Rating: 
Summary: The Scarlet Letter
Review: For an erotica of this kind, I would say this film wasd portrayed perfectly (not by the story of course). Although not having nearly that much to do with the original story (which I am not a fan of) this film is a wonderful erotica/drama. I think Gary Oldman's performance is riveting and very convincing over-all. Although, Demi Moore does seem a bit out of place in this film, it is a good 5-star movie. However, fans of the original story will most-likely not appreciate it.
Rating: 
Summary: Freely, very very freely, adapted from the novel
Review: There's a disclaimer which flashes on the screen at the beginning of this 1995 film. It says it is "freely adapted from the novel" by Nathaniel Hawthorne. Then it goes on to tell the famous story through the eyes of twentieth century feminism, sexual freedom and politically correct happy endings. I must admit I never did read the book, but I've long been aware of the general plot, set in 1666, of an adulteress forced to wear the scarlet letter "A".Demi Moore is cast as Hester Pryne, the adulteress, and we all know what's going to happen to her. She's been sent to America to establish a home; her husband is supposed to be following soon. She shocks the good people of the Massachusetts Bay Colony when she insists on living alone, with the help of a couple of bondsmen and a female black slave. I doubt if Hawthorne's book then had the local minister, played by Gary Oldman, do a little nude swimming on Hester's property. I also doubt that Hawthorne had her peeking, getting excited and sensuously soaking in a bathtub, displaying her own nude body and thinking about the pastor. The couple declare their love for each other but it is only after they think her husband dead that they consummate their relationship. Her pregnancy is a crime and she spends the last six months of her confinement in a horrible prison. Then she is forced to wear the scarlet letter and is shunned by all. She refuses to name her lover, and so Oldman sulks around town, looking guilty but keeping his mouth shut. This is a great role for any actress, but Demi Moore just can't handle it. She might have a nice body but the expression on her face seems to be frozen, incapable of the subtleties, passion and despair that the role calls for. Gary Oldman is slightly better, but his portrayal of the weakling pastor is also one-dimensional. The film is saved, however, by the role of Robert Duvall, who appears late, but yet steals the show with his impassioned portrayal of the wronged husband bent on revenge. He dominates every scene he's in and a single expression on his face tells more about his character than the combined performances of the rest of the entire cast. The story is a good one, and it moved fast enough to hold my interest, especially since there were some action scenes added that Hawthorne had probably never intended. That's why I can't recommend it unless you're willing to just relax and watch a well-plotted historical romance with mediocre acting.
Rating: 
Summary: An actress way out of her depth
Review: As a public service to high school students who has been assigned to read The Scarlet Letter and decided to watch this movie to cheat, I have one word of advice: don't. (Unless you are certain that your teacher majored in secondary education instead of a real subject.In that case, go ahead. She or he won't know the difference.) This film has only the most tenuous connection with the Hawthorne novel. The novel was a study in contrasts between the hypocrisy of the Puritan clergy, people as superstitious, arrogant, and self-righteous as Hollywood types with causes, and the nobility and courage of a "fallen woman" willing to undergo public humiliation to protect someone she loves. This is, instead, a romance novel, a bad romance novel, on film. As far as I can tell, the new-and-improved plot exists mostly to give Demi Moore a excuse to get rolled in the hay. Her ability to fake (I assume) an orgasm is impressive, and she cries on command very well. Other than that her performance was embarrassing to watch. She really ought not to attempt period pieces. They often require acting. The only reason I didn't hit the eject button about a third of the way through was the fine supporting cast whose performances only heighten the contrast with Ms Moore. There are actors and actresses, and there are movie stars; Ms Moore is the latter. (Why is it that so many British actresses can do flawless American accents and most Hollywood stars do British accents so badly it is like listening to fingernails on a blackboard?) Unless your erotic recreation requires the juxtaposition of barns, petticoats, and fear of the authorities, skip this one.
Rating:
Summary: Movies are never like the books.....
Review: I read the book AFTER I saw the movie. Movies are never like the books. Everyone knows that. This movie somewhat updated some of the ideas in the book. Such as witchcraft, etc. It also showed the role of the Native Americans during this puritan era. It is an excellent period movie. If no one knew it was based on the novel, I think the criticism would be different. Gary Oldman is excellent as the reverend, and I believed Demi as the rebellious puritan woman. The love story is intense.
Rating: 
Summary: a wonderful FREELY ADAPTED film
Review: To all of the critics and viewers who have trashed this film because of it's lack of resemblance to the classic novel: pop it into your VCR and note these words that appear in the openning credits: "FREELY adapted..." When the Scarlet Letter was originally writen, it was not proper to write in detail about an adultrous love affair. As for the nudity, Braveheart and Titanic, two of the highest grossing box-office hits (that also got excellent reviews) feature nude scenes. Do we automatically pass them off as "pornographic trash"? I have read the novel, and written a lengthy research paper on it. I do not feel that the film has betrayed the message of the novel. The acting could have been better in places, but all in all, Moore and Oldman did a wonderful job of portraying the illicit lovers. Moore embodies Hester Prynne as a headstrong, passionate woman who isn't about to live her life as the Puritans see fit. I love how the character of the Reverend Dimmesdale has been slightly changed to be victim of the inner torment of his sin not because of his cowardice, but of Hester's strength and demand that he not speak out. Gary Oldman is the perfect man for this part, his gentle looks and manner leaving only the coldest of hearts not feeling for his situation. Another thing I enjoyed about the movie is the lengthy introduction of how Hester and Arthur met and fell in love, rather than just beginning at the Prison-Door and the scaffold scene. I feel that the romantics-at-heart will enjoy the happier ending, than the one in the book, even though the nick-of-time Indian attack is a little bit of a far cry from reality. The score (written by composer John Barry) is one of the most beautiful and passionately mysterious scores I've heard in years. I highly recommend the soundtrack. 4 stars- because I really don't understand why Mituba needs to watch Hester bathe. In fact, I think the bathing scene should be deleted all together. I also dislike the way Chillingworth is more focused on a physical attack and all that "savage" mumbo-jumbo, rather than psychologically torturing Dimmesdale as in the novel.
Rating: 
Summary: More comedy than drama...
Review: I can't be as descriptive as several who reviewed this movie, but can tell you I'm glad I bought it at a used video store where I could get my money back. I never have liked Demi Moore; her voice is too raspy for this role. She tries to be sincere and just can't cut it. I watched it solely because I like Gary Oldman. His acting was okay....I adore him in Immortal Beloved. I wouldn't recommend anyone wasting their money on either renting or purchasing this version of The Scarlet Letter. I own a copy of nearly all period movies set back in the 16th to 19th century eras, and this was one that wasn't worthy of joining my collection nor was it worth the 2+ hours I spent watching it. I just kept waiting for it to get better, and waiting...but it didn't...and the very kindest word I can choose to describe it is, disappointing.
Rating:
Summary: One of the worst...
Review: We watched this movie in class, after reading the novel. By the end of it, nearly everyone in the room was laughing out loud at the pure cheesiness of the film. Personally, I hadn't laughed so hard in a long time. I did not enjoy the novel all that much, so I'm not saying the movie is bad in comparison to it; no, it's bad by itself! Where do I begin to describe how awful it is? There is absolutely no depth in this movie: none in the dialogue, none in the development of the story, none in the way it is filmed. It is a cliché of a love story, and a tactless one at that. If only it were at least mindless entertainment, an impossible tale that takes you away for a couple of hours and nothing more... But I can't even call it entertainment. I remember parts that seemed to me particularly bad. One was the love-making scene in the barn. It was just so badly exagerated and cliché! Then, there was that so-called symbolism, with the slave-girl overcoming her fear of water and that red bird appearing out of nowhere, and what on earth was she doing with that candle? And, of course, that obligatory happy ending, which completely annihilates any remaining chance the movie might have a had at a shred of depth. Yay, here come the Indians! How silly can you get? Basically, if you're feeling cynical and tired and feel like a laugh, rent this movie for a night. But really, don't buy it.
Rating:
Summary: This Movie is a Crime!
Review: This movie does not even REMOTELY resemble Hawthorne's masterpiece! What are these Hollywood producers thinking, anyway? They feel the need to "modernize" all the old classics, to fit their world view. They're not translating what the author wanted, they're simply taking the story (or vague gist of it, anyway) and implementing their own thoughts. For those of you who have not read the book, and only watched the movie, you're missing the whole point of Hawthorne's "The Scarlet Letter". I would recommend that you immediatetly ditch this movie, and read the book for a true appreciation of the ideas behind it. The characters are terribly misrepresented. Hester Prynne is nothing more than a cheap whore in this "movie", whereas in the books she was a very quiet and humble person who was constantly under the torment of what she had done. Dimmesdale is equally idiotic, and you have to wonder if the producer had even read BASIC Puritan history, let alone "The Scarlet Letter! Obviously not. This is nothing more than a cheap R rated flick to attract people just wanting to see dirty sex and violence. It's a crime to take a masterpiece like "The Scarlet Letter" and frame a movie like this after it. Read the book, forget about the movie.
Rating:
Summary: This Scarlet Letter is Beautiful
Review: I know this movie is not highly rated by most but I found it to be a very beautiful film. Disassociate from the book for a moment and appreciate the film as it's own work of art. With the tender, emotional music and touching way of having been filmed, I find this a true love story. I highly recommend this and/or the CD soundtrack for times when you need a good dose of something emotional.
Rating:
Summary: Not for intelligent viewers
Review: As a great fan of Nathaniel Hawthorne's original novel and also of Gary Oldman's acting, I awaited this film with some eagerness. In vain, it turned out. It is among the most awful movies I've ever wasted two hours watching. In this film version, the story is given a totally ridiculous happy ending, with the Reverend rescuing Hester Prynne on horseback and riding off into the sunset to live happily ever after with her! Hester is supposed to live out the rest of her days as an outcast! Terrible stuff. If you're looking for decent films set in the C17th / C18th United States, try 'The Crucible' or 'Sleepy Hollow'.
|
