kristinavesovic i couldn't even watch more then 30 minutes. first, Edmond wasn't friends with Fernando. second they arrested him at the wedding not family dinner. third he didn't try to run away immediately when they arrested him,and he sure didn't run to Fernando... awful. i was so excited when i finished the book. I wanted to see the movie. and i am disappointed. i expected more. i noticed more mistakes, but i won't write them. and all of that for 30 minutes of watching. and i think that there should be more younger actors. Dantes should be 19 year old boy not 30 year old men. Some actors (like Morel) are so old that you think to yourself:he has to live 14 more years (while boy was in jail) and 10 more (while he was planning his revenge)HOW? Also there's this fail with Noirtier...

Leofwine_draca Alexandra Dumas' classic story is given the umpteenth remake with this modern reworking, which bears the unmistakable brush of Hollywood but still manages to remain entertaining thanks to some sterling performances. The outstanding actors at work include the relatively unknown Jim Caviezel, who really shines at the put-open Edmond Dantes, and the gorgeous and talented Dagmara Dominczyk, who puts in a nicely subtle performance as his grieving wife.Guy Pearce is cast against type as the flamboyant and emotional villain of the movie, and does an excellent job with the part. Add to this some good supporting roles for the likes of Richard Harris, Luis Guzman, and James Frain, and you have what is a well-acted and thankfully mature interpretation of the storyline.On first watch of this film, you immediately notice the authentic sets and the strong cinematography which brings out the landscapes of Ireland and Malta. Amid the drama and conspiracy there are a few nice action sequences, the most notable of which is the dramatic sword-fight between Pearce and Caviezel which doesn't disappoint. Moments of humour and romance counteract with the pathos and despair and the result is a well-rounded, if not sparkling, adaptation.

tiailds I just liked the story, so I assumed the movie would be somewhat good."Was it interesting?" There was plenty of character development, maybe too much. I would have preferred more of the film being cat and mouse revenge, but most was the setup. Everything seemed to make sense.1.5 out of 3 "Was it memorable?" Jim Caviezel performance is like most of his roles, bland. The amount of money involved in the story is a ridiculous amount.1.5 out of 3 "Was it entertaining?" A well planed revenge story is always fun for me. The action was OK, the sets were impressive, and the most of the acting was fine.2 out of 3 Starting with 1 (where I learned in prison), 1 + 1.5 + 1.5 + 2 = 6 A nice enjoyable movie with a few flaws that don't take away and of the fun.

arthursranch I liked this movie a lot except ....Happy ending, adventure, beautiful people, beautiful exteriors, beautiful landscapes, fun, some light-hearted banter, good story. Did I say fun? Fun.The best character for me was Luis Guzman. The sidekick was better than the star, who was OK, plenty handsome as required, perhaps a little wooden. I just found out that Henry Cavill was in the cast at 17.I rated a 7. Why not a 10, or an 8.5? The opening and the imprisonment needs to get over with faster. Richard Harris's part drags and drags, and forces the revenge part to be cut short. What a waste! That's why I call it "unbalanced." The ratings of 6 to 8 seem about right to me. I'd rate the post-Harris part as a 9. I skip all the way past the Harris part to start the movie at the point of escape.I'd like a new cut that lengthens the revenge and shortens the openings. As for the bad ratings on IMDb, this is a movie and movie business, not a book. Few movies should ever be compared with the book. The bad ratings seem all from disappointment book vs. movie. Kyle MacLachlan's Dune shows what happens when movie tries to follow book.