The Count of Monte Cristo 1975- part 11

[intrepidme97]

Thank you so much , so much better than the new version  !

[2541940a]

I love that music!

[ecayari]

Thanks for finally getting this movie. I always liked this version of Dumas Novel. Richard Chamberlain did a great job as Dantes. Tony Curtis, Donald Pleasance and Louis Jordan all performed well. Though I preferred the 2002 versions ending, This version ending had a moral. Though he got vengeance after that all that was left was emptiness.

[bysickle]

Another interesting note in the original story Edmond, now the Count of Monte Cristo, loves his hashish and even has it specially made for himself.

What Mercedes is saying in the 1975 version is that if they had been together they could have had a son like Albert.

Also in the book Edmond finds and retrieves the treasure by himself, no Jacapo, such as in the 2002 version.

Edmond is completely justified in taking revenge on his enemies, after all if they were sorry they would have freed him.

[bysickle]

I'm fascinated by the story of Edmond Dantes because revenge is such a strong and powerful emotion. I am reading the original story by Alexandre Dumas and about 1/2 way through. Neither the 1975 or the 2002 version are true to the original so far although it does follow the story-line. Both movie versions seem to contain different bits of the original story. For example in the 1975 version the count first meets Albert in Paris but it was in Rome where Albert became an acquaintance of the count.

[TonyLyndellWilliams]

"The Count of Monte Cristo" has been filmed for theaters or television more than 28 times including four silent films -- the first dating from 1908.

Louis Jourdan, who played De Villefort in this 1975 Chamberlain version, played Edmond Dantes/The Count of Monte Cristo in a 1961 version.

Opinion: Chamberlain was excellent in this version. The ending is much better than the 2002 version. As Roger Ebert would have said, I vote thumbs up for this TV production and thanks for uploading it.

[ZOMGbiesNZ]

Edmond: Can we be a married?

Mercedes: You find your own family.

FAIL ENDING.

[dan11009]

@ZOMGbiesNZ I think tthis ending is better - its kinda like even though he got his revenge he didnt find happiness, like the revenge wasnt worth it, plus the women did let his dad starve so hes better rid of her

[rcmx07]

Richard Chamberlain's version seems more realistic, whereas the 2002 version seems more fairy tale-like. I like Chamberlain's version better, perhaps much better.

[TargetShootMe]

A great take on the epic story. It stays wonderfully true to the heart and impact of the novel, and Chamberlain did a wonderful job in portraying the silent intensity of the Count. My only complaint is that the Morrels were not involved.

[jundiwa]

The parting away of two former sweethearts, I think, is the best part of this epic novel...

[benjianubis]

U know what....i must say that the end of the new version of 2002 is way better. I mean WTF....edmond had to do what he had to do bc after all that bastard killed his father of starvation....fuck...if someone did that to my father i would do the same. case fucking closed. She should have understood that that was his son after all. thats one fucked up ending

[montecristohaydee]

@benjianubis And not just to his father:to him as well!14 years of life imprisonment in Chateau d'If,in the dungeon,without his father and Mercedes,the persons he loved,yes,of course he 'll seek for revenge.

[ohauss]

@benjianubis

You know what? It's precisely for people like you that Dumas gave the story a different ending, demonstrating that to believe you could make the past undone by answering bloodshed with bloodshed is foolishness. No amount of blood you spill will turn back the wheel of time, and finding a way to live in the present is much more likely to give you peace than duping yourself into believing yourself an agent of God's vengeance. Read the book - it's good!

[AEKTZOY21]

@ohauss what was the real ending after all?this one?or the version of 2002?i dont like this end either.....

[ohauss]

@AEKTZOY21

Take a look at the username of the person uploading this video. It's Montecristohaydee. Haydee, the daughter of Ali Pasha of Yanina, bought out of slavery by the Count, who comes to love him, yet it is only very late that he comes to fully realize that. Like so many others, before that, she was chiefly a tool for his revenge. So in the end, instead of forever running after the past he lost, he chooses a future with her, ending his self-imposed social exile

[benjianubis]

@ohauss ....haha yeah ok mr good samaritan. lets see if that was you and he was your father and we'll see if you had done absolutely nothing. If that is so, you would be a disgrace to your family. I dont know what world you live in my man...but since you are so religious acting here...how come u place a judgment upon someone??? Isnt that also part of the religion ur in??? look in the mirror b4 u decide to judge someone else. AND BTW, the remake of 2002 was way better regarding the end..

[ohauss]

@benjianubis

Funny. You are the one flinging judgments around, including fantasizing about my arguments being based on religion. May I suggest you stop living in a pulp novel? It's hilarious that you claim you could lecture me on religion when I haven*t argued on religion at all, and it's even more hilarious that you claim I'd be a disgrace to my family if I acted based on the values of my family. By the way, in the real world, the 2002 film is not a "remake" at all.

[benjianubis]

@ohauss haha yeaaaah ok. if that is going to be your only defense then i have to say that you are simply more retarded than i thought you were.And the only reason bc i spoke of religion is bc in the way you talked it showed obviously that you would turn the other cheek if that had happened to you....that is pretty much what the bible describes. so dont give any of that bullshit.and yes......the 2002 is indeed a REMAKE with Jim Caviezel....duuuuuuuuuuuuh what do u think it is..

[ohauss]

@benjianubis

Um, no, it's not a "remake". You see, there are these things called "books". And both movies are based on the same book. Along with a whole bunch of others. You call it a "remake" when it's a movie based on another movie. When both are based on the same book, however, it's not a remake.

And by the way: It has nothing to do with "turning the other cheek" and everything with having aquired some minimum degree of civilized conduct. Not to speak of respect for the law.

[benjianubis]

@ohauss ok lol....so when the movie came out in 2002 and some of the people in hollywood called it a remake so you're saying they were wrong. Even the main protagonist {JIM CAVIEZEL} agreed with it when he was interviewed to express his opinions. He's wrong too??? yeah ok. some of what you say is true but however even tho the movie was based on a book it still doesnt matter bc the fact of it is that the 2002 movie had some scenes that were different even though it was based upon the same story.

[ohauss]

@benjianubis

As if Jim Caviezel was an expert on film theory. I guess if he tells you the moon is made of cheese, you'd believe that as well.

May I suggest you finally go and read the book? Or is dealing with printed matter beneath you?

[benjianubis]

@ohauss regarding your love for the law abiding citizen routine....what exactly did the law do for EDMOND???? nothing. Did the law save his father??? no. did it keep him out of prison??? no...bc obviously the law was corrupted so thus he did the only thing he could have done. even his own son said and I quote: YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO EXPOSE MY FATHER. i doubt you would be so brave if that would have been you and your father murdered by starvation from your best friend. dont be a hypocrite

[ohauss]

@benjianubis

You are the hypocrite. You claim that corruption is actually a cure for corruption. That's hilariously absurd and only illustrates that you are not an inch away from the moral level of those you claim "deserve what they got" - their morals are your morals, you just believe they can be excused in your case - well, guess what, they think the same for theirs.

[benjianubis]

@ohauss dude dont fucking repeat yourself here...as far as the hypocrite comment is concerned...u r acting like u wouldnt do anything and by the way...how does it make me a hypocrite when i tell it as i feel and see it. i would be a hypocrite if i said one thing and did another. read the definition of the word HYPOCRITE.....im entitled to my own opinion and besides, i never asked for yours...so do me a favor and fuck off bc u will not agree with me and neither will I with you.

[benjianubis]

@ohauss i already read the book in high school..thank you very much....and obviously jim caviezel has more knowledge than you bc he is an actor and happens to be a very intelligent person...i mean who the fuck r u.....probably just a little internet computer troll who likes putting his nose where it doesnt belong. Besides, I'm sure if JIM was in the moon he would never tell me that its made out of cheese just like he knows the story about the film better than YOU DO. May I suggest that you mind

[benjianubis]

@ohauss your own business or is that way beneath you.

[benjianubis]

@ohauss thats the only end that that asshole deserved.....death. and besides regarding the 1975 version, edmond didnt kill anyone but merely made sure they got what they deserved... {incarceration}

[ohauss]

@benjianubis

Read the book. That's really all that needs to be said.

[IWPayu]

What is the song in the ending called?

[nympha7055]

thanks for uploading! here I am again almost crying although I have watched this film a lot of times, the ending is so sad!

[ND7652]

@nympha7055 And perhaps more powerful than the 2002 film