The Story of the Count of Monte Cristo (1961) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Though opulent in clothes and decoration, not the best of versions
Enneos118 August 2006
The first film of this story, that I came to know, was the 1975 version with Richard Chamberlain as ruthless avenger and I must say, this older film (1961) with Louis Jourdan as Edmond cannot compare with it.

Sure, the filmmakers made all efforts, if you look at the settings, equipment and clothes. But to my taste the film lacks suspense. The story unfolds nice and neat but without any climax. All dramatic moments are predictable. Also in contrast to the 1975 TV version here the music is no more than pleasant background noise without any dramatic effect.

The scene with the Abbe Faria in the dungeon is but a small intermezzo - nothing shows the development from the naive, unsophisticated Edmond into the clever coldblooded count of Monte Christo by learning from the Abbe. Even this version is much longer than the 1975 film, it has less story in it. Here the count is still too much Edmond, showing more feeling as would fit for an avenger. Like an ordinary man, he rummages in the treasure, whereas Richard Chamberlain keeps this short and considers the treasure just a tool for his revenge.

The 1961 count of Monte Christo is still in love with Mercedes and tries to get her back and she also yearns for him. Maybe so much romance was wanted by the 1960s audience. So the ending - even similar with the 1975 version is not really credible here. Whereas in the latter it fits with the depicted characters, here it only seems to be a tribute to the original book. Considering the story unfolding in this older film, a happy-end would be the logical consequence.

Richard Chamberlain, on the other hand, is exclusively a count with barely any rest of Edmond left in him, whereas Louis Jourdan is as the count still too much Edmond and no sinister look can hide that. Jourdan is a brilliant actor and makes the best of it, however, he cannot save the film. It should be noted, that this very Louis Jourdan plays the State Attorney Villefort in the 1975 version - and plays it wonderful.
16 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The long and short of it
kosmasp3 July 2022
No pun intended - actually there seems to be a longer version than the one I watched. Which was over two hours already and therefor already long - but I might have missed out on 10 or 20 minutes or something like that. I can't imagine what that would be I missed out at. I also can't imagine this being better, because it is even longer.

What I can say for certain: the set design and department really did a great job. It has "old movie flair" to it - at least that is what I reckon some would call it. Maybe there is a better name for it. But it is really good looking, especially if you like really colorful pictures (no pun intended). The acting is good too - and you may know the story, that has been filmed a lot. I have not checked if it is the most filmed story. There is also the Three Musketeers, Robin Hood and other things that have been filmed a lot. But it must be in the top 5 at least.

But even if you don't know the story, it is simple to follow to say the least. Even the version I saw felt a bit blown up and too much. There are things in here that the movie or rather the story could have done without. But it has the pace of the time and it really lets you explore many things (human nature, downfall, revenge and so forth). If that is up your alley ... the movie may be exactly your thing too.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The French Mistake.
mark.waltz7 June 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Having seen the terrific 1934 version of the Alexandre Dumas novel and the above average 1970's TV movie, I looked forward to seeing this French language version which is a two plus hour screamfest. Louis Jourdan does tone it down for the love scenes with the beautiful Yvonne Furneaux, but a good 75% of the film is nothing but yelling. Certainly a gorgeous film made on sumptuous French locations, it is pleasing to the eye, but the ears suffer as a result.

The Technicolor photography really shows off the French Riviera to its best, and the costumes are a sight to behold in all its gloriousness. Even the squalor of life at sea is a pleasure to witness. The story is melodramatic enough without all of the yelling, even prior to Jourdan being imprisoned. The sound was so shrill that I began to wonder if it had been dubbed over even though I recognized Jourdan's voice. I couldn't imagine listening to the original three hour version so I'm glad the print was edited. But the editing didn't make it cumbersome as I could follow along, and it was tempting after a while to just turn the sound off even though I'd be missing the memorable musical score.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Best Film Version
sheilahcraft1 August 2015
I watched the 1975 version with Richard Chamberlain as Edmund Dantes and Louis Jourdan as Prosecutor Villefort. In this 1961 version, Louis Jourdan portrays Edmund Dantes, and does a far superior job of it. The emotional highs and lows, the torment--in his voice and on his face--every ounce of Edmund's soul pours forth as never done by any other actor I have seen in this role. Yes, it is a French film, spoken in French, but even if you do not know much (or any) French, that is no barrier. The actors are so brilliant at imparting the emotions and actions, that the plot is evident. (I happen to know some French, so that helps when watching Mr. Jourdan's French films.) This is, in my opinion, the perfect film version of this Dumas novel.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Louis Jourdan
Kirpianuscus13 September 2022
I do not know if it is the best or the worst version of the classic novel. It is only the occasion for Louis Jourdan to propose his Edmond Dantes . And his work is more than decent against, in few moments, of the script.

Beautiful costumes and decent solutions for fair adaptation.

The spirit of "60's is obvious and this excuse part of the manner of adaptation.

But it is just a clean Count of Monte Cristo, preserving in the clothes and gestures of revenge the same Edmond . And this not very succesful metamorphosis, for me, a simple reader , far to be or become admirer of mister Dumas is just enough.

Romance and revenge. And the familiar emotion, sure, in soft style, from the reading of book.

In short, the good work of Louis Jourdan is the axis of this Count . Could be better ? Off course, if you ignore the expectations of its period.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Sad, sad, sad
xlars25 February 2017
How is it possible for the people from whom Alexandre Dumas and Edmond Dantes hailed, to make such a miserable, sad, crappy rendering of the masterpiece novel of Dumas?

I have seen several variations of this story, in several languages, but this is by far the poorest. Opulent as it is in costumes - one would expect better, though I am not so sure whether the description from the book of the ship Le Pharaon is even close to the real stuff.

The worst, however, is the twisting of the story. Changing vital parts of the story to make an intense story more action-filled can only lead to crap. Even Depardieu's version is better than this - even though that is not very good either.

In hope that someone will make an epic - that doesn't mess around with the true story. I am truly saddened.
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed