The Scarlet Letter

I was expecting something really awful, but once I got about 15 minutes into the movie, I decided that the only way to enjoy it was to forget that it was "based on" a famous novel and just enjoy the movie for what it was. And I found myself very entertained.

I was impressed with Gary Oldman's performance. It's nice to see him portray someone who isn't a psychotic ham and he did admirably well. Demi Moore suprised me with her acting and apart from a few stilted scenes and discomfort with the dialogue, I think she pulled it off pretty well. I found myself caring about her character and her relationship with Dimmesdale. Perhaps the bathing scene was a little too gratuitous -- c'mon, Demi, do you need to show it all? -- but it was only a few minutes out of 135.

I wish that Pearl could have been given more screen time and character development and the woman who did her voiceover throughout the story left much to be desired. As did Robert Duvall's performance. I didn't much like his acting in this movie at all.

The supporting cast was excellent: Joan Plowright, Edward Hardwicke, and others. The locations and set design were exquisite and the costumes were gorgeous.

Overall, I thought it was a very good way to spend a couple hours. You see some early colonial atmosphere, something which is almost extinct in movies nowadays, and adequate and sometimes inspired acting. Just don't expect to see Hawthorne's novel on the screen. If you want to see the unhappy ending in all its self-mutilating glory, see Lillian Gish's silent version that is sometimes aired on Turner Classic Movies. 6/10

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.

For starters, I have read Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter, both for high school and personal enjoyment, and I absolutely loved the novel, but most high school students would disagree with my view of the novel. When seeing this film, one must remember the phrase "freely adapted from," because that's what it is. Things are changed, yes, but that doesn't stop this movie from being wonderful. The movie gives background to the Hester/Dimmesdale romance that Hawthorne left in the background, and so beings the tale to life and makes it more understandable to the modern population. Depsite its inaccuracies and liberal use of literary lisence, the movie is a hypothetical "What if?" It asks what would have happened had Dimmesdale come forward, had Pearl been a more congenial, innocent character, and had the Indian troubles played more of a part in Hawthorne's work. As Dimmesdale, Oldman performs marvelously, depicting the tortured soul of the Puritan priest in love with a strong, undaunted woman. This movie is a must see for all the historical romance lovers out there as well as those who need a reprieve from Hawthorne's often long and difficult prose. Just don't use it to pass your tests; that's what Sparknotes are for...

This adaptation of Nathaniel Hawthorne's novel is pretty disappointing. The casting of Demi Moore as Hester Prynne is laughable - she looks what she was at the time, a pretty, A-list, Hollywood star. Gary Oldman does slightly better as Dimmesdale - in fact he might have just saved the film - but Robert Duvall is atrocious as Roger Chillingworth; totally wrong.

The adaptation is stodgy, the story tampered with, and the direction by Roland Joffe is pedestrian. Faces like Edward Hardwicke, Tim Woodward, Roy Dotrice, and Joan Plowright, give the film some credibility, but not enough.