The basic sin is to not be a real adaptation of Hawthorne novel. inspired by it - yes. but nothing more. the second error is to transform a classic novel in a kind of "ad usum Delphini", in which every nuance of a great and profound drama is lost. the only significant virtue is the fight of Demi Moore and Gary Oldman to save their roles. not with real succes because the script does a so simple and pink story than nothing could change the sense of it. and the only prize is the atmosphere, costumes, and hope than another director will do a better and smart adaptation for a novel who remains one of fundamental books not only for American literature.

I was expecting a bit that I could see a love story that's great and yes for me the movie delivers just that. I can feel the suffering of both leads and how great their love is at the same time which might not be similar to the book as they say. Still, it's a great story with a believable acting. Gary Oldman was really good in acting out the role of a reverend yet he can easily cast out his being a reverend for Demi in the story. It wasn't captured how hard he tried to stay away but was just narrated with a few scenes. Inspite of that, I can feel how great their love is for each other. I thought that one will die in the end but it's good to see a Hollywood movie that doesn't have a terrible ending

I was expecting something awful because of the mockery and disparagement from the critics. I'm so glad I saw it anyway! I am critical and usually hard to please as a movie viewer, and this was a good movie, especially when you compare it to most of the crap being made. I find it hysterical that people are pretending to take such offense that Hawthorne's story wasn't followed to the T. Name one classical story that is followed to the t by Hollywood. Or any book adaptation for that matter. Name one.I think all the mockery is really about the fact that this movie critiqued the early brutal treatment of women in this country's history. This is almost never explored, never exposed. When Hester says, "This isn't about the sin of us women, it's about the sin of you men," that is the sort of line that makes you unpopular with critics. Then they will pretend it's all about the art. There was a lot about the art in this film to appreciate. Oldman's performance was incredible, subtle, believable. Duvall never disappoints, and the abuse of Hester was realistic in its viciousness, even though it only showed the edges. I appreciated most of all that the filmmakers were willing to take on this subject matter. How they adapted it to modern movie viewer tastes, well, maybe they could have done better, but the pressures to make an expensive film commercially successful cannot simply be overlooked. All and all they did a good job. I'm so glad I finally watched it, and didn't let the mocking critics turn me off to it forever.

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.