MovieChat Forums > The Count of Monte Cristo (2002) Discussion > The budget was only $35 Million!!!!

The budget was only $35 Million!!!!


I bought this movie blind when it was first released on DVD and have loved it ever since. I went about 5 years without having watched it, until last night, and I was once again taken by the greatness of this film. Unlike so many movies today, it feels VERY theatrical, in that it has a big scope, very professionally done cinematography, amazing production design and costume, extensive location shootings, and overall excellent pacing.

Now considering all that, I was curious about what the budget was, and was SHOCKED when I read online it was only $35 Million. Nowadays, you always hear about how big action/adventure movies are being given budgets of $100 Million to sometimes as much as $250 Million. Now, and this is just my opinion, but a lot of these action/adventure movies of today have a totally different vibe and don't feel "theatrical" at all, yet they spend a crazy about of money on them. And I'm NOT just going to point my finger only at CGI (though it is an issue), but at the way these filmmakers of today make movies in general.

Sometimes a movie will have too much CGI and it feels like I'm watching someone playing a video game. A lot of movies today feel more like modern tv shows with the visual style and pacing. Sometimes a movie will be so long and so dense that I feel like I'm watching several episodes of a tv series back-to-back, which makes for an exhausting movie going experience. I have no problem with a long movie, even if it's 3 hours, but when they just try to cram in as much stuff as possibly and make it an overly fast paced movie, it hurts the experience.

Now I don't think all of today's movies of this genre are bad, just that a lot of them feel less organic and lack the theatricality of movies of old. The Count of Monte Cristo is an example of how a great a movie of this genre can be, and it only cost $35 Million.


_______________
Hyperlinks save lives.

[ U R L ]*LINK*[ / U R L ] (without the spaces)

reply

Probably helped that much of the movie took place in the same sets and locations, particularly the prison sequences. Also, some clever trimming of the budget (we never see the boat in the very beginning, for example).

reply

$35 million sounds a lot to me. As for the $100 million or more films, there is no need to spend anything like that kind of money to make a good theatrical film. If you don't hire overrated 'stars' who demand tens of millions for a few scenes, and if you don't squander money right left and center on unnecessary exotic locations which only last seconds on the screen, or locations where the major intersections have to be closed off at great cost, designer wardrobes for the lead actors, and endless retakes, you might be able to produce a good looking film for far less. There are many very good competent actors available for vastly lower salaries than the few big names, who will complete the movie in the allotted time without the diva demands.

Maryellen Mastroantonio gave an interview about the film 'Robin Hood Prince of Thieves' where she described how disorganized and chaotic the filming was, resulting in the shooting time going much longer than planned, by comparison with a Marin Scorcese film which she had been working on where the filming was tight, organized and ran like clockwork. A competent director will work to a tight schedule without endless retakes and months in the editing room. A swollen headed star is not a director. I believe Kevin Costner was the director and star of 'Robin Hood' and allegedly edited the movie to make himself look better, cutting out some of Alan Rickman's best scenes.

reply

A swollen headed star is not a director. I believe Kevin Costner was the director and star of 'Robin Hood' and allegedly edited the movie to make himself look better, cutting out some of Alan Rickman's best scenes.


Costner did not direct Prince of Thieves.

Terrible movie BTW.





My Vote history: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur1914996/ratings

reply

Coster didn't direct the RBPOT, he directed Dances with Wolves which deservedly got an Oscar.

reply

Sometimes a movie will have too much CGI and it feels like I'm watching someone playing a video game. A lot of movies today feel more like modern tv shows with the visual style and pacing. Sometimes a movie will be so long and so dense that I feel like I'm watching several episodes of a tv series back-to-back, which makes for an exhausting movie going experience. I have no problem with a long movie, even if it's 3 hours, but when they just try to cram in as much stuff as possibly and make it an overly fast paced movie, it hurts the experience.



Oh my, you are reading my mind. That's why I don't see a lot of movies unless I can fast forward through the long drawn out CGI fest. There is good CGI, but when it gets all Wagnerian epic length, my interest fades.

I love this movie. I watch it again and again.

I wonder what special effects they used in it. They probably had to use matte paintings or something for Marseille, and so forth.

reply

A lot of the problem is that the "everyman" hero has been replaced in modern society with the "elitist" superhero, so the theatrics you're talking about are missing as much of the humanity is gone in favour of the big, empty spectacle. It also costs a lot more to bring these fantastical elite heroes to life than it does to bring an ordinary man to the screen. A man with a rapier in his hand requires a lot less CG than a flying, laser shooting superbeing.

Even still, a $35 million dollar budget for such an excellent period piece still sounds quite good! All those sets and locations and carriages and costumes would cost a lot more than setting a story in modern times, and this movie looked terrific.

reply

It helped a lot that there aren't any big name stars in the movie, especially back then. Guy and Jim may have been rising stars but they weren't big names as of them, they aren't really big names now either for that matter.

reply

This movie felt like a big production. Amazing what they can do with relatively little money

reply