The Count of Monte Cristo 1975- part 11

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
18,506
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Feb 18, 2011

No description available.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 2 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Uploader Comments (montecristohaydee)

  • 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

  • @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.

see all

All Comments (34)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Thank you so much , so much better than the new version !

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

  • @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

  • @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

    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

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

  • @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?

  • @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 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.

  • @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.

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more