Moll Flanders

Nothing like Defoe's book, this simply uses the character of Moll Flanders to create a completely different story - true, there is still the thieving and the prostitution, but that's where the similarities end.

Robin Wright is a spirited Moll and is well supported by Morgan Freeman as a slave she meets on her travels who looks out for her from then on, and Stockard Channing as a scheming brothel madam. Aisling Corcoran plays Flora, the daughter Moll abandoned, and who she leaves her story to inform her of her origins.

A little muddled, and no doubt a disappointment for those wishing to see an adaptation of the book (for this, see the excellent version with Alex Kingston made the same year), this 'Moll Flanders' nevertheless looks great and benefits from a great performance from Wright. Well worth a look.

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.

When I watched "Moll Flanders", it was impossible not to cry... it's just one of those movies. A sweet and sad film, the title character was excellently played by Robin Wright. Some might find it overly emotional, but I found it very enjoyable in its tenderness.

My only displeasure with this movie is that it is not true to the story in Defoe's wonderful novel "Moll Flanders"; it is true to the novel only in the spirit of the character Moll Flanders. To say the movie was a loose interpretation is not adequate; it's much more of a new story using the old character of Moll Flanders.

Defoe's work has a different (and I find, more entertaining) style as well as a richer plot line. Mobil Masterpiece's presentation of "Moll Flanders" (with Alex Kingston in the title role) is much truer to the novel. I found it much more entertaining and much less sentimental. However, it doesn't have the gut-wrenching emotion of this "Moll Flanders". Each viewer will have to pick their own favorite.

Dafoe's 1722 book, from which this movie is supposedly based, is one of the most important works of the 18th century. It explores the then-new possibility of reinventing oneself in the city. By contrast, people in pre-urban times were constrained by circumstance and family -- everyone in your village knew you so you couldn't make up a new persona.

In the movie, a sentimental Moll wades through a heap of anachronisms. She remains more or less a prisoner of her past and conventional morality at all times. The movie claims that only the character and not the plot is based on Dafoe's book but it is tough to recognize any aspect of Dafoe's Moll here. Which I guess brings us back to considering the movie on its own terms. Imagine Titanic without the special effects (i.e., maybe a good movie for a 14-year-old girl).

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.