Watch The Count of Monte-Cristo For Free

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

In 1961, Louis Jourdan portrayed Edmond Dantès / Comte de Monte Cristo in what I feel is the most compelling of all portrayals of this hero. In 1975, he returned for his second film version of this classic tale, this time portraying De Villefort.How intriguing to see both films and Monsier Jourdan's two very different roles. In the 1961 film he is the victim who seeks revenge, and I empathize with him. He breaks my heart. In 1975, he is the one who victimizes Edmund (Richard Chamberlain), and he does portray evil very convincingly. He proved that for the first time in 1956's "Julie." I admit that I am a Louis Jourdan completest. I own nearly all of his films, and I watch them each multiple times. Yes, he is breathtakingly gorgeous, but he is a far greater actor than most people realize. This film is worth watching even if you do not have access to the 1961 film (which is in French, by the way). But if you can, I suggest that you watch them both to see just how brilliant Louis Jourdan is in both roles: the hero and the villain.

I have seen four film versions of this story: This 1975 version, the 1998 French language version with Gerarde Depardieu, and the 2002 version with Jim Kaveizel, as well as one animated version. I have nothing against Kaveizel, or Depardieu. The 1998 version was certainly longer, and the 2002 version had a much bigger budget. But this is the best film version out of all of them.Chamberlain's performance conveys both Dante's initial naiveté, and his later pathological need for revenge, far better than Depardieu, who just does not seem right for this role, or Kaveizel, who seems to be on sedatives during the 2nd half of his film. And, without giving anything away,this version also has the most interesting-and believable-ending.NOV 2015 Update: I have now read the Dumas novel, AND I have also seen the 1934 version with Robert Donat (see my review for that film).I still believe this is the BEST film version, & while not perfect, it nevertheless captures the essence of the novel to the greatest degree.M

As I have stated elsewhere this was a well made adaptation of the Dumas work, but it is not the novel, which is not this feature's fault. Neither have any of the other American versions that I have seen. With the novel the are so many layers of subtlety and subtext in Edmond Dante's search for revenge, and they are not present here.That having been said Richard Chamberlain obviously attacks this role with his usual relish and reveals why he has become one of the top picks for many TV mini-series) Trevor Howard gives a reverent and subtle performance as the Abbe Faria. Donald Pleasance and Louis Jordan are both excellent in their roles as well. Tony Curtis is the souring of the milk as it were. His Count Mondego is just not that believable. While I esteem him in many of his roles over the years he was horribly miscast here. The rest of this cast were well picked and the adventure is there. Actually it is a well done feature considering it had to be made on a television program budget. A better script and big screen budget might have taken this film much further. Still, it is worth a watch. I give it nine thumbs up.

My mom learned about Alexandre Dumas's "The Count of Monte-Cristo" in the movie "Sleepers" and recommended it to me. I read the novel and was quite impressed by this version. Portraying sailor Edmond Dantes (Richard Chamberlain) getting falsely accused of being a "Bonapartist" in early 19th century France, and then escaping from jail and taking revenge, they really got the movie right. Two really dramatic scenes are the trial scene (because of how they film it) and the sword fight. One can certainly see how the novel influenced the boys in "Sleepers". The 2002 version with Jim Caviezel wasn't half bad either. Also starring Kate Nelligan, Tony Curtis and Donald Pleasance.Oh, and that school project? I made a video done like "Masterpiece Theater" and used scenes out of this movie.