Verity Robins Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

thomvic Having just read and finished the novel today, I had heard many negative reviews on the Demi Moore adaptation. I knew the ending had changed and that the movie takes an hour or so to lead up to the actual beginning of the novel. I went into watching this movie with as much as an open mind as I could as I understand not everything can be translated to the screen and if changes are to be made, if I feel they are justifiable in enhancing the story in some way or providing deeper meaning then it might be the more better for it.And at the start, I actually enjoyed the lead up to the point where the novel starts. You do get some background (though not much) into Hester and Arthur and there is some nice scenery to be had. However, the development of the love I felt was done way to fast but then I think it was more to show how lust took over so I could forgive that.Gary Oldman stands out and gives a pretty good and convincing performance. He is charismatic and pulled the role off well. Demi Moore however is very hit and miss. She does have some moments where her acting is decent however I just don't think she was the right choice for this movie. For one her accent sounds half baked and doesn't pull off a convincing english accent.My main criticism is that the main theme of the novel of guilt but also rising above shame feels somewhat overlooked. The scarlet letter Hester wore starts off as a badge of shame however she is able to overcome this in the novel and ends up gaining respect as her good deeds throughout her life end up shining over her adulteress act. The movie unsuccessfully (if it tried) to capture these themes and instead goes for some occasional nudity and some rather awkward shots of Gary Oldman and Demi Moore in slo mo scenes similar to what you would see in soft core porn.The Indian vs the English subplot also was unnecessary and didn't really add anything to the film rather than to serve the changed ending. I knew the ending was coming but the way it is done is so typical of a Hollywood like final action scene that it just didn't work. I found myself laughing at how silly it was and kind of seemed to come out of nowhere.Hopefully a better adaptation can be made in future that at least captures the main themes of the original story. Be it a lesson learnt that you should only change things when they are broken or suffer the consequences.

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.

ridingjunky I was completely shocked after watching The Scarlet Letter to find such strong negative criticism towards it. 4.7 on IMDb? 14% on rotten tomatoes? nominated for several Razzies?? But why? The only possible answer I can come up with is that this film is largely being critiqued by Hawthorne Puritans, so to speak. And truly, to say that this adaptation strays from the book is like saying that the Kardashians sometimes appear in the media. It does take liberties, and several key plot points have been changed - but does that make it a BAD MOVIE? I have read the Scarlet Letter, and I can see the appeal, but it's not as if it was without it's flaws. It needed some back-story. The characters needed more likability. There needed to be a greater depth to the relationships. This movie gave it all of that with the added bonus of giving it a more exciting story line.The novel aside, this movie was absolutely gorgeous in every aspect. The sets, score, and costuming were top quality, and really transported me into 17th century New England. The acting was stunning throughout the cast, with Demi Moore portraying a strong, enduring Hester Prynn, Robert Duvall giving a thoroughly chilling performance as her husband, and Gary Oldman managing to transform Reverend Dimmesdale - a horribly weak and unlikeable character in the book - into a charming and extremely complex man that the audience could sympathize with. There is nothing that this movie didn't have that most Oscar nominated hits have as well.The only flaws I can think of were, and this is a stretch, the excessive amounts of nudity (which on Mr. Oldman's part were actually very welcome), and the fact that the feminist attitudes were slightly anachronistic. But again, does this make The Scarlet Letter bad? I don't think so. The people I saw it with didn't think so. I honestly don't understand how anyone COULD think so. (and I here I though comprehending God was going to be my biggest challenge) So I say go ahead and watch The Scarlet Letter. Just don't turn it on expecting a word-for-word rendition of the book because you will be disappointed. Instead, expect a beautiful, high-quality, high-intensity romantic thrill ride that deserves a much better reception than it received.

abeautifulliexox-194-933473 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.