The Count of Monte Cristo Review
by Tim Wick
Boy am I going to get hammered on this one.
For much of the last year I have lambasted The Mummy Returns as a sloppy,
derivative film that did not ever need to be made. I've argued that the
movie's best jokes are taken from the first film and that overall, the film
aims too low given the promising stock from which it was taken. I have
further railed that we should expect more from our movies - that we should
not settle for something as plain and repetitive as The Mummy Returns when
we are being shown that greatness is possible with The Fellowship of the
Ring and Moulin Rouge.
So given what I have written above, why on earth would I go ahead and
recommend The Count of Monte Cristo? It is, after all, a popcorn film,
just as The Mummy Returns was a popcorn film. Did everyone miss something
or didn't I say we should expect more?
No, you didn't miss anything, but the point is that I have nothing against a
simple popcorn film as long as the popcorn film respects its audience.
If you don't know the story of The Count of Monte Cristo, I won't go into
it here. Most everyone knows the basic plot and quite frankly all you need
to do is see the trailer once and you will have seen everything about the
film except the actual dialogue.
You might get the feeling that this film is nothing but a swashbuckler and
that is the fault of poorly designed trailers. They make this film look
like endless swordfights when really it is a story of love, betrayal and
revenge. Some of that story involved some flashy - if brief - swordfights
but most of it most certainly does not.
Character motivations in this film are quite simple - love, lust, revenge,
cruelty/sadism, piety - and so on. I can't think of a moment in the film
where I was surprised by what happened next. The bad guys were certainly
evil and the good guy was certainly justified in his thirst for revenge.
But honestly, do you go to this kind of movie to be surprised or simply to
be swept up in the story and the cinematography? A film like this is all
about surface level gratification and it is there that the film succeeds.
Now it doesn't hurt that the bad guy is played by Guy Pearce (LA
Confidential, Memento) and the good guy is played by James Caviezel
(Frequency). The two leads are solid even when reciting lines that are just
a little bit ridiculous. Caviezel is most alluring when he has returned to
have his revenge on those who have wronged him. The rage that burns beneath
the surface is carefully concealed behind and kind, cool demeanor. Pearce
plays a cad with a sort of joyful relish.
Dagmara Dominczyk plays the love interest and - well - she is very pretty.
I can't say the film gives her a great deal to work with but work with it
she certainly doesn't. She comes off as something of a simpering whiner
when her character requires a great deal more strength of will. Fortunately
her screen time is limited although one wonders why Caviezel is so desperate
to get her back (perhaps it's because she hasn't aged a day in sixteen years
but that could just be me).
All in all, the reason I like this film is because it doesn't take it's
audience for granted. We want clever lines, some good swordfights and we
certainly want the bad guys to suffer in some creative and enjoyable ways.
That the film does that without pandering to the lowest common denominator
is why I enjoyed it.
|
