To me, this movie is perfection.

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

The movie is surprisingly subdued in its pacing, its characterizations, and its go-for-broke sensibilities.

Always a good story and this cinema version is still pretty good today. Great sets, great acting, great views, great battles. This film aged well. It was the second time I saw it.

Based on the novel by Alexandre Dumas, this is the story of revenge Edmond Dantes, a man betrayed by his friends and imprisoned for a crime he did not commit. Directed by Kevin Reynolds, has a screenplay adapted by Jay Wolpert and has Jim Caviezel in the title role.This story is well known and is very good in film. Its an appealing story, with romance, good arguments for action and all that general public tends to like. Nevertheless, its not an action film, but a drama, focused on the destroyed life of a man and his thirst for revenge. The script is not brilliant, nor can we be tempted to compare it with the original book. But it does a competent job and transpose to the screen most of the major aspects of the novel, while adapting some points and bringing some new features that don't appear in the book, for dramatic purposes. In my opinion, the greatest sin of this script is the too much focus on Mondego, so that the revenge Dantés exerts on other three conspirators is hardly explained (one of Them ends up not even appear in the film).The main actors are Jim Caviezel and Guy Pearce, respectively in the role of protagonist and the main villain. Both are good investments: Pearce can be annoying with his arrogant attitude and Caviezel gives his character a certain hardness, without losing kindness and sense of justice. But this is not one of the best films of the two actors. It was shot at very attractive locations, from a visual point of view, and has good visual effects and costumes.In short: it's a good movie, which easily appeals to everyone and fulfills its role to entertain and tell a story. However, is not brilliant or particularly remarkable.

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...

I consider Alexandre Dumas' original novel to be probably the best adventure story I've ever read and would recommend everyone to immerse themselves in it as I did. However it was some years ago that I did so and as it recedes from my memory, I can't recall in detail the incidents from the book as they correlate to this film dramatisation by Kevin Reynolds, late of Kevin Costner's career-torpedoing "Waterworld", so that I can't take the point of view of some of the reviewers here about disparities with the source.For me then it was just a case of just sitting back, identifying enough with the main characters and following again the twists and turns of the story but not slavishly carping with any major deviations from Dumas' written word. It would be impossible anyway to condense such a massive tome into a two hour movie (watch the worthy French language six-part version starring Gerard Depardieu for that), so I just let myself be royally entertained with this sumptuously filmed, sharply written and well acted tale of jealousy, comradeship, enduring love but most of all, of course, revenge.The costumes and sets are a sight for sore eyes as are the well-chosen actual locations, particularly for the climactic scene at the ruined cloisters plus I liked the way film flagged its plotting intentions in planting in advance the little motifs by which Dantes will ensnare all his future prey, carefully dotting the i's and crossing the t's as he lures them to their deserved fates. All the leads perform well, Jim Caviezel mysterious but twisted as the too-trusting innocent taken in by best-friend Colin Farrell's covetous, asinine Mendango, Dagmara Dominczyk exotic but vulnerable as the woman they both love but who ultimately never wavers in her true devotion and Richard Harris in an effective cameo as the old priest who initially supplies the means by which Dantes can embark on his grand plan of payback but who also plants the seed for his moral redemption by the film's close.I almost couldn't believe that this was the same director who helmed Costner's expensive folly. Here Reynolds' direction flows excellently, always at the service of the story, nicely mixing up the action and suspense and while detractors might demur at the liberties taken with the text, I think the film still managed to purvey the underlying themes of the book and most importantly, entertained and thrilled this viewer at the same time.