IMDb user comments for
The Scarlet Letter (1995) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 8:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Index

72 comments in total

---

16 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
"Who is to say what is a sin in God's eyes?", 10 August 2007

Author: ironside (robertfrangie@hotmail.com) from Mexico

For my point of view "The Scarlet Letter" is a good film with great performances… All the actors do a superb job… I was worried that Demi Moore might not have the range to handle the role of Mistress Prynne, but she is excellent... She is strong, passionate, intelligent and damaged… In another place and time she might have been a leader; in this movie she is quite believable as the woman who defends her love at all costs… Gary Oldman looks perfect as Reverend Dimmesdale… He projects force and sexual magnetism along with the guilt for his sin…

The film opens in 1666 when Hester Prynne (Demi Moore) arrived in the Massachusetts Bay Colony filled with hope that here, at last, in this new World, would come the freedom to worship without fear or persecution… She didn't suspect that beyond the trees there is a savage land of savage passions dark and untamed, and that soon she will face a scornful community in which she will forever be shamed by the scarlet letter…

Mistress Prynne rejected the idea of staying in the congregation until her husband's arrival and looked for a house of her own… She finds a beautiful and frightening place, just as 'Eden must have been so untouched…'

On one Sabbath morning, Hester met Reverend Dimmesdale (Gary Oldman) who helps her when her cart got stuck in the woods… She truly enjoyed, few minutes later, his sermon … It was rare, for her, to find a man so young and fiery who could speak with such force of passion… She was moved by his passion…

Dimmesdale thought that comprehending God was going to be his greatest challenge, but—after he met Hester—he was not the man he seems to be… He lost his power before this seductress beautiful woman… He lived in this township his whole life and his purpose was clear… But now he would risk everything—his life, his ministry, his soul—just to spend a few moments alone with her… After he asked her why that morning in the forest, she didn't say that she is married, he wondered how she were able to see so deeply into his nature…

From that moment, two hearts were there struggling against a love that grew stronger with each passing day…

Hester was courteous enough but her tongue knew no rules… She earned more than a few reprimands in her life for speaking too bluntly… With a frightening strength, she challenged her persecutors and stood up to their hypocrisy, refusing to reveal her lover's identity…

"The Scarlet Letter" compels us to recognize the shadow side of our lives, including this passion that pushes us beyond our limits... The climax also compels us to contemplate about whether there is anything that we would be willing to die for…

---

24 out of 37 people found the following comment useful :-
Not that bad, actually, 26 November 2001

Author: Servo-11

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

---

9 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Completely Different From the Novel. Don't Watch If Your In Love With the Book., 15 May 2005

Author: mOVIemAN56

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The Scarlet Letter is a piece of American literature greats. Written by Nathaniel Hawthorne in the 1800's the book has been considered one of the greatest piece of American literature ever. But when Hollywood caught hold of it in 1995 the story was changed. I'm not a fan of the novel, it was boring to me, but this movie brought a new sense of hope for me.

Hester Prynne (Demi Moore) is the wife of a British man and has been sent to Massachusetts to secure a house for him. Hester is quiet woman and lives on a coastal beach house just outside town. She quickly makes friends with locals including: Harriet Hibbons (Joan Plowright and becomes a little to close with the local Reverend Dimmesdale (Gary Oldman).

Soon Hester and Dimmesdale have done you-know-what and Hester is pregnant! This is strictly forbidden and she is placed on trial. Instead of pointing right at Dimmesdale she hides the father's name. Hester is forced to wear a scarlet letter 'A' standing for adulteress and shame is cast upon her. But soon a new figure arrives. It is Roger Chillingworth (Robert Duvall) who is seeking to find the father and destroy the relationship already known by him between Hester and Dimmesdale.

Instead of the boring book of magical happenings and devil worship, the film version offers a believable account and actual human suffering as seen through the eyes of two that are in love. The book has little to do with the film except for the characters and the story. None of the background stories are placed into the film like Hester in jail or visiting the governor's house. Instead screenwriter Douglas Day Stewart brings out a new story and a bit more attractive.

I wouldn't necessarily recommend this film for it was boring at times and some nudity present was un-needed. Demi Moore is average as Hester but Gary Oldman is fantastic as the suffering Rev. Dimmesdale. The score to the film was very well done and helped capture the suffering of the characters.

As I said before, do not watch this if you're a big fan of the book or one of those die-hard book nuts.

The Scarlet Letter. Starring: Demi Moore, Gary Oldman, Robert Duvall, and Joan Plowright.

3 out of 5 Stars

---

11 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
A travesty of a great novel, 9 November 2000

Author: Bruce McMenomy (mcmenomy@halcyon.com) from Bellevue, WA

Why should anyone find it necessary or even appropriate to hijack one of the landmark works of American literature to replace it with an emotionally slack, thematically vacant, and feebly agenda-driven narrative? Demi Moore's curious Scarlet Letter is almost an hour underway before it even reaches the point where Hawthorne's book begins: whereas Hawthorne's novel is a study of sin, psychological torment, and forgiveness, this film has neither heart nor mind behind its high-gloss presentation: it is apparently a libertine tract in defense of adultery, and an attack, pretentiously lofty but incapable of more than junior-high subtlety of thought, on intolerance.

This can only be pulled off at all by systematically reducing Hawthorne's three-dimensional characters to flat and dull-witted markers, inane in their dialogue, a set of manic and breathy artifacts of a soap-opera sensibility. Accordingly, the characters of Hester Prynne (Moore) and her erstwhile husband Roger Chillingworth (Robert Duvall) emerge as parodies of themselves -- bad acting and bad direction across the board by one bad actress and one good actor. Gary Oldman's Arthur Dimmesdale is astoundingly more or less credible for whole scenes at a time, but he has nothing to play against, and the thematic underpinnings of the story have been knocked out from under him. One can defend this film for its cinematography, for its score, and for any number of other production-based virtues, but when they are all added together, they still don't come close to justifying the film's existence. It is a vulgar and banal demolition of one of America's greatest novels.

---

10 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
this movie was an embarrassment, 3 May 2005

Author: beepink630 from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote The Scarlet Letter, one of the greatest classic American novels. This Roland Joffé movie would have caused Nathaniel Hawthorne to roll over in his grave. The only similarity the movie had with the original story line was the character names and the title. It was an absolute embarrassment to the intelligence of anyone who actually read the novel, or even those few who went to see it.

It would be impossible to name all the things that were changed from the novel to the movie, but the most drastic were the 80-minute prologue, the entire Indian plot line, and the changed ending. While watching in class, I noted only three major lines taken from the book, two of which were out of context. In a deranged cinematic nightmare, the movie added a nonsensical prologue that Hawthorne never would have included in his wildest dreams. Also, added into the movie was an Indian plot line. This was never even slightly mentioned in the book. The battles and gore were a figment of the imagination of Hollywood, and a horrendous attempt as well. The most offensive part of the movie for me personally, was the changed ending. Not only did it not make any sense, but it undermined the entire point of the story. The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne was not supposed to have a happy ending in North Carolina. It was absolutely scandalous of the writers of this movie to allow that to happen. Demi Moore reportedly said it was, "okay with her to make the ending happy because not many people have read the book" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114345/).

Besides creating a bastardization of a classic American novel, Joffé created a generally horrible film. The acting was unrealistic, the sex and violence utterly unnecessary, and the symbolism offensively overdone. The unsubtle, tacky symbolism was an insult to anyone over the age of four. In one pathetically obtuse moment; Hester chases a red bird into the forest; a place of evil doers, and eats the forbidden fruit off of a tree. Clearly the American public did not appreciate this terrible movie either, according to www.boxofficemojo.com, it cost 46 million dollars in production, and earned a surprisingly high 10.3 million dollars; equaling a net loss of over 36 million dollars. The only saving grace of this movie was that there wasn't a sequel, but maybe if there had been they would have eventually found some essence of the original plot.

---

16 out of 27 people found the following comment useful :-
Shallow lies wrapped in easy to swallow eye candy., 20 April 2007

Author: Charles Steinman from United States

I just caught this movie on cable. Eager to see a film version of the Hawthorne book I was, Very Disappointed. It is sad that some people will think that this is the real Scarlet Letter. The names of characters are the same as the book but it rapidly departs from the book beyond that -- and for the worse.

You will read commentaries here about what a wonderful film this was with discussions of the beautiful cinematography and great acting. They will also say how it is "loosely adapted" from Hawthornes' book. These are all true statements and the "loose" in loosely should be especially emphasized. I even agree that normally an adaption might be judged on its own merits.

So why did I give this a low score?

Because it is titled "The Scarlet Letter". That is a classical book with some very deep moral messages. The very term "Scarlet Letter" has taken on a special meaning in our language and culture. But, if someone recognizes what Hawthorne was trying to do with his book, they will immediately see this as a rotten-to-the-core script. Consider: the Scarlet Letter, a central theme in the book and holding so much meaning, is just a minor prop in this movie that almost gets in the way.

In Hawthorne's book, the heroine, by her actions through life, turned the Scarlet Letter from meaning "Adulteress" to meaning "Angel" -- it became an emblem of her inner beauty, redeemed through her strength, integrity and good heart. In our own time, people often find themselves "labeled" or identified in some way as bad or as a loser. What a great thing it is to have messages that say "You can rise above that!". This movie completely and totally misses that opportunity. It is one of the great messages that can be given to others in this life, and it is abandoned in this movie.

And what is it traded for? Feminism, rebellion and justifications of immorality. Edgy? Groundbreaking? Incisive? No. So shallow its like cliff diving in a birdbath compared with what Hawthorne brought. In this adaptation, Hester, the heroine claims to not know if what she did was wrong -- or sometimes suggesting it was right. From that high moral ground, Hester almost becomes a feminist warrior or icon leading an insurrection of women against men. That rebellion is ridiculous historically but worse, it completely guts the morality of the book. And the Scarlet Letter? From what I can tell, the movie Hester seems to finally throw it away when she gets her freedom. It has no meaning other than as a talisman for oppression.

That is a different message than the book gave out. But the Movie is still called "The Scarlet Letter". If the screenwriter wanted to send out a different moral message, then he should have retitled the movie. Something like "Hester's Anachronistic and Pointless Rebellion" would have been good. Then it would be truth in advertising.

The actors and technicians did a great job but after reading the script they should have dropped the project. I suppose they needed the money. Beautifully shot, well acted, great score ... it still gets a "1" for being an egregious lie.

---

17 out of 29 people found the following comment useful :-
I enjoyed this movie, 7 March 2004

Author: Kalpurnia from Panama

First, I apologies because my English, I'm from Panama. Second, for me, TSL is a very beautiful movie and I know that it is far from the book by Nathaniel Hawthorne, nevertheless, I found nice things there, for instance, the setting was so refreshing to me and the love scenes were very romantic too. In this movie I felt in love to Gary Oldman. I consider that Demi as well as Gary were chemistry. On the other hand, I think that the producer and the whole team portrait the epoch of the pilgrims, the way they lived and thought about morality and religion. Demi was pretty in this character and convincing. For me this was a sad story of love. Although, the screenplay changed at the end, I found that this movie was done to give audience happier than the original book.

---

7 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
I'm glad I didn't live back in that time.......unless Rev Dimmesdale could have been mine, 27 June 2005
Author: anjliis from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Hawthorne's story begins in the middle....with Hester already out of jail and her baby about three months old, and already wearing the Scarlet Letter. The movie starts out and tells what happened leading up to that, which I thought was much better. I wanted to see the story between Hester and Arthur, and find out how they fell in love. While I was waiting to see how Hester and Arthur meet, imagine my surprise when she's standing behind the bushes watching him swimming naked up and down the river in front of her....even turning over on his back for a brief scene. The way she was standing there with her mouth hanging open pretty much showed that she was already taken with him. Hester was flirty and seductive, and while Arthur Dimmesdale seemed kind of shy around her...especially after finding out she was married.........they fell hard for each other even though their love was forbidden and they faced serious punishment if they were discovered. Gary Oldman was cast perfectly as Rev. Dimmesdale......he's physically beautiful, and soft spoken but strong. And his blue eyes just made me melt. Demi Moore is a lovely actress who did a splendid job IMO. Her little girl had the same color blue eyes as Gary/Arthur did, so it looked really believable that she was his daughter.

IMO a movie made just as Hawthorne had written it would have been so totally boring. This one had a great story, with wonderful actors who had loads of chemistry with each other. The only one I didn't like was Roger Prynne....or Chillingsworth as he was known but I like Robert Duvall as an actor. Chillingsworth was a truly evil man. I wondered if that red bird that lured Hester into the forest where she first saw Dimmesdale swimming might have been Roger, since he seemed to have some sort of magical powers or witchcraft. Maybe, as the girl who was telling the story said, he was one to lay a trap for someone and hope they might fall into it.

I was glad they changed the ending. Actually the ending in the book made little sense anyway.....it was so jumbled up. I liked this ending better.

---

9 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
Truly disastrous - a classic turned into a travesty, 22 February 2005

Author: smurfboy from United Kingdom

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Why? That one word could sum up everything that makes this movie so bad. It was made primarily because a lot of Americans got fed up with people suggesting all the classics are English - so what do they do? Change the ending and most of the rest of the plot too! As well as swapping the tragedy at the end for a typically Hollywood lovey-dovey ending, the story is told through the eyes of Hester's daughter Pearl, and halfway through the film the villagers are still guessing that Hester has been having an affair with the minister - even though the novel opens with Hester wearing the Scarlet A for adulteress! The only reason to watch this is to enjoy the irony of a studio thinking 'we'll show the world America has classic novels too', only to rip out everything that made it a classic. If you need any more proof of what a disaster this was, look at what Demi Moore, once Hollywood's highest paid actress, has done since...

---

9 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
Hysterical, 23 July 2004

Author: Wayne Malin (wwaayynnee51@hotmail.com) from United States

VERY stupid adaptation of Nathaniel Hawthorne's classic. For one thing Demi Moore is totally miscast in the title role. I have nothing against her--she can be good in the right roles...but casting her as a Puritan was just stupid. Gary Oldman looks like he doesn't know what the hell he's doing in this and Robert Duvall sadly embarasses himself.

I (unfortunately) saw it in a theatre back in 1995 (Yup--I PAID to see this movie!). There were a bunch of English school teachers in attendance. They started laughing during the opening credits which says the movie is "based on characters created by Hawthorne" and didn't let up during the entire movie. Actually their comments were more enjoyable than the movie itself. And they REALLY howled at the end which was totally different from the book! Also, at 135 minutes, it's WAY too long.

Really...who thought this was a good idea? Why take a classic book and screw it over completely? Thankfully, this seems to be forgotten--it should stay that way. Don't bother.

---

---

Page 1 of 8:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history