The Scarlet Letter (1995)

I'm not going to lie and say I didn't enjoy this film. It's faults I found forgivable. I saw it when it first came out and liked it, and I still like it. I have read the original Scarlett Letter by Hawthorne and liked it too. I believe this film serves two useful (perhaps unintended) purposes. One: it's hopeless as a "cheat" for kids who try to do a report on the book and watch this instead. Two: It will perhaps make teens more interested in reading the book - something I was usually not interested in in high school. The most frustrating aspect of the film for me is that it exactly contradicts Puritan teachings when it tries to damn Hester for saying she speaks to God. The whole point of Puritanism was to remove clergy and government from between Believers and God. It would have been more outrageous for her to say something like, "All believers in Jesus Christ are saved from this sinful world." Puritans believed a select few would go to Heaven, even of their own flock.Great costumes, cinematography, lighting, and locations.

I can ensure you that The Scarlet Letter receives too much negative criticism. It's an easy target. I've never read the novel though I wish I did read it so I could better effectively rate the movie, but the book is great so the movie has big shoes to fill. The Scarlet Letter is clearly a fine film. Its direct comparisons to the book is one big reason for all the underratings, another big reason is The Scarlet Letter viewing sells itself as some great movie, with its vivid storytelling, its great acting and strong cinematography, yet it's not quite great. It's hard and difficult to deliver a pure dramatic period piece based on a strong selling novel. The movie may supposed to be sophisticated, elegant drama, but The Scarlet Letter quickly settles into a regular on the surface movie at the time when Authur and Hester meet, not being too artistically poetic, but more commonly driven by its desires. The Scarlet Letter is lost between those two film modes with no seaming connection. Another strong critique is it's missing very intriguing plot points. All this lessens the film, but not all so much. The Scarlet Letter is a passionate romance taking place in a beautiful though turbulent setting. It has a good, deep cast. Demi Moore and Gary Oldman as Hester Prynne and Authur Dimmsdale make The Scarlet Letter good all while their characters engage in forbidden lust. Moore and Oldman offer tour de forces in The Scarlet Letter. Moore is beauty at its finest. I love Demi Moore and Gary Oldman, two my favorite and two of the very best. I quite enjoy their impassioned performances in The Scarlet Letter. It may make the characters themselves slightly exaggerated, but Oldman and Moore do a good job of maintaining it. I wouldn't change it if I could. The Scarlet Letter is a great tragic love story in the form of a good movie. I must say, The Scarlet Letter is really good, and anyone who bashes it as bad is being too harsh. It's a strong 6. The Scarlet Letter is a great stay at home couples date night movie because it's boldly, desperately romantic and you do not have to watch it too closely to follow it as it speaks of pure passion being very passionately compelling.

This certainly ranks among the Top Ten of "What Were They Thinking?" films ever made. The production is sumptuously photographed, has a more than qualified director in Oscar nominee Roland Joffe, a recognizable supporting cast of Oscar luminaries featuring Gary Oldman, Robert Duvall and Joan Plowright, and a then-bankable leading lady in Demi Moore. Factor in the pedigree associated with Nathaniel Hawthorne's legendary novel and something far more worthwhile should have been the end result.Moore is cast as Hester Prynne, a proper Puritan wife sent ahead to the colonies to prepare a home for she and her husband. Emboldened by the new responsibilities thrust upon her and some of the new relationships she starts, Hester gives in to an attraction to the righteous Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale (Oldman) when it is believed that her husband has perished in an Indian massacre. Hester's peccadillo and her subsequent illegitimate pregnancy cause her to become persona non grata in the colony and she is forced to wear the scarlet letter of the title brandishing her an adulterer.Anyone who made it through high school is familiar with the tale of Hester Prynne, but given the issues inherent in the material and how it still remains pertinent in today's society with women's right being trampled on, its cinematic adaptations have been amazingly rare. So it is doubly unfortunate that Joffe and company have so succinctly bungled this effort.Moore is pretty as a picture, but entirely too contemporary a presence to convince as Hester. She provides neither the insight nor the range to make Hester's plight palpable. Oldman is solid and provides a titillating full frontal voyeuristic skinny-dip, but his role is beyond ridiculous (more on that later). Robert Duvall as Hester's wacko husband shows up later in the film and gives the worst performance of his career. This is so bad it is akin to the work Nick Nolte contributed in Hulk. And pretty much everyone is out-acted by a bird that seems to be chirping for sexual freedom.The film's biggest problem and the result of its failure is that it fails to have respect or even understand the entire point of the source. No one feels that Joffe needs to be slavishly faithful to Hawthorne's prose. And sexing the material up for modern audiences is also not an unwise call.However, what is absurd is basically castrating the story of its core. Joffe and company take the window dressing of the Scarlett Letter, but abandon its entire reason for being. Hawthorne's story was an indictment of Puritanism and the hypocrisy of Christianity in that Reverend Dimmesdale was a self-righteous blowhard stirring up his foolish flock and leading the charge against Hester by day, while being her lover at night and demanding she keep their secret. If anything, he is the villain of the piece, yet the film version somehow re-imagines him as a worthwhile, misunderstood romantic figure! Instead of Dimmesdale being depicted justly as a craven, cowardly monument of hypocrisy, we instead get Dimmesdale as the Puritan answer to Fabio and Duvall gets to usurp the villain role as Hester's wild-eyed madman hubby. This shift in narrative, plus changes in the latter half of the film including the ending, completely abandons the entire purpose of Hawthorne's tale. Joffe instead throws in Indian attacks and nonsense sound and fury to distract from the fact that there is no longer anything at the center of his film. As such, the film does not conclude, so much as implode under its own rubbish pretensions.

I have noticed that most of the bad reviews for "The Scarlet Letter" are written by lovers of Nathaniel Hawthorn's classic novel of the same name. I myself have read the novel, and I appreciated it as much as the next person, but let's be realistic here; is it really made for the screen? Director Roland Joffe has done the right thing here by adding some extra *umph* to the classic story with the right dose of action and romance - even if many key elements of the novel were altered.First, let's put this into perspective. Yes, Joffe took the title of the book, hinting towards a relatively accurate adaption, which it was not by any means. However, there have been many successful films based on novels that have even used the author's name directly in the title whilst making it just as inaccurate. Example 1: Bram Stoker's Dracula - also starring the wonderful Gary Oldman - TOTALLY strayed from the book but is still a favourite of many. #2: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Complete filth in my opinion (possibly because Frankenstein's my fav book and Ken Branagh is just such a ham in it), but it was still approved by most critics. Get what I'm saying here? Just because a film is not word-for-word like the book it's based on, it doesn't mean that it isn't any good.Truth be told, I love this film! Yes, yes, I'm a bit of a Gary Oldman fan girl, and yes, seeing his wet, naked, beautiful body made me swoon, but that is NOT the only reason why I loved this film. Honest.Despite the incredible length, Scarlet Letter managed to grab my attention from start to finish. The soundtrack, lighting, costuming, sets, camera work, script . . . it was all fantastic. It had me smiling and giggling at the flirty exchanges between Arthur (Gary Oldman) and Hester (Demi Moore), sighing at the love scenes, biting my nails at the moments where those crazy Puritans showed their (arguably) evil side,reaching for tissues at the tragic moments, and had me actually hiding my face behind a pillow when things got really intense. This to me is the mark of a great film.Another great thing is the performances. The entire cast was incredible - a thing that rarely happens. The stars of the film, Moore and Oldman, were both critically knocked for their performances - Gary for not being 'into the role' and Demi for just, well, sucking. NONSENSE!! Gary, while not in his usual bada$$ and over-the-top crazy element, played the charming and romantic version of Dimmesdale to a T. He really let us feel his torment in having to choose between his moral and spiritual beliefs, and his heart (and I can't stress enough how beautiful he is in this role - okay, hormones are settled now). Demi was equally as wonderful, showing us both the strength of a woman seeking independence from domestic and religious restraints, as well as vulnerability in her inability to actually "fight the power" so to speak. Both actors had amazing chemistry and passion - passion for their individual beliefs, for their child, and above all, for each other. Simply wonderful. Another stand-out performance was Joan Plowright as Harriot. She portrayed a gentle, warm and kind wisdom like I have never seen before. I felt immediately drawn to her character.*drum roll* Time for the one and only flaw! My main problem is the unnecessary amounts of gore. I won't say how it's gory, but if you haven't seen this yet, consider yourself warned. I understand that this is a device that only makes the film more powerful and intense, but truthfully, it's just plain hard to watch. OH! I just thought of another flaw. Mituba diddling herself with a candlestick. It might sound like a bad Clue scenario, but lo and behold . . . It's just unnecessary.So those are my two cents. If you're a hard-knock fan of the book, try to forget about it when watching this film. It really is great as an independent story, so just let your mind relax and sink into the creative depths of the directors' interpretation. And keep a pillow handy.