The Scarlet Letter

OK, it's not faithful to the novel . . . .

I waited a long time before I finally decided to rent the video and watch The Scarlet Letter. Afterwards I wondered, what was everyone so upset about?! I was pleasantly surprised. Gary Oldman was his usual -brilliant, and looking soulfully handsome for a change. Demi Moore turned in a decent performance -watch closely- and then decide for yourself. Robert Duvall as the crazy doctor was a bit over the top, but had enough self control to not let it get out of hand. Joan Ploughright was charming as usual, and the only one who got the accent right -being a Brit, of course.

I don't recall the Indian war, and witchcraft from the novel . . . but it's been a long time. Yes, I guess it was a different movie, but watch it for what it is.

Ridiculous take on the Nathaniel Hawthorne novel as those who worked on this behave like they never even read the book. In the Massachusetts Bay Colony of 1666 a young woman (Demi Moore) fears that her husband (the much older Robert Duvall) is dead after a year of absence. She befriends pastor Gary Oldman (laughable that he could ever be a religious man in a film to start with) and soon romance blossoms. The romance turns physical, a child is born (no one knows who the father is), Moore is forced to wear the titled item, Duvall returns and plots revenge on the man who impregnated his wife while he was captured by wild Indians and Oldman secretly punishes himself as Moore keeps their affair a secret from the townspeople. Where will all this lead? "The Scarlett Letter" is a really disappointing film considering that Roland Joffe' (a once great director in the 1980s who made modern masterpieces like "The Killing Fields" and "The Mission") acts like he is just not comfortable with the material and does not know how to execute the excruciating novel into a cohesive cinematic product. Oldman and Duvall, usually very dependable players, cannot cope here and Moore just continued to under-achieve in front of the camera. Void of intelligence, dim-witted and poorly paced, "The Scarlett Letter" is one of those films that has absolutely no tone and thus becomes a hard experience to get through. Turkey (0 stars out of 5).

If this is your first studio film, you may be shocked by the fact that this adaptation is not the same as the source material. This is not Hawthorne's insightful, profound, crushingly depressing novel. As with most studio adaptations, it's been made more tantalizing and easily digestible with a sort of happy ending. In order to enjoy this film, you have to let go of the fact that it only borrows from the characters and theme of the novel and let it stand on its own. You also must accept that it is more entertaining and emotional and less thought provoking. Its also helpful to keep in mind that this is a very 90's studio film.

This is a solid romance movie. Gary Oldman brings painfully beautiful depth to a character that, although well written, could have easily been made off-puttingly weak and vanilla, had it been played by one of the typical leading men of the time. The movie is worth watching for his performance alone, despite being made at the eroding peak of his alcoholism. I think this was Demi Moore's finest performance. I would have never thought of casting her for this role but she delivered a believable woman of great strength and character. She could have easily been annoyingly selfish and obstinate but instead, measured with subtlety and calculation, she is both relatable and inspiring and manages to hold her own among her accomplished male counterparts. Robert Duvall gives a solid, yet uncomfortable performance. He felt a bit alien from the rest of the cast but, in a way, it suits the character. The entire supporting cast is absolutely fantastic. The score is one of the best elements of the entire film. Direction is good, there are some awkward aspects but the overall production is beautiful and well conceived.

If you take the movie for what it is and just relax, it is quite enjoyable. If you are a romantic and a fan of any of the actors, you will love it.

ICK! I was actually in physical pain as I watched this movie. I feel this way for several reasons:

1. It's below Gary Oldman. Come on! He can do so much better, and has!

2. THIS IS NOT WHAT NATHANIEL HAWTHORNE WROTE! I know it's supposed to be an image of his novel, but actually incorporating some of the story into the film may have done well.

3. Demi Moore ruins everything. EVERYTHING she touches turns into some sexually explicit trash, like this was some Danielle Steele piece of crap instead of Hawthorne! Classic literature people! I read the novel in high school (which was only two years ago) and yes, it was painful, yes, I hated being forced to read it, but you can't ruin things just because you have a huge (fake) rack.

A horrible film, terrible interpretation of the novel, and the second worst film I've ever seen (the worst was "The Avengers" with Ralph Fiennes). I give it two thumbs, two toes, two whatever way way way way down.

The basic sin is to not be a real adaptation of Hawthorne novel. inspired by it - yes. but nothing more. the second error is to transform a classic novel in a kind of "ad usum Delphini", in which every nuance of a great and profound drama is lost. the only significant virtue is the fight of Demi Moore and Gary Oldman to save their roles. not with real succes because the script does a so simple and pink story than nothing could change the sense of it. and the only prize is the atmosphere, costumes, and hope than another director will do a better and smart adaptation for a novel who remains one of fundamental books not only for American literature.