The Scarlet Letter (1995)

The Worst Film Ever

Let's be realistic.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Blistering performances.

This certainly ranks among the Top Ten of "What Were They Thinking?" films ever made. The production is sumptuously photographed, has a more than qualified director in Oscar nominee Roland Joffe, a recognizable supporting cast of Oscar luminaries featuring Gary Oldman, Robert Duvall and Joan Plowright, and a then-bankable leading lady in Demi Moore. Factor in the pedigree associated with Nathaniel Hawthorne's legendary novel and something far more worthwhile should have been the end result.Moore is cast as Hester Prynne, a proper Puritan wife sent ahead to the colonies to prepare a home for she and her husband. Emboldened by the new responsibilities thrust upon her and some of the new relationships she starts, Hester gives in to an attraction to the righteous Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale (Oldman) when it is believed that her husband has perished in an Indian massacre. Hester's peccadillo and her subsequent illegitimate pregnancy cause her to become persona non grata in the colony and she is forced to wear the scarlet letter of the title brandishing her an adulterer.Anyone who made it through high school is familiar with the tale of Hester Prynne, but given the issues inherent in the material and how it still remains pertinent in today's society with women's right being trampled on, its cinematic adaptations have been amazingly rare. So it is doubly unfortunate that Joffe and company have so succinctly bungled this effort.Moore is pretty as a picture, but entirely too contemporary a presence to convince as Hester. She provides neither the insight nor the range to make Hester's plight palpable. Oldman is solid and provides a titillating full frontal voyeuristic skinny-dip, but his role is beyond ridiculous (more on that later). Robert Duvall as Hester's wacko husband shows up later in the film and gives the worst performance of his career. This is so bad it is akin to the work Nick Nolte contributed in Hulk. And pretty much everyone is out-acted by a bird that seems to be chirping for sexual freedom.The film's biggest problem and the result of its failure is that it fails to have respect or even understand the entire point of the source. No one feels that Joffe needs to be slavishly faithful to Hawthorne's prose. And sexing the material up for modern audiences is also not an unwise call.However, what is absurd is basically castrating the story of its core. Joffe and company take the window dressing of the Scarlett Letter, but abandon its entire reason for being. Hawthorne's story was an indictment of Puritanism and the hypocrisy of Christianity in that Reverend Dimmesdale was a self-righteous blowhard stirring up his foolish flock and leading the charge against Hester by day, while being her lover at night and demanding she keep their secret. If anything, he is the villain of the piece, yet the film version somehow re-imagines him as a worthwhile, misunderstood romantic figure! Instead of Dimmesdale being depicted justly as a craven, cowardly monument of hypocrisy, we instead get Dimmesdale as the Puritan answer to Fabio and Duvall gets to usurp the villain role as Hester's wild-eyed madman hubby. This shift in narrative, plus changes in the latter half of the film including the ending, completely abandons the entire purpose of Hawthorne's tale. Joffe instead throws in Indian attacks and nonsense sound and fury to distract from the fact that there is no longer anything at the center of his film. As such, the film does not conclude, so much as implode under its own rubbish pretensions.

I was completely shocked after watching The Scarlet Letter to find such strong negative criticism towards it. 4.7 on IMDb? 14% on rotten tomatoes? nominated for several Razzies?? But why? The only possible answer I can come up with is that this film is largely being critiqued by Hawthorne Puritans, so to speak. And truly, to say that this adaptation strays from the book is like saying that the Kardashians sometimes appear in the media. It does take liberties, and several key plot points have been changed - but does that make it a BAD MOVIE? I have read the Scarlet Letter, and I can see the appeal, but it's not as if it was without it's flaws. It needed some back-story. The characters needed more likability. There needed to be a greater depth to the relationships. This movie gave it all of that with the added bonus of giving it a more exciting story line.The novel aside, this movie was absolutely gorgeous in every aspect. The sets, score, and costuming were top quality, and really transported me into 17th century New England. The acting was stunning throughout the cast, with Demi Moore portraying a strong, enduring Hester Prynn, Robert Duvall giving a thoroughly chilling performance as her husband, and Gary Oldman managing to transform Reverend Dimmesdale - a horribly weak and unlikeable character in the book - into a charming and extremely complex man that the audience could sympathize with. There is nothing that this movie didn't have that most Oscar nominated hits have as well.The only flaws I can think of were, and this is a stretch, the excessive amounts of nudity (which on Mr. Oldman's part were actually very welcome), and the fact that the feminist attitudes were slightly anachronistic. But again, does this make The Scarlet Letter bad? I don't think so. The people I saw it with didn't think so. I honestly don't understand how anyone COULD think so. (and I here I though comprehending God was going to be my biggest challenge) So I say go ahead and watch The Scarlet Letter. Just don't turn it on expecting a word-for-word rendition of the book because you will be disappointed. Instead, expect a beautiful, high-quality, high-intensity romantic thrill ride that deserves a much better reception than it received.

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.

Arriving to freshly formed Massachusets colony without her husband, Hester Prynne tries to adapt to the extremely strict minded colony. After she falls in love with a pastor, Arthur Dimmsdale, she receives the information of her husband's death. Following the path their passionate love has shown them, Hester and Arthur later have to face unexpected factors and the Puritan colony's cruelty...The Scarlet Letter is one of those 90s Hollywood movies that I have been used to see since my childhood. I also have to admit that this is probably a movie more of women's preference. However, that does not mean that the movie is bad. In fact, I still cannot understand how it managed to be so disliked, for I simply "loved" it. This motion picture is beautiful: beautiful in its scenes, beautiful in its music, beautiful in its story... I cannot say that it was powerful, for it made some interesting choices like keeping the reverend alive in the end, but is it not a love story after all?(I have never read the book and I was begging for him not to die, so I am completely satisfied by that fact. ) Although Demi Moore's voice was slightly annoying, I can easily say that her performance was totally believable and included a good character portrayal. There is naught to say about Gary Oldman except for that his performance was perfectly enjoyable. Being used to seeing him as the villain,(or the character who simply has too much ego besides the others,) I was pleasantly surprised by how well he played Dimmsdale's emotions, which were screaming out 'I am an honorable man!' I really, really had fun watching this movie and finished in a COMPLETELY satisfied state of mind. I strongly recommend it to anyone who needs some positive emotions and suggest that instead of looking at it with an eye of a critic you enjoy the music, the thrill(yes, there are many sharp turns in the story, and that's why my summary is so short) and the performances.