MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

bgirl781 We have been watching this movie in English as we read the book, and this is probably one of the most awful movies I have seen. The camera is shaky and looks homedone, the acting is horrible, and the background music, when present, does not fit the theme. The funniest part about the movie is when the comet and its sci-fi music flashes across the sky looking like the worst special effects I have ever seen. The extras do look lost, and the after a minute or two of the babies crying, I wanted to put it (or myself) out of its misery. It follows the book really well, but it seems that the budget of the book was probably higher than the movie. (Did they really have a 100 dollar budget? Because that's what it seems like...) The acting isn't good either - I completely cracked up when Chillingworth did his little dance after looking into Dimmesdale's shirt. Lastly, Meg's eyes are very freaky. I do not recommend this movie.

Rochel John Heard is beautiful and brilliant as Arthur Dimsdale. I though so when I first saw this version of "The Scarlet Letter" when I was eight, and I still think so, having just seen it again. Not since this role has John Heard been in a film which so well showcased his romantic and engaging intensity. That's a shame.

t.chavez I saw this series when it first premiered with much fanfare on PBS in the Boston area 20 years ago. I was in my early teens, but the story moved me and has endured as a favorite. I was delighted to see that this version had finally come to video a few years ago, and was as beautiful as I remembered. I get so much more out of the dialogue now, and although the effects are as cheesy as you might expect from a PBS miniseries from over 20 years ago, the music is still affecting, and the performances excellent. It's gorgeously filmed in and around New England, and the "making of" shorts included on the video are a nice touch. As I recall, the story is very close to the original -- a notable difference being the color of Hester Prynne's eyes, which were black in the story, but are light blue in this version. I mention this because Meg Foster's eyes stand out to give her an other-worldly look which is very effective. This miniseries is way up there on my must-see list!

MBarnes Will a quality version of this classic piece of literature ever be produced? Probably not, as Hollywood these days can't make a movie that doesn't have a happy ending. The drab and drearyness of Hawthorne's work is well related in this version that closely follows the text, even to the point of quoting key lines of dialogue. The most powerful scenes are the meeting between Hester and Chillingworth in the prison, and the conversation between Chillingworth and Dimmesdale where he begins his torturing of the cowardly minister. The main problem with this version is on the technical side.When Pearl is a baby, she cries incessantly into a microphone that had to have been placed directly next to her. The poor camera quality makes Meg Foster's pale eyes seem psychotic or demonic. The special effects are so ridiculous that the audience can't help but chuckle. A scene between Hester and Chillingworth is nearly drowned out by the ocean nearby. The theme music never changes, and the narration is slow and monosyllabic. Add to that some pathetic acting performances, and there are some scenes that are just hard to sit through. If if weren't for the faithfulness to the text, and that fact that all other versions waver dramatically, this would be unwatchable.