The Abbreviated Monte Cristo

Section Five: A deeper dive into "Monte Cristo at the Movies" (rantings and ramblings) Best non-book ending: 1975 (Mercedes accompanies Albert to Algeria) Worst non-book ending: 1922 (The Count gives up his money to play "poor fisherman" with Mercedes, Albert and Haydee) Most physically attractive Count: 2002 (Jim Caviezel) Least physically attractive Count: 1988 (Viktor Avilov) Most charming Count: 1975 (Richard Chamberlain) Least charming Count: 1979 (Jacques Weber) Best sets: 2002 (Touchstone/Disney) Worst sets: tie: 1942 & 1964 (BBC) Closest to the book: 1979 Furthest from the book: 2002 Dumbest plot contrivance: 1934 (the Count is on trial!) & 2002 (Albert is the Count's son!) Dumbest way to die: 1973 (Danglars falls off a cliff) Worst new non-book character: 1998 (Camille, the Count's mistress) Most plot holes: 2002  (Capturing my thoughts and ramblings that couldn't fit in

Section Five: Monte Cristo at the Movies, Part 2 (1960-present) Movies are an entirely different medium, compared to books. Most of the time, movies are 2-3 hours, and with a story as complex as The Count of Monte Cristo , some things are bound to be left out. Movies cost a lot of money to produce, and they need to please audiences and make money . I get it. There are times when I approve of cinematic changes. For example, Man in the Iron Mask , where book-Aramis becomes a complete d-bag driven by greed for power. He lures poor Philippe into a plot against Louis XIV (and later abandons him), lies to his musketeer friends, and causes the death of the overly- trusting Porthos. Talk about bummer ending- one that's bound to cause an anti-musketeer backlash! So the cinematic re-writes made sense: adding a thrilling rescue of Philippe and downplaying Aramis' heel-turn.  So, back to Monte Cristo at the Movies... there's certain movie-only tr

Section Five: Monte Cristo at the Movies, Part 1 (1918-1959) Movies are an entirely different medium, compared to books. Most of the time, movies are 2-3 hours, and with a story as complex as The Count of Monte Cristo , some things are bound to be left out. Movies cost a lot of money to produce, and they need to please audiences and make money . I get it. There are times when I approve of cinematic changes. For example, Man in the Iron Mask , where book-Aramis becomes a complete d-bag driven by greed for power. He lures poor Philippe into a plot against Louis XIV (and later abandons him), lies to his musketeer friends, and causes the death of the overly- trusting Porthos. Talk about bummer ending- one that's bound to cause an anti-musketeer backlash! So the cinematic re-writes made sense: adding a thrilling rescue of Philippe and downplaying Aramis' heel-turn.  So, back to Monte Cristo at the Movies... there's certain movie-o