandalous, just a predictable failure. Only a master director could create a work of this scale without breaking teeth. To entrust this to a Hollywood director without a real genius was suicide. The result is average, as expected. The director even hides all the dark sides of the work, and the spirit of revenge is quickly forgotten.”

AlloNabillo writes:The Revenge of Monte Cristo is not a movie, but a disaster of a movie. The frequency with which the characters fight there is more reminiscent of the saloons of the American West than the old port of Marseilles. We have known Monte Cristo’s merciless vengeance, but of them all this is undoubtedly the worst.’

Loïc G, on the other hand, is more lenient: “When the Americans do it again adapting an Alexandre Dumas book… well, it works!!! Thanks to the perfect actor, Jim Caviezel! Completely believable as Zorro from another era, he combines charm, passion and mystery. The rest of the cast is a bit stereotypical, but still infectious. All this does not lack enthusiasm, but in certain passages it sometimes quickly leaves a sloppy taste… But if we do this story in an hour and a half, we can’t do better. Finally good entertainment!”