Salvaje inocencia

Daniel Defoe would be mortified if he knew that his delightful novel, full of energy and wisdom, was the basis for this plodding, sentimental film. Stockard Channing is delightful to watch in her role... if you mute the sound, so that you aren't forced to endure the dialogue.

Other fine actors are wasted also, including Morgan Freeman looking like he's costarring in Battlefield Earth and knows it. Use this film only as a cure for insomnia. Watch the 1995 British made-for-tv adaptation instead; it does everything right that this film does wrong.

This film, though nothing like the Daniel Defoe novel, was remarkably good. The tale begins with Flora, an orphan removed from her home in a convent in Europe, who is told that she is being taken to the Americas to become the ward of one Mrs. Allworthy, who is credited to have been the woman her mother served. Mrs. Allworthy's manservant and confidant, Hibble, is the one who is to both bear her to his employer, and also to read to Flora the diary of her mother, Moll Flanders, to explain her life to her.

Robin Wright shines as the lost and ever soul-searching innocent Moll Flanders, who despite making many wrong choices in life seems to find her way to kind places again and again. Her unconditionally loving future husband, credited "The Artist" on screen but listed as John Fielding on this site, is played by John Lynch. Stockard Channing is Mrs. Allworthy, who we come to discover is the owner of a Bordello and is a manipulative woman who can sway any man into her power. Lastly, Morgan Freeman plays the part of gentle and world-wisened Hibble, and I think this is one of his best roles, as he interacts so swimmingly with Robin on camera.

The movie is rated PG-13 for sexual situations, nudity and some violence. Despite the subject matter, the film charms the soul. I recommend lovers of Gothic literature to read it, and for people who love the book to give this story a chance as a separate entity.

Over all, I thought that "Moll Flanders" was a good movie. It is a little slow moving. That's the only complaint though. The story revolves around Moll Flanders. She's a slave whom goes into prostitution. And one of her customers happens to fall in love with her. They also have a child together. The movie is just about her life. But it's very heart warming, and I think any woman would enjoy it. If you enjoy Morgan Freeman or Robin Write, this is one of their best performances. I'm a little surprised with the rating. But, I guess you can't win them all. I would recommend "Moll Flanders".

7/10

99% of the time I'm a staunch purist. A classic book should be portrayed on film as close to the original as possible, leaving room for the necessary conversions of text to screen. That being said, there are exceptions to every rule, and this movie is one of them.

I had not read the book prior to watching this movie, but had read IMDb reviews that it was far from accurate, so I was skeptical going into it. The movie, in fact, was outstanding! I was riveted, drawn into the story, and anxious to find out what happened next. It was fascinating and intriguing. I think the best comparison I can make with it is a Dickens story set about 150 years earlier than his books. It's dark and gritty, highlighting the lowlifes of society and the shortcomings of the society that contributes to make these lowlifes. Yet there is considerable irony and a bit of humor to counteract the darkness. Love, life, death, joy, grief, sickness, deprivation, aspiration.... It is in short a microcosm of life as it is today, but through the window of days past. One feels the emotions that the characters are experiencing, because they are feelings we've already experienced ourselves. However, although this movie is frequently tragic, it is not a tragedy. I could not recommend it so highly if it was, because I don't like to walk away from a movie feeling depressed.

I liked the movie so much that I began reading the book that very night, and I finished it 8 days later. Where did the book differ from the movie? It would be easier to state where they resembled each other! I would have been hard-pressed to see any similarity between the two had they been published under different titles. For one thing, the book covers the title character's entire life up past the age of 60, whereas the movie only takes her up to maybe 30, and what goes on in that time frame is widely different from what goes on in the book.

In the movie makers' defense, they do have in the opening credits the following caveat: "Based on a character in a novel by Daniel Defoe". Okay, so it's based on the CHARACTER of Moll Flanders, not on the story itself. That's a legitimate, though tiny-print, concept. However, even the CHARACTER of Moll Flanders in the movie is quite different from the book. One big digression (out of many) is that movie-Moll has strong paternal, motherly characteristics, whereas book-Moll has essentially none. Secondly, Moll's name isn't even really Moll in the book; it never tells us her real name, and "Moll Flanders" is merely one of her many aliases, and one that she doesn't pick up until her 50s.

I can't possibly go into all the digressions. It would be boring and overextend the 1000 words limit. Suffice it to say, there is scarcely a shadow of similarity between the one and the other. If you have read the book, disregard the title and watch this as its own entity. If you haven't read the book, no need to worry about seeing any spoilers that might ruin a future reading. There is almost no overlap.

However, in spite of this "sin" of gross inaccuracy, I LOVED the movie, and I thought the book was only mediocre. The movie had a great plot development; the book has almost no plot. It was first published in 1722 and, like much early fiction, is mostly just a chain of events. We are told the many escapades of Moll Flanders, but there is no real story arc. (I'm not saying don't read it, just know what you're getting into; it's interesting, but not terribly fulfilling as a novel, in the modern sense of the genre.)

I was impressed with Robin Wright's performance (as Moll). I had thought little of her acting in "Princess Bride", and almost didn't watch the film because she had the title role; but she did a much better job in this film, and showed a much fuller range of acting ability and emotion. The other actors also filled their roles superbly. And the settings and costumes were magnificently done.

One thing that may affect your opinion of this movie is the content. By all standards I've ever watched, this ought to be R-rated. It's not extremely explicit (hence it is not in fact R), but it is considerably so for a PG-13, and I would be cautious showing this to young viewers. Not just for sexuality, but also for some rather graphic scenes (including blood) and overall mature themes.

However, for a mature viewer I think this was a fantastic movie with a great storyline. It's very thought-provoking, and the impression of it still lingers with me a couple weeks later. The writers used Defoe's book as a springboard to better ideas and a more cohesive and rewarding story. It would have been more accurate to have said that it was "inspired by" Defoe's book, rather than "based on", but it is one of those rare cases where the movie is in fact better than the book.

Morgan Freeman uses his immense talent to give varied facets to Mr. Hibble, Stockard Channing is deliciously evil as Mrs. Allworthy, and Robin Wright Penn shines like a diamond in the role of Moll Flanders. Even the child playing Flora does a charming job with her limited part. Some viewers complained that the film was slow moving, but i felt the transitions from "modern day" to "flashbacks" from the memoir written by the title character kept things moving along quite nicely. Having not read Defoe's book, I cannot compare it to this version, but members here seem about equally divided between hating the movie for not being true to the book, and feeling that the changes made are an improvement on the original. Personally, I'd recommend this movie highly to anyone who has time to watch it.