![]() As Fernand, he carries the wicked edge of his Memento character to a snarling extreme.Įven though I was an English lit major in college, I still haven’t read the novel, so I cannot speak to how closely the movie adheres to its source. Guy Pearce also proves he can win an audience’s dislike. He has the piercing gaze of Daniel Day-Lewis, and commanding voice, and the ability to express gentleness and compassion as well as rage and desperation, a quality that many actors underestimate. I found myself wondering if Caviezel could have been a more convincing, authoritative, weather-beaten Aragorn than Viggo Mortensen was in The Fellowship of the Ring. He’s not a show-off, like so many leading men who want to wow us with their chameleon qualities. The changes in his gaze and his physicality are subtle and convincing. He convincingly portrays Edmond’s journey from idealistic youth to weathered experience, from awkward to an accomplished swordsman. Jim Caviezel’s performance is surprising. “Not by might, and not by power, but by my Spirit,'” says the Lord, but really… who wants a story to end like that? Oh well, at least the movie acknowledged the issue. While it offers an insightful portrayal of the damaging effects of vengeance upon the man who wreaks it, there is a big cop-out in the conclusion, as our hero answers the call for vengeance anyway. In spite of these good questions, Monte Cristo unfortunately loses its convictions. But God brings him a counselor who comforts him and assures him that God will have His way in the end. Edmond is tempted to give up on God when he suffers for years in prison. The film’s script, written by Jay Wolpert, is also bold enough to raise questions about how God uses evil for good. We also are well aware that if he does carry out his revenge as planned, he might do more damage than good, while Gladiator glorified vigilante vengeance as heroic. Thus, when Edmund finally gets his chance, we know the road he has walked. Monte Cristo, on the other hand, takes its time, so we can suffer alongside the hero, and contemplate with him how he will rise above his trials and regain his freedom and his beloved. Once it got there, despite the lip-service paid to honor, vengeance was given big-screen glory. A lot of Maximus’s potentially enthralling story was overlooked in the movie’s mad rush towards the bloody last act. It failed to give an adequate sense of how its hero grew and what he learned during his trials and suffering. But the movie focused on the bloody battles in which Maximus works his way toward revenge. Gladiator looked better, and it was far more intense. The Count of Monte Cristo succeeds where Gladiator, in my opinion, failed. The priest educates Edmond in reading, writing, and swordsmanship, preparing him for the slim chance of escape.īut when Edmund seizes the chance, will his desire for revenge ruin all his hopes for happiness? There, he meets a fellow prisoner, a priest (Richard Harris), who challenges him not to give up on God. ![]() When this unintentional treachery is discovered, Edmond is unfairly imprisoned in an island dungeon. Things turn bad for Edmond when, acting out of kindness and honor, he naively betrays his country, unwittingly giving Napoleon an advantage in the war. After all, why is Edmond so happy when he’s not a noble? Doesn’t the nobleman deserve to be happier? ![]() When Edmond becomes engaged to a beautiful woman named Mercedes, Fernand gets jealous. As Fernand draws closer to inheriting his noble title, his prejudice against those without “noble blood” increases. The arrogant, self-centered Fernand, who will inherit the title of Count, and his boyhood friend Edmond Dantes, find themselves increasingly at odds. And as action movies go, it’s surprisingly thought-provoking.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |