Les amants du nouveau monde

This film, is just bad, that's all there is to it. It's just bad in so many ways. Nothing but corny writing, the scenes are just awful. All they really took from the book were it's characters and the basic idea of the story. After that, they totally f**k everything up from the book. It's one of those films that makes you wish Demi Moore would just go away for the overrated actress that she is. Just a truly awful film that's a waste of a lot of money.

Ridiculous take on the Nathaniel Hawthorne novel as those who worked on this behave like they never even read the book. In the Massachusetts Bay Colony of 1666 a young woman (Demi Moore) fears that her husband (the much older Robert Duvall) is dead after a year of absence. She befriends pastor Gary Oldman (laughable that he could ever be a religious man in a film to start with) and soon romance blossoms. The romance turns physical, a child is born (no one knows who the father is), Moore is forced to wear the titled item, Duvall returns and plots revenge on the man who impregnated his wife while he was captured by wild Indians and Oldman secretly punishes himself as Moore keeps their affair a secret from the townspeople. Where will all this lead? "The Scarlett Letter" is a really disappointing film considering that Roland Joffe' (a once great director in the 1980s who made modern masterpieces like "The Killing Fields" and "The Mission") acts like he is just not comfortable with the material and does not know how to execute the excruciating novel into a cohesive cinematic product. Oldman and Duvall, usually very dependable players, cannot cope here and Moore just continued to under-achieve in front of the camera. Void of intelligence, dim-witted and poorly paced, "The Scarlett Letter" is one of those films that has absolutely no tone and thus becomes a hard experience to get through. Turkey (0 stars out of 5).

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.

OK, it's not faithful to the novel . . . .

I waited a long time before I finally decided to rent the video and watch The Scarlet Letter. Afterwards I wondered, what was everyone so upset about?! I was pleasantly surprised. Gary Oldman was his usual -brilliant, and looking soulfully handsome for a change. Demi Moore turned in a decent performance -watch closely- and then decide for yourself. Robert Duvall as the crazy doctor was a bit over the top, but had enough self control to not let it get out of hand. Joan Ploughright was charming as usual, and the only one who got the accent right -being a Brit, of course.

I don't recall the Indian war, and witchcraft from the novel . . . but it's been a long time. Yes, I guess it was a different movie, but watch it for what it is.

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...