jimbo-53-186511 Edmond Dantes (Jim Cavaziel) is wrongly imprisoned at the hands of his jealous friend and a crooked prosecutor. Several years later, he uses hidden treasure and a sense of cunning in order to get his revenge against those that wronged him in the past...Although it's perhaps a little slow going in terms of setting up its narrative, The Count of Monte Cristo still more-or-less delivered on what I hoped it would do; the story is engaging and interesting and is anchored by an excellent performance by Jim Cavaziel (particularly during the time frame when he is imprisoned where we can really get to see his pain and suffering). Although him stumbling across an old wise prisoner who happens to possess all of the skills necessary to train him up to defeat his adversaries may seem a little clichéd and convenient this aspect of the story is still handled with sensitivity and some light-hearted exchanges were also evident from time to time.Once Dantes is free to exact his revenge then the film really steps up a gear and rarely loses momentum; although some aspects of the story are predictable there are still plenty of tense moments and the sensitive way that Dantes character is developed and the elaborate approach he uses to exact his revenge render the film a mostly satisfying product.The acting is generally good by all involved; Cavaziel is really good and acts as the heart of the film. Guy Pearce is every bit his equal through as his snivelly, conniving 'friend.' The supporting cast are all fine too and the film benefits from an early appearance from Superman himself - although I didn't realise it was Henry Cavill until after I had watched the film.Whilst I generally enjoyed this film, there were a couple of issues I had with the film; for a start when Dantes returns to exact his revenge under the guise of The Count of Monte Cristo I found it perplexing that no-one seemed to recognise him? I mean yes it was a good few years later and he had grown a goatee since but surely people would still recognise him? The film also didn't have as much swashbuckling in it as I had originally hoped, but in spite of this I still liked the film and thought the story was a good one and would say that it's worth catching if you come across it.

plumneptune Just fantastic! Classic tale of revenge, betrayal, love and family. I could watch this again and again!

Mr. X Hollywood does not seem to understand that it isn't necessary to re-invent a classic story to keep it interesting, when the classic story has proven itself most interesting to generations of readers. This is a Disney-fied version of the Dumas story, as "improved" by Reynolds and Wolpert who are given the green-light by test audiences and studio executives to alter the original story. While one couldn't expect to compress a lengthy novel into a a few hours of film, this is a re-make for Americans who aren't literate enough to enjoy reading the book or watching an authentic European version that might require them to read subtitles.I also do not appreciate IMBd promoting this movie, (selecting it automatically without any choice having been made, from several titles about MONTE CRISTO.

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...