Glucedee
It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.
Allison Davies
The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.
Zandra
The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.
drrap
The plot of this film has nearly nothing whatsoever to do with Daniel Defoe's novel; in place of Defoe's brilliant and compelling heroine it substitutes bushels full of ersatz-18th century drivel, pretentious neo-Irish music, and annoying children. Nunneries in England? An unexplained Afro-British man sent on a mission to read a book to an annoying child across the sea? A charitable organization which adopts adult women only if they are virgins? I am certain that if one made a film of "A Christmas Carol" with no Scrooge, no Tiny Tim, and Bob Cratchit as an alcoholic schoolmaster with an illegitimate one-legged daughter living in Sweden, viewers would complain that the story had gone missing -- why not here? It's a shame, as Morgan Freeman gives a memorable performance even in a role which seems dislocated from history, novelistic and actual.
mdechene
Long movie. Direction good. Photography good. Robin Wright is beautiful. She was the "saving grace" of the movie. Stockard Channing and Morgan Freeman did not need to bother with their roles. Anyone could have played their parts. You sometimes wonder what well-known and/or talented stars are thinking when they choose to play certain roles. Do they REALLY need the money badly enough to lose favor with their fans?? Screenplay was OK. The movie progression was V E R Y slow! John Lynch, Moll's lover/husband played his role well. It rained and was cold the day I watched this movie, so I stuck it out to the bitter end. A nap would have been more rewarding!
eightie
The main problem with this film is that it calls itself "Moll Flanders." It has very little to do with the Defoe novel. Moll Flanders, who in the novel appears as a resourceful, intelligent, fun-loving and talented woman is transformed here into a helpless fallen angel who has little control over her own fate. There is no mention in this film of her many husbands (as well as the clever ways she obtained them), her thieving career, her other children, her mother and brother, and generally everything else in the novel that was entertaining and meaningful. Robin Wright Penn is boring and anemic in a role that demands the opposite. Sentimental Hollywood has never before ruined a good story with such skill. If you want to get the full flavor of this great novel, do yourself a favor and watch instead the British adaptation with Alex Kingston, also from 1996.
Gail_Moyer3
I was so excited when I saw that there was a movie version of Moll Flanders. It is, perhaps, my favorite book of all time. I put on the movie, curled up w/ some popcorn and a drink, and waited to be awed. Well, I was awed, but not in a good way. This movie had absolutely nothing to do with the book! The only thing it has in common is the title, and the fact that Moll's mother had given birth to her while in prison. Other than that- nothing! Moll was NOT a prostitute, like the movie portrayed. Granted, in the novel, she did go through husbands quite quickly. But they were marriages! If I had never read the book, I would have deeply enjoyed this movie. I love all the actors in the movie. Morgan Freeman is one of my favorite male actors. But, I ended up yelling at the TV during the entire movie. I was fortunate enough to see the 1996 British TV version starring Alex Kingston. That was remarkable, and very accurate. I would suggest to everyone to see this version!
