Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Griff Lees Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Robert J. Maxwell They made some outstanding unpretentious swashbucklers in those days, rarely equaled since. -- "The Mark of Zorro," "The Adventures of Robin Hood," among others. They carried no message, just that good was better than evil, and that the audience should enjoy the arousal jag while watching the former humiliate and defeat the latter. They had the directors and actors to pull it all off too. And they had the chutzpah to invent whole kingdoms like Ruritania and, as here, Lichtenburg.Eighteen sixty-five. Poor Lichetenburg. The jewel of the Balkans, rich in tradition, as the prologue tells us. It's ruled by the admirable Joan Bennet, more popular with her fans than Lady GaGa is with hers. Alas, there is a festering authoritarian sore just under the benign monarchy. The filthy General George Sanders, who's been given the haircut of a World War I aviator, the direction to unloose his sneer whenever he likes, and is given the name of Gurko Lanen. Now, think about it. Could anyone named Gurko Lanen ever have a kind thought? You bet he couldn't. Oh, how Sanders would love to rule Lichtenburg, grind his boot into the necks of the hoi polloi and smash babies' heads against the stone walls. He's the kind of guy who could clear a room without using a gun. He's decked out in a black uniform, riding breeches and boots, reminiscent of Hitler's SS. This is 1940 we're talking about. But his last name conjures up images of the spiritual leader of the Bolshevik revolution. The German-Russian Non-Aggression Pact lasted from 1939 to 1941, so both Nazi Germany and the USSR were seen as enemies of the good guys. The Soviet threat surfaces again later. If there were any doubts they're dispelled by the scene in which Sanders and the Russian representative stand side by side signing what amounts to an agreement of mutual support. Inimical to Sanders' ambitions is the Prime Minister, Montagu Love, loyal representative of the Grand Duchess. Sanders has him put away on a fake charge.At any rate, Louis Hayward, the son of the Count of Monte Cristo, and the richest man in Europe, takes up the cause of the reformers and worms his way into the palace posing as a hoity toity fop. He does numerous good deeds and in this more daring, masked persona he gives himself the name of Zorro -- I mean The Torch. Both Tyrone Power and Errol Flynn were better at this game. Hayward comes across as a nice guy but a little daft. He never takes anything seriously, even while waiting in a dungeon to be hanged. Joan Bennet is pretty without bringing much to the party.But George Sanders is outstanding. He dominates the screen no matter what the role is -- sardonic hero, sardonic brutal villain, or sardonic suave villain. The guy never lets you down. He looks somewhat like the novelist Vladimir Nabokov. They were both born in the same year in the same city, St. Petersburg. I've often wondered whether they were one and the same person. People claim all sorts of false identities. Look at Prince Michael Romanoff the late restaurateur. Look at Sebastian Melmoth. Look at Bernie Schwartz. As far as I know, no one has seen Sanders and Nabokov in the same room together. As far as I'm concerned, Q.E.D.I don't think too many would argue that this is fresh material. The story of the skilled swordsman acting the pouf is from "The Mark of Zorro" and so is the scene in which a snarling soldier rips a treasonous paper from the public wall while surrounded by frightened peasants, and so is the hidden passageway in the basement and the wet footprints on the stone floor that lead to the secret panel in the wall.As for the working out of the plot, I leave it to you to decide whether Hayward escapes from the dungeon, interrupts the marriage of Sanders to Bennet, engages in a climactic sword fight with Sanders, kills him after a suitable wisecrack, and sweeps the Grand Duchess up in his arms at the end.That climactic sword fight is brief because neither actor is particularly graceful and neither knows anything about fencing. You want to see a match that thrills, see "The Mark of Zorro" or "Scaramouche."

SimonJack "The Son of Monte Cristo" is a nice swashbuckler that stars Louis Hayward, Joan Bennett and George Sanders. The story is a familiar one, involving a fictitious country in Eastern Europe. It was a curious thing for such a movie while World War II was going on in Europe. But, the screenplay and script are quite good. I agree with another review on the beautiful and rather elegant set, especially for the castle of the Grand Duchess. Hayward plays Edmund Dantes, Jr., Bennett is the Grand Duchess Zona of Lichtenburg, and Sanders is the evil – but almost likable, Gen. Gurko Lanen who would rule the kingdom. Even with the sword play and fisticuffs in this movie, there isn't a lot of gruesome killing or torture. As I watched Hayward with his energy and vigor, and his funny quips just at the right moments, it struck me that that was a common trait of most swashbuckler films. They had some level of humor. It was most often a talent of the hero. The South African-born Hayward played mostly drama, mysteries and action films during his career. He did do some comedy, and was in a few good war films – mostly about World War I. He also starred as Simon Templar in the early three films made about the detective known as "The Saint." He planed opposite leading ladies of the time and worked in films from various studios – MGM, Paramount, Universal, Warner Brothers, RKO and United Artists. He also made some British films. In the 1950s and 1960s, he did mostly TV work with an occasional film. Bennett also had a long, successful career in Hollywood. She didn't reach the star status of the biggest names, but she starred in many films and played opposite many of the leading men of the time. She did some comedy but her forte seemed to be drama and mysteries. She too drifted more into TV work from the mid-1950s through the 1970s, with just an occasional Hollywood movie here and there. A very attractive woman, Bennett had something of a Bob Hope nose – that turned up just a bit at the end. It was cute, but she was seldom seen from the side – I suspect for that reason. But I did notice her side shot and cute nose a couple of times in this film. The acting is very good all around. Another reviewer noted some of the young supporting cast who would go on to fame in some specific roles. Clayton Moore plays Lt. Fritz Dorner and would later become the Lone Ranger. There are a couple of silly aspects here as well. The idea of a whole outside wall of a curved turret swinging open to reveal a hidden passage is quite funny. Then in the catacombs, there were skeletons exposed and not in crypts or niches. Also, the catacombs were lower than the city sewers. Well, this film has lots of action and makes for an enjoyable time with the whole family.

MARIO GAUCI I had watched this via a recording off local TV a few years ago and, though I subsequently erased it, I remember enjoying the film. As with director Lee's SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (1939), it's rather talky but never boring and emerges as an agreeable, though slightly overlong, swashbuckler (even if occasionally bordering on camp).The same director had previously made THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO (1934) and this sequel to it re-unites the stars (Joan Bennett, Louis Hayward) and writer (George Bruce) of the definitive screen version of yet another Alexandre Dumas classic, THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK (1939) - directed, interestingly enough, by James Whale. Incidentally, these two - both, as is THE SON OF MONTE CRISTO itself, produced by independent Edward Small - are perhaps the classic adventure films I would most like to watch and I wonder which DVD company owns the rights to all three titles... Still, the film is equally influenced by THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL (1934) - in its hero's dual personality of fop/crusader - and THE PRISONER OF ZENDA (1937) - the Ruritanian setting - and, despite being a 'B' movie at heart, it's stylishly handled (with Oscar-nominated art direction/set decoration). It also makes the most of its fine cast: good leads, wonderful villainy from George Sanders, a nice role for Ian Wolfe (billed "MacWolfe"!), and including three actors from Universal's Frankenstein saga - Lionel Belmore (as a bartender), Michael Mark (hilariously made up as a bishop) and Dwight Frye (in a 10-second bit as an embassy official).

webbbarton Since this comment compares the entire plot of the movie to World War II in 1940, don't read this if you are avoiding spoilers.I could not help noticing while watching the movie that the basic roles of the characters in the story match very closely to the major nations' roles in the war going on at the time.Gurko Lanen - Powerful, corrupt, ruthless, uses spies, back stabs - he is clearly the Germans Zona - Strong heart, good intentions, pure but realistic. How can she win against such overwhelming force? - the British, who, at this time stood alone against the Germans.Baron von Neuhof - Allied with Zona, outwitted and imprisoned - The French Prince Paul Pavlov - Signs a secret treaty that protects Lanen against a war with the French, secretly 'selling off' the citizens of Lichtenburg (who represent the Poles (or perhaps all of the free peoples of Europe), I think) - The Soviets (who else?) And finally - 'The Torch'/Count Monte Cristo - The savior that is willing to risk his life for Zona, even though he has no interest in Lichtenburg - his ambition is to fight oppression wherever it lies - The USA Naturally Stadt represents the German SA (Ernst Rohm) that was betrayed by Hitler after building the Nazi party into a viable force, and also obviously the Gestapo (German secret police).Remember that in 1940, The Soviet Union was NOT at war with Germany. In fact, the Germans and Soviets conquered Poland and divided the nation in accordance with a 'secret' clause in their Non-Aggression Pact.It is so similar that I can't imagine that the movie wasn't a veiled attempt to encourage the USA to join the war on the side of Britain.In fact, the plot of the movie even has The Count lending money to Lichtenburg. The USA was officially neutral, but certainly mostly Anglophilic at the time, which would be consistent with this theme.Maybe I am reaching a little bit, but I have a strong feeling that this is the case.Does anyone know of any official connection? Has this been discussed before?