|
A flawed but enjoyable thriller
by Craig Roush
A Kinnopio film writer
The advertising execs are selling The Count of Monte Cristo as the "greatest tale of revenge, betrayal, and adventure the world has ever known," which sounds more than a little dubious to begin with. But assuming it's true, a great tale of revenge is conditional on the audience believing that revenge is even worthwhile -- you can't take your anger out on people you don't hate. Monte Cristo has a lot going for it, but unfortunately this most important component is the film's weakest aspect, knocking the wind out of an otherwise enjoyable movie.
The story is a classic, and it belongs to the French author Alexandre Dumas (as much as a story can belong to anyone who has been dead for 150 years), who is probably best known for The Three Musketeers and its sequels but most recently turned up in the 1998 adaptation of The Man in the Iron Mask, starring Leonardo DiCaprio. Similar to Iron Mask, this Dumas tale involves dank dungeons and wrongly imprisoned individuals, a combination known for producing a hungry desire for vengeance. And if there's one thing to be said for Dumas adaptations, it's that the filmmakers responsible have made an art of selling us on the musty wetness of those French prisons.
In fact, the Andrew Dunn cinematography in Monte Cristo is one of the film's most noticeable virtues, effortlessly transporting audiences to nineteenth century France and compensating for the movie's otherwise drab style. In addition to beautiful photography, Dunn also combined his camera work with editors Stephen Semel and Chistopher Womack for the fight scenes. Changing film speeds and filters, the Dunn develops visuals comparable to Ridley Scott's Gladiator -- a style that, almost overnight, has become the must-use look for period swordplay.
Monte Cristo isn't all swordplay, though, and to the credit of director Kevin Reynolds (Waterworld, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves), he competently blends the story's other elements: love, betrayal, and period drama. For the most part, though, they come as afterthoughts to the main thrust of the story, which is an action-oriented story.
It starts with the poor sailor Edmund Dantes (Jim Caviezel), whose adventure begins when, through a chain of extraordinary circumstances, he comes into possession of a letter from Napolean Bonaparte, which he must deliver secretly back to France. Dangerously naïve, he accepts the treasonous document, and is reported by his friend, Fernand Mondego (Guy Pearce), to the chief advocate Villefort (James Frain), and though Fernand feigns innocence, he secretly hopes to separate Edmund from his lifelong love, Mercedes (Dagmara Dominczyk).
Imprisoned on the island fortress Chateau D'If, Edmund receives help from a fellow inmate, Abbefaria (Richard Harris): in exchange for helping him tunnel out of the prison, Abbefaria will reveal to Edmund the secret location of the massive fortune of Monte Cristo -- the fortune which Edmund eventually uses to finance his plans of revenge.
Caviezel is the perfect man to play Dantes, but as is usually the case with revenge pieces, he is outshined by his more villainous costars. In particular, Guy Pearce steals the show -- he is the human embodiment of a weasel, at once cowardly and treacherous, and looking to advance his position at every turn. He is the kind of villain the film could have used more of; or conversely, the film could have used more of Pearce's villain.
Richard Harris and Luis Guzman also made substantial impressions in the wings -- Guzman is usually good for half a star on any movie in comedic relief -- but the picture centers on Caviezel's character of Dantes far too much. Though Dantes is the protagonist, Caviezel does not have the talent to carry a picture (yet), and director Reynolds does not have the talent to make a picture without a strong lead (consider the similarities between this and Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, and consider why the latter was far more successful with Kevin Costner in the lead).
Though it has a rousing conclusion, the movie runs a bit long at close to 140 minutes (confirming the viewer's suspicions that this is a weak picture thematically). It's always difficult to pin such a weakness on a particular source, and unfortunately for Monte Cristo, it's the weakness that accounts for why this movie is simply "okay" rather than good. There have been more memorable tales of revenge in Hollywood (it is not, as the ads claim, the greatest tale of revenge the world has ever known), but it is nevertheless still a competent period piece, and for those who enjoy such a thing, it is certainly recommendable.
Craig Roush, 2002
|
