BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Clarissa Mora The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Verity Robins Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Cissy Évelyne It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Sean Turconi I don't know where to begin. I'll just ramble off a list of things which I thought were ridiculous.1) In the beginning of the movie Hester talks about how much she has studied the Bible and even quoted Old Testament Scripture. Curiously though, she spends the rest of the movie making obscene theological blunders that the most novice of Christians would never make.2) She questions "how could a mere man know what is a sin before God" or something along those lines. Ummm...you're a Christian. It's called the Bible. You know that book that you told us you knew so much about in the beginning of the movie. If you are honestly questioning what is sin after reading the whole Bible, then you are either intellectually inept or you are a flagrant heretic. What would be the point of even questioning the very word "sin"? Who would care if you didn't believe in the Bible. The word "sin" is from Scripture.3) The movie clearly is pro-fornication, pro-adultery, pro-immoral church leaders, anti-Christian, anti-traditional marriage, anti-"white man", as clearly shown by how awfully the good Indians hated them. It also seemed pro-lust, pro-paganism, highly feminist in its viewpoint, and on and on. It's mainly liberal, modern day garbage.

marioncap Nope, this film is NOT an accurate adaptation of "The Scarlet Letter" by any stretch of the imagination. It's more like a modern "Variations on a Theme by Nathaniel Hawthorne," or one of those Fantasias that 19th- century composers used to write with a famous, much-older melody as a starting point.That said, I enjoyed this movie quite a lot. The depiction of late 18th/early 19th century Native American civilization on the Northeastern Seaboard is vividly and richly imagined; don't think I've ever seen this in a film before. Gary Oldman, as a wonderfully sexy and yet perfectly pure young Rev. Dimmesdale, probably would have pleased Hawthorne on the whole, and his chemistry with Demi Moore's obviously anachronistic, but compelling, Hester Prynne is delicious (their scene in the barn is very hot indeed).Finally, something has to be said about the gorgeous John Barry score. What lovely, memorable film music! On the strength of the score alone, I encourage anyone who enjoys romantic stories (and won't be offended by the vast, ridiculous departures from Hawthorne's masterpiece) to give this movie a look.

abeautifulliexox-194-933473 I have noticed that most of the bad reviews for "The Scarlet Letter" are written by lovers of Nathaniel Hawthorn's classic novel of the same name. I myself have read the novel, and I appreciated it as much as the next person, but let's be realistic here; is it really made for the screen? Director Roland Joffe has done the right thing here by adding some extra *umph* to the classic story with the right dose of action and romance - even if many key elements of the novel were altered.First, let's put this into perspective. Yes, Joffe took the title of the book, hinting towards a relatively accurate adaption, which it was not by any means. However, there have been many successful films based on novels that have even used the author's name directly in the title whilst making it just as inaccurate. Example 1: Bram Stoker's Dracula - also starring the wonderful Gary Oldman - TOTALLY strayed from the book but is still a favourite of many. #2: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Complete filth in my opinion (possibly because Frankenstein's my fav book and Ken Branagh is just such a ham in it), but it was still approved by most critics. Get what I'm saying here? Just because a film is not word-for-word like the book it's based on, it doesn't mean that it isn't any good.Truth be told, I love this film! Yes, yes, I'm a bit of a Gary Oldman fan girl, and yes, seeing his wet, naked, beautiful body made me swoon, but that is NOT the only reason why I loved this film. Honest.Despite the incredible length, Scarlet Letter managed to grab my attention from start to finish. The soundtrack, lighting, costuming, sets, camera work, script . . . it was all fantastic. It had me smiling and giggling at the flirty exchanges between Arthur (Gary Oldman) and Hester (Demi Moore), sighing at the love scenes, biting my nails at the moments where those crazy Puritans showed their (arguably) evil side,reaching for tissues at the tragic moments, and had me actually hiding my face behind a pillow when things got really intense. This to me is the mark of a great film.Another great thing is the performances. The entire cast was incredible - a thing that rarely happens. The stars of the film, Moore and Oldman, were both critically knocked for their performances - Gary for not being 'into the role' and Demi for just, well, sucking. NONSENSE!! Gary, while not in his usual bada$$ and over-the-top crazy element, played the charming and romantic version of Dimmesdale to a T. He really let us feel his torment in having to choose between his moral and spiritual beliefs, and his heart (and I can't stress enough how beautiful he is in this role - okay, hormones are settled now). Demi was equally as wonderful, showing us both the strength of a woman seeking independence from domestic and religious restraints, as well as vulnerability in her inability to actually "fight the power" so to speak. Both actors had amazing chemistry and passion - passion for their individual beliefs, for their child, and above all, for each other. Simply wonderful. Another stand-out performance was Joan Plowright as Harriot. She portrayed a gentle, warm and kind wisdom like I have never seen before. I felt immediately drawn to her character.*drum roll* Time for the one and only flaw! My main problem is the unnecessary amounts of gore. I won't say how it's gory, but if you haven't seen this yet, consider yourself warned. I understand that this is a device that only makes the film more powerful and intense, but truthfully, it's just plain hard to watch. OH! I just thought of another flaw. Mituba diddling herself with a candlestick. It might sound like a bad Clue scenario, but lo and behold . . . It's just unnecessary.So those are my two cents. If you're a hard-knock fan of the book, try to forget about it when watching this film. It really is great as an independent story, so just let your mind relax and sink into the creative depths of the directors' interpretation. And keep a pillow handy.

ofumalow This is one of the worst major-studio literary adaptations ever, and I've given it a 1 rating because it deserves to be in the IMDb bottom 100--though in terms of (unintentionally hilarious) entertainment value I'd give it a 6. Maybe even an 8. I'm no huge fan of Hawthorne--his novels are pretty dry, dull and moralistic, like much pre-20th-century American lit--but his whole story is outrageously skewed here to suit Demi Moore's ego. She was at the top of her stardom then. This, "G.I. Jane" and "Striptease" pretty much destroyed that status--and all because each of them was wrecked by the need to flatter her so much. She needs to be the toughest yet most sensitive, sexiest yet most spiritual, etc. etc. person on screen--which would be OK if she were playing an action heroine or female superhero, but was disastrous for these particular stories. "G.I. Jane" could have been a gritty look at women's military life, "Striptease" has considerable sequences--all without Demi--where it's a very funny retro screwball comedy. But her humorless image-sculpting ruined both. Then there's "Scarlet Letter." Whoa. Roland Joffe is not a good director (despite having gotten praise for the fairly good "Killing Fields" and overrated "The Mission"--since then it's been all downhill). But the problem here is clearly that Demi wants to reshape Hester Prynne from Puritan victim of Puritanism into a hot ass-kicking, erotically supercharged mama who connects as a kindred soul with local Native Americans and hosts a sort of women's consciousness-raising/sewing group. In colonial New England. Uh-huh. I kinda love this movie--it's so slick yet incredibly wrongheaded, encouraging possibly the worst performances ever by some very good actors (Gary Oldman and Robert Duvall for starters), that it's frequently hilarious. It's one of those rare crazy monuments to a star's ego--at the expense of any fidelity or credibility--that results in an instant camp classic.