Hollywood does not seem to understand that it isn't necessary to re-invent a classic story to keep it interesting, when the classic story has proven itself most interesting to generations of readers. This is a Disney-fied version of the Dumas story, as "improved" by Reynolds and Wolpert who are given the green-light by test audiences and studio executives to alter the original story. While one couldn't expect to compress a lengthy novel into a a few hours of film, this is a re-make for Americans who aren't literate enough to enjoy reading the book or watching an authentic European version that might require them to read subtitles.I also do not appreciate IMBd promoting this movie, (selecting it automatically without any choice having been made, from several titles about MONTE CRISTO.

Going with a generous two. If I had to pick a favourite book Dumas' Monte Cristo would most likely be it. As such I've purposely avoided watching screen adaptations of it knowing how rarely a screen adaptation does justice to a good book.As a film in it's own right it was enjoyable to watch but this barely scrapes the surface of Dumas' work.Where was Edmond's father for one? Where was the Count's well laid plans to ruin Danglars?Most of what made the book what it is is missing!

I wasn't expecting a lot from this movie and watched it because it had a couple of actors I really like in it. However, it is acted well and even without knowing the story, held my interest throughout. I can't think of any scenes that were poorly done. Richard Harris was good in his role as the prisoner and Jim C. was excellent. I haven't seen him in a role besides 'Person of Interest' (which I really liked and was disappointed when it ended). I had hoped he had more of an acting challenge with this film - which he did. When he changed to the 'Count of Monte Cristo', the transformation was remarkable. It was hard to believe it was the same actor. Well done all around!

I liked this movie a lot except ....Happy ending, adventure, beautiful people, beautiful exteriors, beautiful landscapes, fun, some light-hearted banter, good story. Did I say fun? Fun.The best character for me was Luis Guzman. The sidekick was better than the star, who was OK, plenty handsome as required, perhaps a little wooden. I just found out that Henry Cavill was in the cast at 17.I rated a 7. Why not a 10, or an 8.5? The opening and the imprisonment needs to get over with faster. Richard Harris's part drags and drags, and forces the revenge part to be cut short. What a waste! That's why I call it "unbalanced." The ratings of 6 to 8 seem about right to me. I'd rate the post-Harris part as a 9. I skip all the way past the Harris part to start the movie at the point of escape.I'd like a new cut that lengthens the revenge and shortens the openings. As for the bad ratings on IMDb, this is a movie and movie business, not a book. Few movies should ever be compared with the book. The bad ratings seem all from disappointment book vs. movie. Kyle MacLachlan's Dune shows what happens when movie tries to follow book.