Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Whitech It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.

filippaberry84 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.

T Y I admire Hawthorne's book very much. It is not a 'novel' as we now think of novels. Instead I've enjoyed it for decades as a book to be considered in three or four page bursts around bedtime. I don't really believe guilt is the foundation of society like Hawthorne did, but it's still a fine meditation on guilt and hypocrisy. Hawthorne loves language and introspection and is not overly concerned with plot developments and pacing. It's the quality I like about the book.This version of the novel then is absolutely true to the source, It has a slow, deliberate pace and is weighted with ponderous, heavy import. It marches inexorably to a guilt-fueled, hopeless, agonized conclusion. Every filmed narrative ever made is not about your entertainment. It's 4 hours long and that seems to be the perfect length to get Hawthorne's tone across. Meg Foster is spot-on as the iron-willed morally-superior scapegoat of a retched Puritan town. Arthur Dimmesdale remains one of the most irritating protagonists in all of literature. John Heard (he of no eyebrows) plays the unsympathetic religious hypocrite; His Dimmesdale is quite the self-pitying drama queen. I used to think Heard was way over the top; now I think he's only purple here and there. Kevin Conway also chews on the scenery. The lady portraying the governor's mother (and a witch) is perfectly cast; even her bodily movements are finely nuanced. The only elements that date this are the poor atmospheric effects, and the junky credits. The videography is crisp, except when slow-mo is attempted. The score is again right on the money; ominous and simple.A note on the DVD: There is absolutely no reason after 30 years to preserve the preview & recap materials in the exact place they were first viewed when broadcast (in segments) on TV, once upon a time in 1979. They intrude at the start of each new hour of this production, and prevent more people from taking the movie for a spin. The DVD would easily fit onto one disc if they dumped all that stuff. It's just not relevant to the DVD format. And we now have a devoted place for behind the scenes featurettes. It's called the "Extra Materials" section. Hawthorne interrupts the narrative only once with his Custom House sketch. Here they do it 4 times (the start of each night's episode). That was not his intent.Still, there is no finer film version of the book. And it could be argued that this is the cleanest book to film xfer ever.

Darlene Hansen John Heard is one of those under-rated actors who deserves more acclaim ... His portrayal of anguished Reverend Arthur Dimsdale was heart-rending and truly unforgettable. Meg Foster and John Heard worked a chemistry the likes of which I have not seen equaled much of late in films. Arthur Dimsdale (so true to the Nathaniel Hawthawne's novel) rends his heart distressingly and is torn literally in two by his inability to act upon his indiscretions brought only partway to light. Meg Foster's Hester Prynne holds tight to a resounding strength, a strength of soul it seems. It is impossible to not feel the powerful emotions, and to hold on tightly to the hope that these two "soul-mates" will once again become one. Keep plenty of tissues handy, especially for Part 3's epiphany of the heart.

Comrade Genghis I love Hawthorne's novel. And this miniseries is VERY faithful to the novel. But if what you're looking for is a faithful rendition of the book, don't waste your time with this...JUST READ THE BOOK. This film is pointless: it brings absolutely nothing new to the tale, and it's not at all interesting to watch. The actors evidently have no idea what to do with the script; perhaps they have trouble expressing feeling with archaic dialogue, or perhaps it was because of incompetent direction. The director plods through most of the film with basic camera shots (there's nothing wrong with that, of course, so long as what you're watching is interesting [which in this case it is not]); at a few scattered points, however, he makes an attempt to do something artsy - like when Dimmesdale whips himself and when Hester is standing on the scaffold in the nocturnal scene - but these shots not only look out-of-place with the rest of the film but one gets the impression that they were put there just to show off rather than to really say something. Perhaps they (and the rest of the film) would have come off better if the production values had been more than nil, which I can only assume they must have been.

MBarnes Will a quality version of this classic piece of literature ever be produced? Probably not, as Hollywood these days can't make a movie that doesn't have a happy ending. The drab and drearyness of Hawthorne's work is well related in this version that closely follows the text, even to the point of quoting key lines of dialogue. The most powerful scenes are the meeting between Hester and Chillingworth in the prison, and the conversation between Chillingworth and Dimmesdale where he begins his torturing of the cowardly minister. The main problem with this version is on the technical side.When Pearl is a baby, she cries incessantly into a microphone that had to have been placed directly next to her. The poor camera quality makes Meg Foster's pale eyes seem psychotic or demonic. The special effects are so ridiculous that the audience can't help but chuckle. A scene between Hester and Chillingworth is nearly drowned out by the ocean nearby. The theme music never changes, and the narration is slow and monosyllabic. Add to that some pathetic acting performances, and there are some scenes that are just hard to sit through. If if weren't for the faithfulness to the text, and that fact that all other versions waver dramatically, this would be unwatchable.