ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Keira Brennan The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

StarDragyn 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.

jfarms1956 Moll Flanders is a movie best enjoyed by those who are 18 years old and older. The movie deals with adult content so it is NOT a family film to be watched by minors. In some ways the movie has some romantic ideas. However, I guess the movie could be about the overall cruelty of the world and how to survive in it especially if you are a poor woman in Victorian England. This is no different a theme than in many other movies. I felt that Stockard Channing did a good job in acting and making the viewer understand and believe her character. I always like Morgan Freeman, but he is always good at acting. Because of the adult nature of the film, it might be best enjoyed late at night with one's significant other. Although the overall plight of women has changed over time, in many ways the overall plight of uneducated and poor women has not. Although the movie is enjoyable, it does not leave a lasting impression like a good glass of wine or a good meal might. The next day refresh yourself in another mother. This one is easily forgettable.

jirogers Defoe's original novel, even after all these years, is funny, sad, entertaining and fast-moving. The film is basically only sad, with little resemblance to the novel. It is also dreadfully slow in parts. Some of the acting is good- Stockard Channing makes an excellent Madam, and Aisling Corcoran as the little girl is splendid, producing the few flashes of humour, and there are some very nice cameo parts from well-known British and Irish actors. However, Morgan Freeman (normally a very good actor) seems to have a rather variable accent and to be wondering how he got into this film (not quite Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins, but...), and Robin Wright doesn't really convince me as a lower-class London girl. The costumes and settings give a good impression of what must have been a much less colourful world- particularly effective are the candle-lit indoor scenes. We get an interesting glimpse of the life and customs of late 17th-century/early 18th century England. However, there are some strange anachronisms- for instance, according to the novel, Moll was born in about 1614, but the clients at Mrs Allworthy's house seem to pay with bank-notes, which would have been extremely unusual at that time. Also I doubt that any little girl (even a feisty one like this) brought up in a Catholic orphanage would have used such strong language. This is nit-picking, I know, and it's only a film, but it's a pity that, with a bit more attention to the story-line and the script, the film could have been so much better.

Gail_Moyer3 I was so excited when I saw that there was a movie version of Moll Flanders. It is, perhaps, my favorite book of all time. I put on the movie, curled up w/ some popcorn and a drink, and waited to be awed. Well, I was awed, but not in a good way. This movie had absolutely nothing to do with the book! The only thing it has in common is the title, and the fact that Moll's mother had given birth to her while in prison. Other than that- nothing! Moll was NOT a prostitute, like the movie portrayed. Granted, in the novel, she did go through husbands quite quickly. But they were marriages! If I had never read the book, I would have deeply enjoyed this movie. I love all the actors in the movie. Morgan Freeman is one of my favorite male actors. But, I ended up yelling at the TV during the entire movie. I was fortunate enough to see the 1996 British TV version starring Alex Kingston. That was remarkable, and very accurate. I would suggest to everyone to see this version!