La lettera scarlatta

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.

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.

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.

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.