Edmond learning sword and combat training in prison

Рет қаралды 157,534

Analytical Tortoise

5 жыл бұрын

A scene from one of the better revenge movies, The count of Monte Cristo

Пікірлер: 105

@thanqualthehighseer 3 жыл бұрын

Friend " what did you learn during the lockdown? " Me " well.... "

@Buttcakes15 2 жыл бұрын

Should be a meme

@sagnikmukherjee3412 2 жыл бұрын

Btw he got 14 years lockdown

@ndaulinendaulina5715 Жыл бұрын

🤣🤣🤣🤣

@TheAutisticGeek206 4 жыл бұрын

He's right! Dumbledore has got a style.

@geocross237 4 жыл бұрын

Y'know speaking of which I just realized: the music in these scenes sound rather like the one used in Slughorn's potions class.

@MR-ki8ud 3 жыл бұрын

I don’t think that’s Dumbledore. I think that is Richard Harris. Dumbledore was played by Michael Gambon.

@TheAutisticGeek206 3 жыл бұрын

@@MR-ki8ud Oops! My apologies, buddy.

@MR-ki8ud 3 жыл бұрын

@@TheAutisticGeek206 - no worries!! 😊👍

@TheAutisticGeek206 3 жыл бұрын

@@MR-ki8ud Phew! Thank Goodness. 😪

@TLOH7 Жыл бұрын

This is what real mentoring looks like.

@hardcoredoom5892 4 жыл бұрын

Economics is the science of the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities.

@RequiemPoete 4 жыл бұрын

Translation?

@musaalam8771 4 жыл бұрын

@@RequiemPoete “Dig first, money later"

@meonkrishnanan5920 5 ай бұрын

@RequiemPoete The directed study of objects and services which require compensation for effort or fabrication, as well as how they are disseminated, in regards to the entire process

@podsmpsg1 11 күн бұрын

Exactly.

@minhtri649 2 жыл бұрын

And they said Richard Harris was "too soft" to perform fighting scenes as Dumbledore? Show them this movie!

@RequiemPoete 4 жыл бұрын

I know it sounds weird, but being framed was the best thing that happened to him. He got an education, learned to defend himself, made connections and became rich and still got the girl. All it cost him was some time with his son, and being there when his father died. It was still awful, but karma really repaid his injustice.

@spaceace4387 4 жыл бұрын

Jacapo (who seems to be a combination of Jacapo and Ali from the novel) was right, he should have just taken the money, taken Mercedes and just lived happily. The treasure could be seen as a reward or restitution for his imprisonment.

@JoeyCanoodles 4 жыл бұрын

It cost him fourteen years of his life too lol. But you’re right, in the grand scheme of things it was probably the best thing to happen to him. If it hadn’t then he would have gotten married at the time and kept his job, and sure that is a life, but a mediocre one compared to the life he led after escaping prison and claiming the sunken goldmine.

@user-lv1nr9cu4y 3 жыл бұрын

As if Edmond didn't know more beautiful women and traded mercedes for another one. this ending was childish. The truth is that Edmond met a younger and prettier woman than Mercedes and abandoned her. True final. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/iM5xfKp4rLuco2g.html The very director of this version abandoned his wife for the actress who makes count's new love. This idea that he would return to Mercedes is very childish. The count will stay with mercedes when there are thousands of women more beautiful than her. In real life and fiction were replaced by more beautiful women Life imitating art.

@Kali-bs7oj 3 жыл бұрын

god will give me justice

@pputnam100 3 жыл бұрын

remind me, how does he end up rich after being in prison so long?

@mediterraneandiet2483 3 жыл бұрын

Richard Harris was great in this brilliant film.

@hisexcellencytrump855 3 жыл бұрын

He was a brilliant actor, loved by many,had alot off Hollywood friends,did many films, he pasted away same year he stared this movie

@l.a.3479 5 ай бұрын

*of @@hisexcellencytrump855

@l.a.3479 5 ай бұрын

@@hisexcellencytrump855*passed

@spaceace4387 4 жыл бұрын

Never attack in anger

@irenestewart1942 3 жыл бұрын

" This is going to take a lot of work... "

@geoffwilliams4478 3 жыл бұрын

*Sniff *sniff Lesson number two... follow me

@RanaRandom 3 жыл бұрын

*Wealth of Nations* gotta get my hand on that book, somewhat interesting

@safetynet11 3 жыл бұрын

Bro I love this movie.

@melealey 3 жыл бұрын

Right!!!

@Subanator 4 жыл бұрын

SPEED OF HAND!!

@hidan407 3 жыл бұрын

Speed of mind

@leotaxa4439 4 жыл бұрын

Probably one of my favorites scenes ever. In the book is good as in the movie(maybe better) but dantés dont learn how to fight(at least with faria)

@analyticaltortoise9478 4 жыл бұрын

Never had the pleasure of the book, but definitely one of my favorite movies

@CSC52698 4 жыл бұрын

Who did he learn from?

@analyticaltortoise9478 4 жыл бұрын

He was a general in Napoleans army

@CSC52698 4 жыл бұрын

@@analyticaltortoise9478, a general taught Dantes in the book?

@analyticaltortoise9478 4 жыл бұрын

@@CSC52698 Never read the book, that is what was in the movie

@1975daro 3 жыл бұрын

Super film 👍

@philosopher1a 3 жыл бұрын

ahh pirates of the Caribbean music ? lol

@tatianakrizanova2987 4 жыл бұрын

krásne ho pripravil do života✅

@cubesanthony720 2 жыл бұрын

Perfect

@EmpireFanatic 2 жыл бұрын

I think the extended version of Troy borrowed this music track in the practice scene between Achilles and Patroclus. Its the exact same track :O. Is it public domain or something?

@nathanadams6633 2 жыл бұрын

Great movie with very little hype

@raisasomaraki3870 4 жыл бұрын

is there any name for the music that plays?! 🤔

@musaalam8771 4 жыл бұрын

It's part of the soundtrack and it is simply called “The Count of Monte Cristo-Training Montage". Here is the link to just the music. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qLGlpbx-ypemkWw.html

@raisasomaraki3870 4 жыл бұрын

@@musaalam8771 thanks

@musaalam8771 4 жыл бұрын

@@raisasomaraki3870 You're Welcome.

@BruceKesler-ml6ys Жыл бұрын

If he smokes He smokes

@86leewis 3 жыл бұрын

Same music as achilles and patrocles training in troy

@pedrosanchez-br4br 2 жыл бұрын

Lazy production lol

@flisko123 3 жыл бұрын

what is economics?

@selkirkswift 3 жыл бұрын

But what if those two sticks broke? They were pretty rough and don’t have others

@fromthesky1050 2 жыл бұрын

Those doors were probably solid oak

@RoxanneShewchuk Ай бұрын

To read and write?

@andreagrazianodibenedetto1464 3 жыл бұрын

Which Count of Monte Christo movie is this? There are so many, I mainly liked the old Richard Chamberlain version.

@plonkersbro 3 жыл бұрын

2002 said so at the beginning

@user-yu9nb6gy9t 4 жыл бұрын

Делясь своим мнением об американском варианте «Графа Монте Кристо», я тоже постараюсь не касаться литературного первоисточника, но сделать это будет сложнее, т.к. книга Дюма является моим любимым литературным произведением, не раз перечитанным, и поэтому хочется, чтобы хотя бы одна из экранизаций получилась достойной. Сразу скажу, что американский вариант с Кэвизелом мне не понравился, историю графа Монте Кристо очень трудно перенести на экран. Фильм 2002 г. слишком американский, это чувствуется в каждом кадре, каждом эпизоде, в каждом герое, в каждой ноте. Сюжет до безобразия упрощён, если бы просто изменили (в духе голливудских экранизаций), я бы понял, но тут форменное издевательство над первоисточником... Однако обо всём по порядку. Начало по-голливудски красочное и трагичное, фильм начинается с высадки Эдмона Дантеса и (первый сюрприз) Фернана Мондего на острове Эльба, и (второй сюрприз) довольно-таки продолжительное экранное время, полученное Наполеоном Бонапартом (возможно, авторы фильма надеялись, что американский зритель узнает хотя бы одного из героев фильма). Сразу же (третий сюрприз) перестрелка в начале фильма, что для голливудских фильмов типично. Но всё-таки первая неожиданность меня удивила сильнее, чем всё остальное вместе взятое (даже употребление в некоторых эпизодах слова «сэр» вместо «месье»). Авторы американской версии фильма решили построить главное противостояние между Монте Кристо и де Морсером, с начала фильма показав их... друзьями детства. Ладно, чёрт с этим всем, уже после такого начала фильма решил, что не буду проводить параллели с книгой, а просто буду наслаждаться одной из самых интересных историй мести, которая, как надеялся, хоть немного оправдает надежды. Не тут-то было. Прекрасный актёрский состав стал заложником сильно упрощённого сценария и неловкого режиссёра, что не позволило показать им ничего не то чтобы сверхъестественного, а даже своего полузвёздного уровня. Кэвизел не тянет на графа Монте Кристо, он даже не тянет на Эдмона Дантеса, пусть в «Страстях Христовых» выглядел неплохо, но здесь он явно не попал в роль, не похож ни на моряка, ни на французского аристократа. По воле сценария у Гая Пирса была возможность изобразить из себя злодея, гадкого и бесчестного, чем он почти воспользовался, но казалось, что он не играл, а просто говорил несложный заученный текст, не пытаясь даже попотеть. Как сюда занесло Харриса, совсем непонятно. Другим актёрам и персонажам авторы фильма не предоставили времени раскрыться даже наполовину, чем те, к сожалению, и воспользовались. Возвращаясь к сюжету, признаюсь, что мне было больно смотреть на такие безвкусные партии мести, преподнесенные графом Монте Кристо своим врагам. Если в экранизации 1953 г. с Жаном Марэ мести было уделено самое важное место в картине, то здесь же все изощренные планы мести Монте Кристо вмещаются в 10 минут, притом не представляя из себя ничего интересного, являясь бесформенным клипом. Уж слишком много времени в фильме уделено началу истории, когда в истории графа Монте Кристо весь перец в конце. С одной стороны, когда смотришь экранизацию любого фильма и видишь, что режиссёр взял из оригинала только название и главных героев, радуешься, что увидишь некие неожиданные режиссёрские ходы и новый вариант развития сюжета, с другой - больно переживаешь, когда твои ожидания не сбылись, а от твоих ощущений от книги ничего не остается, потому что экранизация бездарна. В случае с американским «Графом Монте Кристо» однозначно случилось второе: бездарная экранизация и растоптанные надежды. Находясь в поисках чего-нибудь интересного в этом фильме, захожу в тупик, такое впечатление, что никто из авторов фильма не думал о зрителях, снимая фильм неровно, где лучший эпизод относится к началу фильма и тоже не выдерживает никакой критики. Дальше, должно быть, поменяли режиссёра, наняв такого, что уступает первому во всем. Если в начале ещё теплится надежда на классный финал, то к середине фильма не остается никаких надежд, уже ясно, что всё произойдёт по-голливудски и решится на последних минутах. И финал, к слову, голливудский, очень предсказуемый и малоинтересный. Слишком затянув с рассказом о начале пути Дантеса, задержавшись в замке Иф (кстати, за такое время можно было сделать более тонкое зрелище, затронув душевное состояние узников, а не пересказывать, что они там делали столько лет), к кульминации фильм подходит, как запутавшийся клубок, где авторы от безысходности всё собирают в одно место и уделяют всему два с половиной коротких эпизода. Плеваться хотелось от такого поворота событий. Мало того, что вырезали многих интересных героев, не говоря о событиях, так и из того, что осталось не получилось ничего, при этом изменив оставшихся героев.

@alvaroandrespizzavarela878 3 жыл бұрын

Agree that the history was severely chopped by Hollywood, but take in count most audiences can't cope with a 5 hour movie anymore. "The Count of Montecristo" deserves to be a mini series like "True Detective". It's not a story that can be narrated in 150 minutes.

@user-yu9nb6gy9t 3 жыл бұрын

@@alvaroandrespizzavarela878 The 2002 version did not simplify the story, it changed. Les Miserables is a book as big as the count of monte Cristo and the 2012 version has remained closer to the original story, even though the story is simplified. While the original Dumas book was reportedly a more morally ambiguous tale, where revenge ultimately brings no real pleasure, Reynolds transforms his movie into yet another populist story about the joy of revenge. In the process any moral ambiguity is jettisoned and avoided as if merely an unnecessary complication in an otherwise simple progression. Instead Reynolds concentrates on the systematic means by which a poor, innocent, illiterate man is robbed of that innocence and is transformed into a vengeful, sophistical but bitter man of means. He turns the story into a vision of the process of Experience ending Innocence through persecution and torture, then guiding it through despair until the desire for revenge disciplines the mind. The film’s first half, dedicated to this transformation, as despair finds a new purpose, is most complex. However, once Caviezel escapes, the film concentrates on his plan for revenge and as it avoids moral complexity has nowhere to go beyond the inevitable comeuppance. On that level it is entertaining.

@user-yu9nb6gy9t 3 жыл бұрын

Although Caviezel carries the change well enough, he never carries the sense of a consumed and troubled obsessive. We sense his burden in part, but his righteous cause is never questioned or threatened, indeed enshrined in stone in his prison cell where it is engraved “God will give me Justice”. Although Caviezel despairs of God, the film’s religiosity emerges when he regains his faith in God through being granted revenge. Vengeance is thus a just purification of the wronged, and Caviezel remains a good soul. Correspondingly Pearce’s villain especially is so slimy and evil that it reduces the film to a simplistic, even caricaturish, audience-pleasing tale of good triumphing over evil. Pearce’s villainy rests in his sins of pride and envy but director Reynolds makes sure that Caviezel’s revenge is a just reward for his suffering. He even makes sure that Caviezel does not show too much pleasure in his acts. Indeed, Reynolds transforms vengeance completely into justice, ultimately deliberately choosing to settle for a conventional superficiality. This turns the film into a disposable entertainment, ultimately unmemorable.

@user-yu9nb6gy9t 3 жыл бұрын

When you think about it, either Mercédès married Fernand a week after Edmond's arrest or so, either he is really dumb for not noticing Albert wasn't his son. In the novel she married him YEARS after Edmond's exile. Well that's not the only problem with this adaptation which not only simplify the plot (which is a blasphemy, considering the novel is famous FOR his complexity) but it also forcibly apply modern morals to a 19th century story and change the characters dynamics to fit a happy ending forced. Albert is NOT Edmond's son. He refuses to fight Monte-Cristo after finding out the horrible person his father is and that the Count is actually in the right. He also has to face public shame for avoiding the duel. His character has so much more depht in the novel.

@user-yu9nb6gy9t 3 жыл бұрын

Because instead of mercedes marrying Mundogeo to give a father to his son and hide that he is a single mother. Because she does not abandon Edond, who was arrested as a Bonapartist, she stays with Mondego for money and Mondego accepts his son as happened in the book the man who laughs by Victor Hugo. Lord Clancharlie's mistress abandons him and becomes the mistress of the king who was the enemy of his former lover. "Lord Linnæus Clancharlie had not always been old and proscribed; he had had his phase of youth and passion. We know from Harrison and Pride that Cromwell, when young, loved women and pleasure, a taste which, at times (another reading of the text "Woman"), betrays a seditious man. Distrust the loosely-clasped girdle. Male proecinctam juvenem cavete. Lord Clancharlie, like Cromwell, had had his wild hours and his irregularities. He was known to have had a natural child, a son. This son was born in England in the last days of the republic, just as his father was going into exile. Hence he had never seen his father. This bastard of Lord Clancharlie had grown up as page at the court of Charles II. He was styled Lord David Dirry-Moir: he was a lord by courtesy, his mother being a woman of quality. The mother, while Lord Clancharlie was becoming an owl in Switzerland, made up her mind, being a beauty, to give over sulking, and was forgiven that Goth, her first lover, by one undeniably polished and at the same time a royalist, for it was the king himself. She had been but a short time the mistress of Charles II., sufficiently long however to have made his Majesty-who was delighted to have won so pretty a woman from the republic-bestow on the little Lord David, the son of his conquest, the office of keeper of the stick, which made that bastard officer, boarded at the king's expense, by a natural revulsion of feeling, an ardent adherent of the Stuarts. Lord David was for some time one of the hundred and seventy wearing the great sword, while afterwards, entering the corps of pensioners, he became one of the forty who bear the gilded halberd. He had, besides being one of the noble company instituted by Henry VIII. as a bodyguard, the privilege of laying the dishes on the king's table. Thus it was that whilst his father was growing gray in exile, Lord David prospered under Charles II." - the man who laughs by Victor Hugo