In fact, my motive for watching this film is very simple. I went to Jim Caviezel, the handsome guy. Didn't expect much, so didn't have much disappointment either. I love Caviezel's somber eyes and gentle voice. And that's why I didn't expect much from his Monte Cristo role in the first place - he is more than gentle and melancholy, but lacks the overpowering momentum of Monte Cristo and the gloomy feeling of being consumed by revenge. Besides, Caviezel's acting skills are mediocre. Although he is indeed a handsome guy that I like very much, it is difficult to give high marks in terms of acting skills. His performances are always gentle and watery, lacking a kind of inner tension and appeal, and it feels like a warm and romantic film will be suitable for him.
Guy Pearce, hey, what to say. The shape is a disaster, and every time I see his face, I suffer. He's never been a handsome guy, but he's still very masculine. But I don't know if it's because Fernand is an out-and-out bastard, the whole Pearce's appearance can only be described as wretched. In my understanding, Fernand should seem to be trustworthy and friendly, but he has a sinister and cunning character in his bones. And Pearce's wretchedness from the outside to the inside is really speechless. It's hard to blame Pearce himself, though, because his hilarious and totally unsuitable hairstyle and a few scenes with few appearances completely obliterated his own acting talent.
Well, let's talk about Mercedes. Oh, Mercedes, I really want to ask her why she is so beautiful, she hasn't changed at all for more than ten years, and she is a woman in her late forties, but she is still a girl, and she has nothing to do with the young woman. relation. And a fisherman's daughter looks like a well-educated middle-class lady from the beginning, it feels like a love story between a lady and a long-term worker. As for the illegitimate child, it made my jaw drop to the keyboard.
The priest is arguably the character that disappoints me the most. Even if the original book is not mentioned, this character should be quite wise, but no matter how I look at it, I feel that the priest is a bad old man, without the slightest aura. I've been thinking about if Ian Mckellen played the role, maybe the whole movie would have been a lot better.
Villefort's modeling is quite satisfactory. This is a British actor I like very much. He has played countless supporting roles and has a thousand years of tricks, but every time I am very impressed. Somber, cunning, and sometimes neurotic, with that English-born gloom. It's a pity that Monte Cristo killed him by just three out of five, like pinching an ant to death. In fact, the revenge stories in the second half could not be unfolded very well due to time constraints, and all of them were done easily and neatly, with almost no ins and outs.
As for the happy ending of the reunion, just like the illegitimate child, his jaw dropped again. This makes the film deviate from the original to a greater extent and become a typical entertainment film similar to Hollywood production.
Of course, if you completely ignore any famous novels, just as an entertainment film, it is still a very interesting movie. But if you want to put it together with the Count of Monte Cristo of Alexandre Dumas, this film has completely lost the strong and contradictory psychological struggle between the avengers and the enemy in the original book. It was as if a dignified oil painting was transformed into a brightly colored cartoon.
At the same time, there was a French version of Monte Cristo, played by Gerrard with a big nose. Of course, it has nothing to do with handsome. There are no subtitles, I can only scan it a little first, I think it may be closer to the style of the original work. Anyway, I can't comment yet.
View more about The Count of Monte Cristo reviews
