Les amants du nouveau monde

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...

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

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.

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.

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.