Wordiezett So much average

Pluskylang Great Film overall

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

ozthegreatat42330 As I have stated elsewhere this was a well made adaptation of the Dumas work, but it is not the novel, which is not this feature's fault. Neither have any of the other American versions that I have seen. With the novel the are so many layers of subtlety and subtext in Edmond Dante's search for revenge, and they are not present here.That having been said Richard Chamberlain obviously attacks this role with his usual relish and reveals why he has become one of the top picks for many TV mini-series) Trevor Howard gives a reverent and subtle performance as the Abbe Faria. Donald Pleasance and Louis Jordan are both excellent in their roles as well. Tony Curtis is the souring of the milk as it were. His Count Mondego is just not that believable. While I esteem him in many of his roles over the years he was horribly miscast here. The rest of this cast were well picked and the adventure is there. Actually it is a well done feature considering it had to be made on a television program budget. A better script and big screen budget might have taken this film much further. Still, it is worth a watch. I give it nine thumbs up.

MartinHafer The Count of Monte Cristo as well as The Man in the Iron Mask were both made for television in the mid to late 1970s and starred the talented Richard Chamberlain. Yet, because they were originally made for TV, they seem to have vanished and I haven't seen either on TV since the early 1980s (though I did copy them to now worn out videotapes). It's a real shame, as they were first-rate and every bit as good as any Hollywood production--maybe better.The Man in the Iron Mask was the better of the two stories, but both are about as good Alexander Dumas stories as you can find. This is due to the overall package--exceptional music, acting, writing and pacing. I simply don't know how you could have made them much better.

Liam When you convert a novel of 1100 pages to a film of about 100min, you're inevitably going to lose a lot of details - probably a few important ones. But under the circumstances, this film was about as good as it could get. I love the original novel, and was a fan of the 1973-74 films of "The Three Musketeers" (in which Richard Chamberlain played Aramis, incidentally), and so was interested to see this.The most obvious change is that the first half of the film deals with about the first quarter of the book - making it a little unbalanced. But then, the book has so many subplots, it was probably necessary to let go of a lot of them.The other obvious change is that in the novel, Danglars is the main villain, whom Dantes pardons at the end. In the film it is Mondego - which makes more sense from a film point of view, as Mondego took Dantes' bride. But apart from that, here, Dantes does not show any mercy - whereas in the book Danglars was pardoned, in the film he does not show any remorse until all four villains are either dead or locked up - and only then because Mercedes does not love this new version of himself. So that's a pity.Still, changes aside, this film is about as good as it could be. Someone else said probably best for those who've not read the book. They're probably right. But that doesn't mean you can't enjoy it if you have read it. I'd give this 7/10.

Belli A good TV effort for this timeless tale. Chamberlain's performance carries the story along. I recently picked up the video at a yard sale and was disappointed to find the "tableaux" scenes missing. Too bad, as the sequence of Dantes' confrontation with Mondego makes a lot more sense after the deleted scenes.