I won't discuss the faithfulness to the book at first. To me a matter of era.(Honest warning: this section is seemingly off the point. Read or pass on it: what follows is a point of view, subject to much contradiction.According to me, A. Dumas had genius for drama (fate, revenge, strong characters, breathtaking plots), but not as much for literature, writing. Exactly as V. Hugo. To me, the real genius was G. Flaubert. But his literature was not "romantic" at all. (Or read 'Sentimental Education', and you'll fully understand that he was a disappointed Romantic.) Thus, when you ask the French who is or was the best French-speaking writer of all times (they have read none in fact), they always choose Hugo, then Dumas or another, Verne, Chataubriand, Zola, Balzac... They always forget Flaubert, Maupassant, Stendhal, Proust, etc. A matter of opinion, you could say. Maybe a question of fame, too. More (and less…): as J.M.G. Le Clézio perfectly expresses (this is my translation, not his words), "Polls are so unfair. And to take first or last place in a poll is not what is important... What is serious is to be forgotten." (Sorry, IMDb does not accept (the original) French words, and I must delete...)... Who really read Dumas's novel(s)? - You watch a movie, and say: Dumas (whoever as a matter of fact) is a great writer. – I like Dumas indeed, but such ironic (and sad) limbo…)Well, as to betrayal to novels, do you think "The Quiet American" (1958), which is a great Mankiewicz's movie, was faithful to the book? The thesis of G. Greene (I am very fond of his ambiguous books) is the absolute contrary to the thesis of the shameful script. Mankiewicz's film should have been called "The absolute betrayal of G. Greene's Quiet American". - I know the political background of 1958 could not permit any director to be faithful to Greene. The 'betrayal' of Josée Dayan is nothing compared to that. The problem is, in my mind, that the 'adaptation' is due to commercial reasons: the series were shot to be sold to foreign countries, to be financially viable, and profitable. Era of the market. And of lovable heroes. Producers cannot put up the money for an expected international success starring a character (Dantes) who would be too ambiguous. Political correctness. Sad time of money and "good against evil"... (Where is Welles, and the early Polanski, etc.?)If I should vote for Depardieu's performance (you know he can be perfect, and sometimes appear in minor movies - nevertheless his huge talent cannot fade from those), I would vote 10, though he is not Dumas's Dantes - but he is not responsible for that, if you agree with my point of view. Another sad limbo for Dumas. His acting is so intense that he sucks the lifeblood out of the cast, which is very good. Thus, due to the 'adaptation', in spite of Dayan's great gifts for filming (plus she herself is quite a Dumas's heroine), my vote is 8. Polls are unfair. The result (the 'film') is more than worth seeing. Thanks. Debate: still open.

I loved the book, read it "to pieces". Yes the adaptation is slow-paced and a number of stories have been left out, but in all reality, the selection made is excellent. The atmosphere is great, it is truly romantic and the chosen stories are excellent. Unfortunately there are a lot of deviations from the book, which results in a (in my taste) "cheesy" ending. Overall however, there is a lot to enjoy. The soundtrack is excellent and full of subtle details. Spoiler Alert: When Heloise enters Valentines room for the second time, to check whether she had been successful, she hums a melody (not in the book). This melody is very well chosen: The theme is the slow movement of Schubert's String Quartet No 14 "Der Tod und das Mädchen" (Death and the Maiden).

One could say I am an old coot, geezer, at the age of 71. This wonderful series, starring the great Gerard Depardieu, pulled me back to my childhood at about eight years old. The two librarians in my little home town in Louisiana always pushed me to read books that were at least two grades ahead. At the end of the school year we were given the usual Summer Reading List. Presenting mine to the local librarians, they suggested a novel by Alexander Dumas, The Count of Monte Cristo. I had never actually read a "novel" of that size. I was a bit over- come, but began to read this book right then and there, sitting in a bay window overlooking the little river that flowed past the library's huge windows. That experience changed my life from a casual reader to a dedicated and life-long lover of books. I learned that Dumas was French and had written many other books. I read them all that summer. Then on to Victor Hugo, Balzac, George Sand, and others, all recommended by those lovely ladies in the local library. I have seen almost every film adaptation of The Count, going back to the 1934 version with Robert Donat to the last one with Guy Pierce. THIS one, with Depardieu,is my favorite. Although many liberties are taken, as usual with movie producers and directors, it still is an exciting and involving tale. Dumas' story is so sturdy that any injury visited upon it would be only superficial. I found myself an eight year old all over again. Unlike some adaptations of Dumas' novels, this one had very little swash and even less buckle, being more character driven and fueled by last minute escapes and near fatal outcomes. The ending, as several other comments express, is a bit too up-beat, but so what? Life is full of wonderful and unexpected joys. Watching this made-for-television series was one of them. AND I found it on DVD so I can watch it over and over.

This movie conforms to the book and manages to capture the true story. Revenge ... Girard Depardieu is wonderful and I have watched it twice (subtitles, no less!!) It is well worth the effort. Reading the book first was definitely helpful.