FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Pluskylang Great Film overall

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Dianne Lynch This movie is a big insult to the great book 'Scarlet Letter' of Nathaniel Hawthorne.It has nothing to do with this amazing piece of Literature.So, if you've read the book I highly recommend you not to see this film. Nevertheless,if you enjoy yourselves by seeing Soap Operas this movie will thrill you to the bone. The only good thing of this movie,I could say, is Gary Oldman,whose performance is truly respectable.The same thing can not be said for his co-star Demi Moore.No one maybe can deny the beauty of this woman.But her talent is poor in this particular movie,better not make any reference to her other 'exceptional' works.

rainey-3 Okay. Calm down people. This movie is an overall very good movie– terrific cast, great sets, great costuming, lots of action and I've never seen Gary Oldman look so handsome. The actors did a really good job. Very entertaining. The book was boring, people. Boring boring boring. Don't you remember having to read it in high school? THE MOVIE IS MUCH BETTER. And I'll state this unequivocally-- it's way better than 90% better than most stuff I see on the big screen-- hands down. And the amateur critic that pulled the race card and said the Indians in this film were not depicted doing anything other than one dimensional, childish actions obviously didn't watch the scene where the two older tribeswomen were discussing Robert Duvall's character very astutely-- great dialogue! You other hater critics need to lighten up! Seriously. Loved the film.

Samiam3 There is an opening credit at the beginning of the movie that reads; adapted freely from Nathaniel Hawthorne's book. 'Freely' that's an interesting choice of words. 'loosely adapted' sounds a bit too euphemistic I suppose. Saying 'freely' makes it sound as if the makers of this picture took a timeless American novel and did god knows what with it; they 'freely' toyed around with a masterpiece.I should probably mention now, that I am not saying these things without a bias. I haven't read the novel personally, but having seen the film, I think I can verify for myself (based on good common sense, without the need for the 'freely adapted credit) that there is no way this could have been Hawthorne's original story. The writing is mediocre, and not that smart. That said. I won't argue that it is a terrible movie, and in fact the first half is pretty good, but the second half is clumsy, overdone, and rather pointless. The finished product has its ups and downs, but it is an uneven production which could use a slight rewrite and maybe a few trimsFor a good while I was enjoying myself. The romantic portion of the film, is believable. Gary Oldman turns in a pretty good performance opposite Demi Moore, who is not as good, but does her best. Oldman has more charisma. I guess it's too much then to ask for a movie to be stable for a hundred and thirty minutes. At the one hour point (give or take a few minutes) The Scarlett Letter, becomes a whole new ballgame. Once Robert Duvall shows up, the plot turns contrived and non sensible. Much of the remainder of the film, is about this character's involvement, and it takes us nowhere. Duvall is way out of place as a hammed up, Hollywood stereotype; the really bad guy, if you will. It's not even a role that requires the involvement of such a skilled actor. The movie ends with an unusual bang; an outburst of violence that is also irrelevant, and if for nothing else was probably thrown in as a last minute attempt to break the tedium. The Scarlett Letter's strongest aspect is it's portrayal of 17th century puritan Massachussetts. There is a credible sense of history to this setting. It's all in the way the people dress, behave, make chit chat. Anyone who knows their movies will know that this was a much despised picture. I certainly see fault within it, but I did not think it was terrible. The fact that it eviscerates it's source material is a pretty good reason to dislike it, but as a movie goer, I judge it for what it is. For better or worse, Roland Joffé's film is pretty much a Hollywood melodrama.

nixholl When I saw adverts for this on sky i decided to investigate it further watch you tube and then record the film and I had expected so much but what i found was a bit of a disappointment. Im not saying the film was bad it was just not as good as I thought. Hester and Arthur meet about four times in the space of a few days and then about a week later they are declaring undying love for each other on a cliff and are prepared to risk their whole life for each other?? It happened to quickly. Once the film got going and it focused on Hesters struggle I found it intriguing but it still was too quick i felt for the main characters to have fallen in love. Gary Oldman was superb although Im not quite sure what accent he was trying to master and Demi Moore was surprisingly good in this role yet the whole thing lacked due to it being too quick. Overall I do not feel I wasted two hours of my life but I did record over the recording.