Tornado_Sam

The original "Perry Mason" TV show was one of the classics of its time. Running for nine years from 1957-1966, the series had everything going for it: good writing, great music, exceptional acting, and all the rest of it. Raymond Burr played Perry Mason so well that it became difficult to see anyone else playing him; likewise, the rest of the cast, including Barbara Hale as Della Street and William Hopper as Paul Drake, fit their roles so well that any attempts at using other actors would hardly be acceptable to viewers.

But, TV producers being the way they are, there was of course an attempt to reboot the show in the 1970s, because they just couldn't stand the idea of not piggybacking off of an iconic show after running out of other ideas. Enter "The New Perry Mason", a short-lived series that made it only a half season before being cancelled. While this series certainly isn't terrible, there's no reason to rate it particularly high in view of the fact that this same idea had already been done before in a much better way - that of course being in the original series itself. Nothing that made the original so good is present in this reboot - at best, everything is mediocre. It's understandable why this show flopped, even if it wasn't the worst - it couldn't live up to the original, and there was really no point trying to make it do that considering they couldn't even use the same actors as before.

To start off, there's the theme song. "Park Avenue Beat" from the original is replaced with a semi-memorable fanfare that hardly captures the tone of what the series is really about. While not bad, this theme song hardly lives up to the original theme by Fred Steiner and already makes it incredibly difficult for one to give the series a chance after years of the old show. They certainly weren't giving it their best effort - something which can be said for the entirety of the show.

As for acting, there's very little to write home about here as well. Monte Markham is cast in the role of Perry Mason, but of course he's no Raymond Burr. While Markham does carry himself well onscreen, that's about all that can be said for his performance - otherwise, he clearly lacks the presence that Burr brought to the role which makes it a tough sell. Sharon Acker is unexceptional as Della Street and looks like some 70s fashion model - and there's hardly any screen chemistry between her and Markham like Burr and Barbara Hale had. The same can be said about Albert Stratton's performance as Paul Drake: bland, nothing special, and certainly not living up to William Hopper. All in all, the trio in this series doesn't at all fit together well like the original trio did, and if the producers wanted to keep the show, that would have to be the first thing to fix.

Harry Guardino, likewise, doesn't really bring anything new to the role of Hamilton Burger. To be honest, his physical appearance reminds me more of someone who should be playing some pipe-smoking sherlock more than someone who should be playing a District Attorney. The biggest injustice, however, is Dane Clark as Lieutenant Tragg, who has no smug manner about him like Ray Collins, nor any trace of humor (for example, the writers literally gave him a great opportunity to be just like the original Lieutenant Tragg when they wrote in the part about his "sensitive instrument" - but when Clark says it, he's completely humorless).

When it comes to the writing, there's nothing too bad to be said, although the writers certainly could have written in some things that would give the cast a better chemistry. The stories are as creative as ever, which is perhaps the best thing to be said about the show, but without the proper cast to carry them out, they don't really have the same feel as the original.

To conclude, "The New Perry Mason" reeks of mediocrity - from music to acting, there is nothing that makes this show special. It's not bad, but it's not very good, and to be honest, I see no reason to watch it as a casual observer considering a far better show was already made (that being the original Perry Mason). The only people I can truly recommend this to are diehard Perry Mason fans who want to watch everything Perry Mason - and even then, I doubt they'd be impressed with it after becoming so used to the old show.

In terms of innovative cinematography that would later become D. W. Griffith's trademark, there isn't much here. The story of "The Redman's View" is told just like any other - in long shots - making it difficult for the viewer to really catch the emotion of the sensitive subject matter and embellish what is happening beyond the level that a long shot can do. Still, the film is well made for the time period and one can only speculate how much better it could have looked had it been made around 1912 or so, when Griffith's shorts were much more skillfully made.

"The Redman's View" deals with a subject that was common at that point in American history: Indian displacement. In the film, a pair of Indian lovers are separated due to the arrival of the white men who order the Indians to find a new home. The girl however is forced to stay with the white men, and is unable to help her ailing father who dies along the way in search of a new homeland. It's a relatively simple story that is easy to follow and the commentary, while not as strong as it could have been, is on point the entire time. It becomes clear watching it who Griffith favors in the film, and the title even indicates this further. A well-made little piece of commentary of a historical premise.

"The Count of Monte Cristo" is an incredible novel. In 1,000 pages the reader is introduced to a man who is wrongly condemned, and proceeds to show the way he excruciatingly manages to get his revenge on every one of those who destroyed the wonderful life he was all set to live. It's a slow moving story and is supposed to be - highlighting the slow and deliberate process he puts his enemies through to make them suffer as much as possible. Alexander Dumas was a brilliant writer and the novel is, in my opinion, a stronger one in terms of plot than his more well-known "The Three Musketeers" which is faster-paced.

The film, on the other hand, does not do Dumas justice, and obviously, some of this is expected. The book is so lengthy that it is impossible to condense it into a two-hour movie without leaving out certain details of the man's revenge. This in turn makes the revenge a more cut and dried job on the part of Edmond Dantes than a slow and deliberate trap he works upon his enemies. As stated before, this is understandable but not necessarily excusable - if necessary, another hour of film could have been added on just to make the story play out in greater detail. What we have is good, and there is plenty of great action to be seen all around, including some great and realistic sword fighting not seen in the book (if I remember correctly), but all the same, Dumas's novel seems to provide a much more focused version of the tale than any movie could ever do (unless the movie ran more like five hours).

The main complaint I have, other than the fact the story is extremely condensed, is that throughout the entire movie the audience is entirely aware of who the Count of Monte Cristo is. In the novel, it's left up to the reader to figure out he is Edmond Dantes, and there is a certain ambiguity to who this foreigner who has such large amounts of money truly is. It's this ambiguity that makes the book so interesting, whereas in the movie it's obvious what is going on, there's no shift at all whatsoever and in doing so the film robs the audience of one of the most engaging aspects of the story.

All this, of course, does not take away from the incredible photography, action, etc. That this movie provides. Technically, it is a very well made film that most audiences would have no problem with, assuming they hadn't already read the book. It is because of this that I would suggest that if one absolutely wants to see this, they skip the book until after having seen it. This will allow an appreciation of the movie at a level I myself will probably never achieve due to having already ruined it for myself by having read the book. Then, after having seen the movie, reading the book will help one appreciate the story better without starting to have prejudice for what is mostly a good film. I wouldn't normally recommend doing this, but in this case it's practically unavoidable due to how different the two of them are. As it is, "The Count of Monte Cristo" is a pretty decent film that is mostly imperfect when one looks at it from a perspective of already having read the novel ahead of time.