The novels of Alexander Dumas are favorites of numerous generations of readers due to the fact that of his fascinating characters, tangled stories and vibrant plots. Among them, “The Count of Monte Cristo” was finished in 1844. Provided its brilliant storyline about love and vengeance in the 18th century, the novel was brought to life for the very first time in 1934 by director Rowland V Lee and skilled actors Robert Donat, Elissa Landi and Sidney Blackmer. Nevertheless, would it be worth it to do 2nd film based upon the same book? Joe Leydon from Variety believes so.
He specifies his certainty in the director of the remake, Kevin Reynolds who “shows to be totally on top of his video game, infusing the grandly melodramatic permutations of the plot with firm conviction and elegant gusto” (Leydon). The old film from 1934 was offered a fresh, new, engaging production in 2003 filled with a lot of spectacular, uniquely pictured action scenes. The plot in both movies is naturally no different.
The serene life of Edmond Dantes, a twenty years old sailor on the “Pharaoh” ship, who plans to wed the beautiful Mercedes, is shattered when his pal Fernand wants the charming Mercedes for himself. 3 other individuals wish to damage Dantes for different factors. Danglars is an accountant of the “Pharaoh” and fears that if Dantes ends up being Capitan, he will lose his job since Dantes notices his abuses; young assistant prosecutor De Villefort hesitates that his dad’s connections with the dethroned Napoleon may be exposed, and the next-door neighbor of Edmond’s father is envious of his success. On the eve of Mercedes’s and Edmond’s wedding event, Dantes is slandered and accused of being a Bonapartist. He is sent out to the d’If castle, a jail fortress not far from Marseilles, without an opportunity to object his sentence. Dantes is notified that he will remain permanently in prison. He attempts suicide, but he is unexpectedly conserved by the appearance of another prisoner– Abbe Faria, who for years has actually dug tunnels and tried to escape, but due to incorrect estimations has actually wound up in Dantes’s cell.
The two misfortunates quickly become good friends. Abbe Faria is an extremely educated specific and finds who sent out Edmond into d’If castle and what their motives were. At that minute, he unsuspectingly planted the seeds of vengeance in Dantes. For six months, Abbe assists to inform Edmond in English, German and Spanish and introduces him to mathematics, physics, history and philosophy. After a year of preparing their escape, Dantes and Abbe started to dig the tunnel to flexibility. Unfortunately, incurable disease stalls Abbe from satisfying their strategy. Visualizing his death, the abbot exposes to Edmond his secret treasure hidden on the island of Monte Cristo. When the abbot passes away, Dantes takes his location in a body bag and is thrown into the sea rather of the dead Abbe Faria. It is unbelievable he endured.
After miraculously handling to get away, he ends up being the extremely wealthy and strange Count of Monte Cristo, develops himself among the French nobility and proficient strategies his vengeance on everybody who stabbed him in the back. He is overwhelmed by the desire to discover and assassinate his opponents, particularly Fernand Mondego who wed his fiancée and had a child with her. The story of vengeance is long, full of action and unanticipated plot turns. The Count sneaks past the opponents and finds their disastrous tricks which assist him in creating their suffering deaths. The Count of Monte Cristo initially wins the trust of his bane’s and manages to get near to them to learn their weaknesses, which will be the reason for their eventual death. Till the last minute of their life none recognizes the source of their problems. The change of the uneducated, naïve and kind sailor Edmont Dantes into the smart, aristocrat with a desire for vengeance is fascinating.
The actor, Jim Caviezel, utilizes all aspects of acting– mimics, gesture, voice, eyes– to explain the improvement. His eyes seem to be the most influential quality of his character. The performance of Jim Caviezel is so recording it resembles among the most well-known characters in the history of film– Al Pacino in “The Godfather”. As difficult as somebody looks for defects in the film, they can not. The instructions of Kevin Reynolds is at an extremely high level without needing to use fancy or low-cost impacts. He understands where to stop a scene, what to do with it, and constantly chooses the most suitable angle in order to engage viewers in the moment. An example of this is the very first scene in the film. Second mate Dantes and ship representative Mondego are aboard a yacht to Elba, the island to which Napoleon was eradicated and protected. Edmont and Fernand get on shore to look for medical materials for their passing away captain. Upon seeing them, the British horsemen very first assume Edmont and Fernand are here to complimentary Napoleon. An action scene begins as the British open fire at the two sailors from the “Pharaoh” ship.
The guards have no intent of listening to or thinking what Edmont attempts to tell them (that they only seek medical assistance). The distinct aspect in “The Count of Monte Cristo” is the cam position and rotation which is made use of in the extremely first scene. The recording is done from above, hence exposing the audience to whole field on which Edmont and Fernand battle the British troops. The camera turns around the actors and focuses on their faces to display the facial expressions as they battle. Dim light from the moon shows in their sweaty faces. Prior to we know it, the cam takes us back in the air once again, and we can see more British soldiers quickly approaching in the far range. Besides from above, cams are likewise filming from below (the moment when Napoleon appears). This constant rotation from above to listed below involves the audiences in the scene. We are completely knowledgeable about the location of each character in the moment.
After Napoleon “conserves” our brave character looking for help for their dying captain, the previous Emperor of France escorts them to the physician. At which point they enter his cabin and we notice the 2nd unique aesthetic aspect in the motion picture– darkness. Practically half of the movie is filmed in the dark and generally the only light supplied is by the Moon’s reflection (outdoor scenes) and candle lights (indoor scenes). This aesthetic element assists the audience experience what lighting may have resembled during the Renaissance duration. About one fourth of the movie takes place in the ghastly chateau d’If which is the outright ideal example of how to use virtual darkness in scenes. With Dantes’s arrival in d’If castle, we are teleported to his brand-new “home” for the next 16 years, filled just with darkness and horrid beatings. What do we think of when we hear the word “darkness”? Worry, death, suffering? This is precisely what the director desires us to feel when we are seeing scenes from d’If castle.
Fear– from the yearly pounding they give all innocent detainees. Death– that ultimately comes either from starvation or suicide. Misery– being exposed to just a little window of light and one meal a day. Another obvious visual component in “The Count of Monte Cristo” is using the blur result. The director frequently blurs the background to set more focus on what’s occurring in the scene. We see this aesthetic element throughout the whole film, primarily throughout dialog accompanied with a close up on the characters faces for example, the scene of Mercedes and Edmont speaking by the rocks. The electronic camera is concentrated on their faces when we see Fernand approaching from the distance. Seconds later, the focus is altered to Fernand as Mercedes and Edmont are blurred to the viewers. When Edmont shares the news of his promotion we can see the jealousy and disappointment on Fernand’s face. Mentioning characters faces, the movie also focuses on the representation of characters’ eyes.
The clearest example of this would be the dinner scene at Fernand and Mercedes’s estate for their boy Albert’s birthday. After saving the children life, Count Monte Cristo was welcomed to the Mondego home for Albert’s birthday party. Throughout the whole evening, Monte Cristo and Mercedes exchange looks as the Countess Montego starts acknowledging the love of her life, Edmont Dantes, in the new French aristocrat. They exchange expressions, looks, smiles which expose to us what the characters are thinking. Such details make “The Count of Monte Cristo” a “extravagantly installed and appealingly old-fashioned swashbuckler” (Leydon). The customer of “The Count of Monte Cristo” on Variety– John Leydon– offers a great summary of the movie. He blogs about the stars, plot and direction without going in depth on a particular topic or applauding/ slamming the motion picture in excess. Those are the precise qualities of a great film review.
This raises a burning question– who can write a movie review? In the post “Movie criticism in the age of the Internet” the editors of Cineaste recommend “it typically seems that everybody is a critic” (Cineaste), and we can all concur with that. Nowadays, people can see, comment and write anything online. Anybody can register on a blog site or forum and start composing reviews of films. It does not even matter how great their writing is or what position they takes due to the fact that today “everyone’s a critic” (Cineaste). The expression “quality over amount” can quite correctly use here. There are a growing number of movie customers on the Internet, to whom Cineaste refers to as “novices” (Cineaste), “demented teens” (Cineaste) or typically– contemporary film critics. Tobias Grey’s thoughts on this brand-new age of criticism in his post “Debating film criticism” is that “contemporary movie criticism is far too subjective and not nearly analytical sufficient” (Grey) in addition– “criticism is considered to be dead, movie criticism especially so.” (Jesse Walker).
While this might seem bad, I like the truth that if you do not take pleasure in a specific movie, you’re not necessarily a bad reviewer or a person without any taste in film due to the fact that “you have a soulmate in cyberspace, and he posted his thoughts (which are identical to yours) on a now-defunct interactive Web site” (Walker). So, what does all of this tell us? The big amount of movie criticism on the Web kills the real meaning of quality level movie criticism, however it exposes us to more authors’ thoughts and viewpoints. The editors in Cineaste express their hope that “good criticism will predominate over bad in both magazines and the Internet– which increased bids for corporate and government control of the online world will not hush, or silence, the lots of vibrant online voices (a few of whom are represented in our symposium) that have actually currently altered the face of modern movie criticism.”
“The Count of Monte Cristo” is a catching and interesting movie. The classical romance in the 1800’s intrigues the viewer and the action grabs your attention. It is a preferred film for people of all ages because it reveals human qualities that last forever such as greed, desire for vengeance, love and more. Analyzing the movie as art I paid more attention to the camera motion and lens zoom which made me realize how excellent the motion picture actually is. The director interacts with us through visual language and the characters reveal their thoughts through their facial expressions.
A close up on the main character’s troubled face or shaking eyeballs can inform us a lot more than dialog. I like “The Count of Monte Cristo” for the special attention to details. They connect us with to film and we experience it in a various method. Such small details might seem like not a big offer if you see the movie for its story, but if you focus and see the movie as art you ‘d see there is far more than dialog and action scenes to “The Count of Monte Cristo”.
“Movie criticism in the age of the Internet.” Cineaste Fall 2008: 1. General Reference Center GOLD. Web. 6 Dec. 2011.
Grey, Tobias. “Disputing movie criticism: Europeans share viewpoints on the pics they examine and likewise on the credentials for being a well-rounded critic.” Range 29 Oct. 2007: A2+. General Referral Center GOLD. Web. 6 Dec. 2011.
Leydon, Joe. “The Count of Monte Cristo.” Variety. n. pag. Web. 24 Jan 2002. Walker, Jesse. “Everybody’s a critic: Do not shed any tears for
cinephilia.” Factor June 2002: 62. General Recommendation Center GOLD. Web. 6 Dec. 2011.