Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Noutions Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

shannonnikic 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.

Dianne Lynch This movie is a big insult to the great book 'Scarlet Letter' of Nathaniel Hawthorne.It has nothing to do with this amazing piece of Literature.So, if you've read the book I highly recommend you not to see this film. Nevertheless,if you enjoy yourselves by seeing Soap Operas this movie will thrill you to the bone. The only good thing of this movie,I could say, is Gary Oldman,whose performance is truly respectable.The same thing can not be said for his co-star Demi Moore.No one maybe can deny the beauty of this woman.But her talent is poor in this particular movie,better not make any reference to her other 'exceptional' works.

amethystwings32 I love this movie , Demi Moore's portrayal of Hawthorne's character. From his classic novel was excellent, as the woman who had committed the carnal sin of adultery. And was considered a harlot and a witch. For not only did she have an affair , brought on by feelings of lust and desire. But it was with a Holy man sworn to be loyal and faithful to only the Lord our savior. Which was considered forbidden , so as her punishment she was forced to wear the scarlet letter 'A'. Which stood for adulteress, But she when found out she was with child. And out of wedlock she had only two options , neither one was promising. In the end she had only 4 options be hung, burned , end her affair with the Priest (Oldman) which was forced to leave the church. And her final choice leave with her child and never comeback! Great move fantastic acting ! Due to certain controversial content this movie isn't for everyone! But for anyone who appreciates classic literature this is the movie for you!

Samiam3 There is an opening credit at the beginning of the movie that reads; adapted freely from Nathaniel Hawthorne's book. 'Freely' that's an interesting choice of words. 'loosely adapted' sounds a bit too euphemistic I suppose. Saying 'freely' makes it sound as if the makers of this picture took a timeless American novel and did god knows what with it; they 'freely' toyed around with a masterpiece.I should probably mention now, that I am not saying these things without a bias. I haven't read the novel personally, but having seen the film, I think I can verify for myself (based on good common sense, without the need for the 'freely adapted credit) that there is no way this could have been Hawthorne's original story. The writing is mediocre, and not that smart. That said. I won't argue that it is a terrible movie, and in fact the first half is pretty good, but the second half is clumsy, overdone, and rather pointless. The finished product has its ups and downs, but it is an uneven production which could use a slight rewrite and maybe a few trimsFor a good while I was enjoying myself. The romantic portion of the film, is believable. Gary Oldman turns in a pretty good performance opposite Demi Moore, who is not as good, but does her best. Oldman has more charisma. I guess it's too much then to ask for a movie to be stable for a hundred and thirty minutes. At the one hour point (give or take a few minutes) The Scarlett Letter, becomes a whole new ballgame. Once Robert Duvall shows up, the plot turns contrived and non sensible. Much of the remainder of the film, is about this character's involvement, and it takes us nowhere. Duvall is way out of place as a hammed up, Hollywood stereotype; the really bad guy, if you will. It's not even a role that requires the involvement of such a skilled actor. The movie ends with an unusual bang; an outburst of violence that is also irrelevant, and if for nothing else was probably thrown in as a last minute attempt to break the tedium. The Scarlett Letter's strongest aspect is it's portrayal of 17th century puritan Massachussetts. There is a credible sense of history to this setting. It's all in the way the people dress, behave, make chit chat. Anyone who knows their movies will know that this was a much despised picture. I certainly see fault within it, but I did not think it was terrible. The fact that it eviscerates it's source material is a pretty good reason to dislike it, but as a movie goer, I judge it for what it is. For better or worse, Roland Joffé's film is pretty much a Hollywood melodrama.