mraculeated The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Frances Chung Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

MRavenwood I'm not going to lie and say I didn't enjoy this film. It's faults I found forgivable. I saw it when it first came out and liked it, and I still like it. I have read the original Scarlett Letter by Hawthorne and liked it too. I believe this film serves two useful (perhaps unintended) purposes. One: it's hopeless as a "cheat" for kids who try to do a report on the book and watch this instead. Two: It will perhaps make teens more interested in reading the book - something I was usually not interested in in high school. The most frustrating aspect of the film for me is that it exactly contradicts Puritan teachings when it tries to damn Hester for saying she speaks to God. The whole point of Puritanism was to remove clergy and government from between Believers and God. It would have been more outrageous for her to say something like, "All believers in Jesus Christ are saved from this sinful world." Puritans believed a select few would go to Heaven, even of their own flock.Great costumes, cinematography, lighting, and locations.

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.

kim_smoak Review: This movie was a beautiful movie. I can't tell you how happy this movie made me. It was a love story beyond anything I could have ever asked for! There is a disclaimer…there is male and female nudity, and extreme gore, so this is not a family movie. Though there was some extreme gore for a movie like this…I was happy with it. I did close my eyes during the fighting scenes, because there were some over the top nasty scenes…but the fight scenes only lasted a few minutes, and wasn't a huge part of the story. The story was about a married woman in the 1600's who moved to America to build a new life with her husband…though her husband decided to stay behind in London and send her there alone, almost like he was trying to test her.After settling in, she begins to have feelings for another man in her husband's absence…but this man also is the minister of the town where they live. They both avoid each other, knowing that they both have strong feelings for the other, and if they were to do anything about it, they would both be hanged. They then get news that her husband's ship was attached by Indians, and no one was found alive…so they begin their love affair. She then becomes pregnant with what the town calls a "bastard" child…not knowing that it was their minister's child. He offers to give himself up in order for her to not be punished, but she forbids him to do so, because she loves him too much to see him hang for their love. She is put into prison until she has the child, and then is forced to wear a red "A" on her clothes everywhere she goes. Shortly after her release, she finds out her husband was not killed by the Indians, but captured, and returns home under an alias…only because he doesn't want the town to punish his wife…he wants to punish her by killing her lover. Still, no one knows that her lover is the minister…but her husband begins to investigate everyone, and soon suspects that her lover is the minister.I could seriously go on and on, and give you the climatic ending of the movie…but I won't…because you NEED to see this movie if you haven't. It was a brilliant work of art in the form of a movie. Demi Moore was charming and graceful as Hester, and Gary Oldman was almost a knight and shining armor as Minister Arthur. They did change up the story of the book…but this movie was just beautifully done. I will watch this movie again…very soon!

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.