Avis des utilisateurs

I was expecting something really awful, but once I got about 15 minutes into the movie, I decided that the only way to enjoy it was to forget that it was "based on" a famous novel and just enjoy the movie for what it was. And I found myself very entertained.

I was impressed with Gary Oldman's performance. It's nice to see him portray someone who isn't a psychotic ham and he did admirably well. Demi Moore suprised me with her acting and apart from a few stilted scenes and discomfort with the dialogue, I think she pulled it off pretty well. I found myself caring about her character and her relationship with Dimmesdale. Perhaps the bathing scene was a little too gratuitous -- c'mon, Demi, do you need to show it all? -- but it was only a few minutes out of 135.

I wish that Pearl could have been given more screen time and character development and the woman who did her voiceover throughout the story left much to be desired. As did Robert Duvall's performance. I didn't much like his acting in this movie at all.

The supporting cast was excellent: Joan Plowright, Edward Hardwicke, and others. The locations and set design were exquisite and the costumes were gorgeous.

Overall, I thought it was a very good way to spend a couple hours. You see some early colonial atmosphere, something which is almost extinct in movies nowadays, and adequate and sometimes inspired acting. Just don't expect to see Hawthorne's novel on the screen. If you want to see the unhappy ending in all its self-mutilating glory, see Lillian Gish's silent version that is sometimes aired on Turner Classic Movies. 6/10

Why should anyone find it necessary or even appropriate to hijack one of the landmark works of American literature to replace it with an emotionally slack, thematically vacant, and feebly agenda-driven narrative? Demi Moore's curious Scarlet Letter is almost an hour underway before it even reaches the point where Hawthorne's book begins: whereas Hawthorne's novel is a study of sin, psychological torment, and forgiveness, this film has neither heart nor mind behind its high-gloss presentation: it is apparently a libertine tract in defense of adultery, and an attack, pretentiously lofty but incapable of more than junior-high subtlety of thought, on intolerance.

This can only be pulled off at all by systematically reducing Hawthorne's three-dimensional characters to flat and dull-witted markers, inane in their dialogue, a set of manic and breathy artifacts of a soap-opera sensibility. Accordingly, the characters of Hester Prynne (Moore) and her erstwhile husband Roger Chillingworth (Robert Duvall) emerge as parodies of themselves -- bad acting and bad direction across the board by one bad actress and one good actor. Gary Oldman's Arthur Dimmesdale is astoundingly more or less credible for whole scenes at a time, but he has nothing to play against, and the thematic underpinnings of the story have been knocked out from under him. One can defend this film for its cinematography, for its score, and for any number of other production-based virtues, but when they are all added together, they still don't come close to justifying the film's existence. It is a vulgar and banal demolition of one of America's greatest novels.

If this is your first studio film, you may be shocked by the fact that this adaptation is not the same as the source material. This is not Hawthorne's insightful, profound, crushingly depressing novel. As with most studio adaptations, it's been made more tantalizing and easily digestible with a sort of happy ending. In order to enjoy this film, you have to let go of the fact that it only borrows from the characters and theme of the novel and let it stand on its own. You also must accept that it is more entertaining and emotional and less thought provoking. Its also helpful to keep in mind that this is a very 90's studio film.

This is a solid romance movie. Gary Oldman brings painfully beautiful depth to a character that, although well written, could have easily been made off-puttingly weak and vanilla, had it been played by one of the typical leading men of the time. The movie is worth watching for his performance alone, despite being made at the eroding peak of his alcoholism. I think this was Demi Moore's finest performance. I would have never thought of casting her for this role but she delivered a believable woman of great strength and character. She could have easily been annoyingly selfish and obstinate but instead, measured with subtlety and calculation, she is both relatable and inspiring and manages to hold her own among her accomplished male counterparts. Robert Duvall gives a solid, yet uncomfortable performance. He felt a bit alien from the rest of the cast but, in a way, it suits the character. The entire supporting cast is absolutely fantastic. The score is one of the best elements of the entire film. Direction is good, there are some awkward aspects but the overall production is beautiful and well conceived.

If you take the movie for what it is and just relax, it is quite enjoyable. If you are a romantic and a fan of any of the actors, you will love it.

VERY stupid adaptation of Nathaniel Hawthorne's classic. For one thing Demi Moore is totally miscast in the title role. I have nothing against her--she can be good in the right roles...but casting her as a Puritan was just stupid. Gary Oldman looks like he doesn't know what the hell he's doing in this and Robert Duvall sadly embarasses himself.

I (unfortunately) saw it in a theatre back in 1995 (Yup--I PAID to see this movie!). There were a bunch of English school teachers in attendance. They started laughing during the opening credits which says the movie is "based on characters created by Hawthorne" and didn't let up during the entire movie. Actually their comments were more enjoyable than the movie itself. And they REALLY howled at the end which was totally different from the book! Also, at 135 minutes, it's WAY too long.

Really...who thought this was a good idea? Why take a classic book and screw it over completely? Thankfully, this seems to be forgotten--it should stay that way. Don't bother.

For starters, I have read Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter, both for high school and personal enjoyment, and I absolutely loved the novel, but most high school students would disagree with my view of the novel. When seeing this film, one must remember the phrase "freely adapted from," because that's what it is. Things are changed, yes, but that doesn't stop this movie from being wonderful. The movie gives background to the Hester/Dimmesdale romance that Hawthorne left in the background, and so beings the tale to life and makes it more understandable to the modern population. Depsite its inaccuracies and liberal use of literary lisence, the movie is a hypothetical "What if?" It asks what would have happened had Dimmesdale come forward, had Pearl been a more congenial, innocent character, and had the Indian troubles played more of a part in Hawthorne's work. As Dimmesdale, Oldman performs marvelously, depicting the tortured soul of the Puritan priest in love with a strong, undaunted woman. This movie is a must see for all the historical romance lovers out there as well as those who need a reprieve from Hawthorne's often long and difficult prose. Just don't use it to pass your tests; that's what Sparknotes are for...

For my point of view "The Scarlet Letter" is a good film with great performances… All the actors do a superb job… I was worried that Demi Moore might not have the range to handle the role of Mistress Prynne, but she is excellent... She is strong, passionate, intelligent and damaged… In another place and time she might have been a leader; in this movie she is quite believable as the woman who defends her love at all costs… Gary Oldman looks perfect as Reverend Dimmesdale… He projects force and sexual magnetism along with the guilt for his sin…

The film opens in 1666 when Hester Prynne (Demi Moore) arrived in the Massachusetts Bay Colony filled with hope that here, at last, in this new World, would come the freedom to worship without fear or persecution… She didn't suspect that beyond the trees there is a savage land of savage passions dark and untamed, and that soon she will face a scornful community in which she will forever be shamed by the scarlet letter…

Mistress Prynne rejected the idea of staying in the congregation until her husband's arrival and looked for a house of her own… She finds a beautiful and frightening place, just as 'Eden must have been so untouched…'

On one Sabbath morning, Hester met Reverend Dimmesdale (Gary Oldman) who helps her when her cart got stuck in the woods… She truly enjoyed, few minutes later, his sermon … It was rare, for her, to find a man so young and fiery who could speak with such force of passion… She was moved by his passion…

Dimmesdale thought that comprehending God was going to be his greatest challenge, but—after he met Hester—he was not the man he seems to be… He lost his power before this seductress beautiful woman… He lived in this township his whole life and his purpose was clear… But now he would risk everything—his life, his ministry, his soul—just to spend a few moments alone with her… After he asked her why that morning in the forest, she didn't say that she is married, he wondered how she were able to see so deeply into his nature…

From that moment, two hearts were there struggling against a love that grew stronger with each passing day…

Hester was courteous enough but her tongue knew no rules… She earned more than a few reprimands in her life for speaking too bluntly… With a frightening strength, she challenged her persecutors and stood up to their hypocrisy, refusing to reveal her lover's identity…

"The Scarlet Letter" compels us to recognize the shadow side of our lives, including this passion that pushes us beyond our limits... The climax also compels us to contemplate about whether there is anything that we would be willing to die for

If this movie were original it would be only fair to mediocre, but claiming its based on Nathaniel Hawthorne's classic novel is insulting. I hear the ads for this movie say its based 'freely and liberally' on the book. Well, this is an insult to the book. Is Demi Moore so illiterrate she comments (see trivia section) that it was okay to change the ending of the book from sad to happy because not many people read the book? Unbelievable. The Scarlett 'A' imagery has been permanently etched in American culture. Take classic literature and try shoving it through the Hollywood formula mill and this movie is the result, a faceless, emotionless and forgettable movie. Try sayign that about the book

I read the book in high school. I hated it. I only gave the movie a chance because of the casting of Gary Oldman. I was not disappointed.

Oldman is the most underrated actor working in movies today, and the intensity of his performance here makes this film worthwhile. Don't watch the movie for its faithfulness to Hawthorne, watch it for the brilliance of Gary Oldman.

I just caught this movie on cable. Eager to see a film version of the Hawthorne book I was, Very Disappointed. It is sad that some people will think that this is the real Scarlet Letter. The names of characters are the same as the book but it rapidly departs from the book beyond that -- and for the worse.

You will read commentaries here about what a wonderful film this was with discussions of the beautiful cinematography and great acting. They will also say how it is "loosely adapted" from Hawthornes' book. These are all true statements and the "loose" in loosely should be especially emphasized. I even agree that normally an adaption might be judged on its own merits.

So why did I give this a low score?

Because it is titled "The Scarlet Letter". That is a classical book with some very deep moral messages. The very term "Scarlet Letter" has taken on a special meaning in our language and culture. But, if someone recognizes what Hawthorne was trying to do with his book, they will immediately see this as a rotten-to-the-core script. Consider: the Scarlet Letter, a central theme in the book and holding so much meaning, is just a minor prop in this movie that almost gets in the way.

In Hawthorne's book, the heroine, by her actions through life, turned the Scarlet Letter from meaning "Adulteress" to meaning "Angel" -- it became an emblem of her inner beauty, redeemed through her strength, integrity and good heart. In our own time, people often find themselves "labeled" or identified in some way as bad or as a loser. What a great thing it is to have messages that say "You can rise above that!". This movie completely and totally misses that opportunity. It is one of the great messages that can be given to others in this life, and it is abandoned in this movie.

And what is it traded for? Feminism, rebellion and justifications of immorality. Edgy? Groundbreaking? Incisive? No. So shallow its like cliff diving in a birdbath compared with what Hawthorne brought. In this adaptation, Hester, the heroine claims to not know if what she did was wrong -- or sometimes suggesting it was right. From that high moral ground, Hester almost becomes a feminist warrior or icon leading an insurrection of women against men. That rebellion is ridiculous historically but worse, it completely guts the morality of the book. And the Scarlet Letter? From what I can tell, the movie Hester seems to finally throw it away when she gets her freedom. It has no meaning other than as a talisman for oppression.

That is a different message than the book gave out. But the Movie is still called "The Scarlet Letter". If the screenwriter wanted to send out a different moral message, then he should have retitled the movie. Something like "Hester's Anachronistic and Pointless Rebellion" would have been good. Then it would be truth in advertising.

The actors and technicians did a great job but after reading the script they should have dropped the project. I suppose they needed the money. Beautifully shot, well acted, great score ... it still gets a "1" for being an egregious lie.

First, I apologies because my English, I'm from Panama. Second, for me, TSL is a very beautiful movie and I know that it is far from the book by Nathaniel Hawthorne, nevertheless, I found nice things there, for instance, the setting was so refreshing to me and the love scenes were very romantic too. In this movie I felt in love to Gary Oldman. I consider that Demi as well as Gary were chemistry. On the other hand, I think that the producer and the whole team portrait the epoch of the pilgrims, the way they lived and thought about morality and religion. Demi was pretty in this character and convincing. For me this was a sad story of love. Although, the screenplay changed at the end, I found that this movie was done to give audience happier than the original book.

Based very loosely on the work of Nathaniel Hawthorne. Forbidden love, patience and stout convictions. I really enjoyed this despite the bad reviews. In 1666 Massachusetts a married woman(Demi Moore) falls in love with the young reverend(Gary Oldman)of the colony. Her husband(Robert Duvall)is believed to be part of an Indian massacre on his following arrival to the new world. Duvall's character is actually captured by the Algonquian tribe and forced to live among them. He then vents his wrath on his wife, who is expecting a child from her affair with her lover.

Very good acting and wonderful scenery. I did not mind the two plus hours length of this romantic drama. There is some nudity, just enough to spice things up...but the violence is bloody and harsh. I found this version of THE SCARLET LETTER to be sensuous, interesting and very entertaining. Moore, Oldman and Duvall were excellent. Notable in support are Joan Plowright, Robert Prosky and Edward Hardwicke. This is worth your effort to watch.

You could try to imagine a worse film, but why bother? As a film and as an adaptation ("freely adapted" is perhaps the greatest understatement since our involvement in Vietnam was labeled a "police action") of a book, it's a complete failure. The acting ranges from the clueless to the atrocious. Gary Oldman is apparently trying to do a Scottish accent, Demi Moore is just plain terrible, and Robert Duvall is nuts. The soft-glow sex scene is risible. There's no tension to the story because Oldman & Moore don't appear to have souls to lose. Instead of a perceptive & morally soaked tale of guilt, sin, and conscience, this is a trite, gushy story about being true to yourself. It's basically a Disney cartoon message, except without as sophisticated a presentation. The script (it's idea of 17th century English is lots of thees & thous) is as bad as everything else, substituting a nick of time rescue happy ending for Hawthorne's. So bad that it's not even enjoyable on a camp level. C-R-A-P.

ICK! I was actually in physical pain as I watched this movie. I feel this way for several reasons:

1. It's below Gary Oldman. Come on! He can do so much better, and has!

2. THIS IS NOT WHAT NATHANIEL HAWTHORNE WROTE! I know it's supposed to be an image of his novel, but actually incorporating some of the story into the film may have done well.

3. Demi Moore ruins everything. EVERYTHING she touches turns into some sexually explicit trash, like this was some Danielle Steele piece of crap instead of Hawthorne! Classic literature people! I read the novel in high school (which was only two years ago) and yes, it was painful, yes, I hated being forced to read it, but you can't ruin things just because you have a huge (fake) rack.

A horrible film, terrible interpretation of the novel, and the second worst film I've ever seen (the worst was "The Avengers" with Ralph Fiennes). I give it two thumbs, two toes, two whatever way way way way down.

i enjoyed this movie, and have seen it several times. i feel the producers did a pretty good job of telling the story. granted, the movie is not exactly like the book, but that's to be expected in any film. gary oldman plays arthur dimmsdale very well. whether you've read the book or not, this movie is worth seeing.

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.

First of all if you want a true representation of the source material. GO AND READ THE BOOK!!!

Sorry for all the people crying and saying this movie is terrible because its not true to the book! TOO BAD!

Get over it... this is not Hawthornes movie!

Its Roland Joffes movie... its his vision and his creation. His telling of a story!

This movie is better suited for those who have never read the book and thank god there are Millions who havent.

Great direction.

Great cinematography.

Set design, art direction, production design.

Editing, screenplay , MUSIC SCORE!!

And ACTING! ! watch it! Its great!

Ive read the book for an university assignment and I was excited to watch the film

Okay, the film is only loosely based on the book and the ending is completely messed up and a "happily ever after" one (typical Hollywood!) but I liked this film. The star of the show was definetly Gary Oldman (reminded me so much of his protrayal in DRACULA- just the romatic bots of course!). He was supported by a really good cast liek the terrific Joan Plowright (although I wasnt too convinced with the way Demi Moore protrayed Hester). Itd have been nice to see more of Pearl and her development.

Although, its not Gary's best film (that at the moment goes to DRACULA or LEON), I would not stop watching this film. I would have liked it to be more based on the book but with Hollywood, all they care about is romance (look what they did to DRACULA in 1992!)

On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being rubbish, 10 being top notch and 5 being iffy, I give this film a 7!!!

Quite honestly, The Scarlet Letter book is terribly boring to read....which is why I watched this movie in lieu of reading book when I had to write a book report about it in high school. Well, the movie got me a solid D+......I should have read the book.

Well, no 24 years later my own children have to read it for their own book reports, and I finally decided to pay my dues and read the book. I have to say, the story in the book is much more moving and interesting than the movie adaptation. Leave it to Hollywood to take something so human, a story about sin and it's cost, about the freedom from confession versus the terrible festering within of concealing a sin...and turn it into an excuse to put nudity on the screen.

I am an English major and have to say, yes, the book was better and this film is not equal but by itself as a "freely adapted" version it too has merit. It has a beautiful score by excellent film composer John Barry, superb acting by both Gary Oldman and Demi Moore (as a woman way ahead of her time) and even excellent supporting cast. It is beautifully filmed and on its own - is a rare romantic treat that would be great in a double feature with say "THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS" w/ Daniel Day Lewis. Oldman is terrific...his best role I believe. The only distraction....the always wonderful Robert Duvall as a madman...who starts to stray this film toward THE CRUCIBLE area of witchcraft.

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.

This adaptation of Nathaniel Hawthorne's novel is pretty disappointing. The casting of Demi Moore as Hester Prynne is laughable - she looks what she was at the time, a pretty, A-list, Hollywood star. Gary Oldman does slightly better as Dimmesdale - in fact he might have just saved the film - but Robert Duvall is atrocious as Roger Chillingworth; totally wrong.

The adaptation is stodgy, the story tampered with, and the direction by Roland Joffe is pedestrian. Faces like Edward Hardwicke, Tim Woodward, Roy Dotrice, and Joan Plowright, give the film some credibility, but not enough.