Set in puritanical Boston in the mid 1600s, the story of seamstress Hester Prynne, who is outcast after she becomes pregnant by a respected reverend. She refuses to divulge the name of the father, is "convicted" of adultery and forced to wear a scarlet "A" until an Indian attack unites the Puritans and leads to a reevaluation of their laws and morals.
Similar titles
You May Also Like
Reviews
Absolutely the worst movie.
This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.
It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.
It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.
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.
I am not going to keep on comparing here, but this film as a film and an adaptation is a mess in my opinion. The book is one of the greatest American novels, and is so interesting and thoughtfully written. The film version of The Scarlet Letter does have exquisite costumes, scenery and cinematography, a lush John Barry score and despite the inconsistent accent and a slight need to over-compensate Gary Oldman is surprisingly credible as Dimmersdale. However, the script is trite and the storytelling is uninteresting, has little heart and has some overly-gratuitous scenes such as the bathing scene. The pace is also uneven, some of it is too quick while other scenes are ponderous and stilted. The direction feels lacking, and you know there's something wrong when Oldman gives the only half-decent performance. I love Edward Hardwicke and Joan Plowright but they have awful dialogue and their characters are not written well at all. Robert Duvall is embarrassing here, and that pained me to say that as he is usually brilliant. Worst of all is Demi Moore, I don't hate Moore as much as some do(I liked her very much in Ghost, A Few Good Men and The Hunchback of Notre Dame) but she is very bland and not very believable at all as Hester. Overall, disappointing and a failure film and adaptation-wise. 3/10 Bethany Cox
Arriving to freshly formed Massachusets colony without her husband, Hester Prynne tries to adapt to the extremely strict minded colony. After she falls in love with a pastor, Arthur Dimmsdale, she receives the information of her husband's death. Following the path their passionate love has shown them, Hester and Arthur later have to face unexpected factors and the Puritan colony's cruelty...The Scarlet Letter is one of those 90s Hollywood movies that I have been used to see since my childhood. I also have to admit that this is probably a movie more of women's preference. However, that does not mean that the movie is bad. In fact, I still cannot understand how it managed to be so disliked, for I simply "loved" it. This motion picture is beautiful: beautiful in its scenes, beautiful in its music, beautiful in its story... I cannot say that it was powerful, for it made some interesting choices like keeping the reverend alive in the end, but is it not a love story after all?(I have never read the book and I was begging for him not to die, so I am completely satisfied by that fact. ) Although Demi Moore's voice was slightly annoying, I can easily say that her performance was totally believable and included a good character portrayal. There is naught to say about Gary Oldman except for that his performance was perfectly enjoyable. Being used to seeing him as the villain,(or the character who simply has too much ego besides the others,) I was pleasantly surprised by how well he played Dimmsdale's emotions, which were screaming out 'I am an honorable man!' I really, really had fun watching this movie and finished in a COMPLETELY satisfied state of mind. I strongly recommend it to anyone who needs some positive emotions and suggest that instead of looking at it with an eye of a critic you enjoy the music, the thrill(yes, there are many sharp turns in the story, and that's why my summary is so short) and the performances.
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.