The Scarlet Letter
Set in puritanical Boston in the mid 1600s, the story of seamstress Hester Prynne, who is outcast after she becomes pregnant by a respected reverend. She refuses to divulge the name of the father, is "convicted" of adultery and forced to wear a scarlet "A" until an Indian attack unites the Puritans and leads to a reevaluation of their laws and morals.
- Category:Romance, Drama
- Stars:Demi Moore, Gary Oldman, Robert Duvall, Lisa Andoh, Edward Hardwicke, Robert Prosky, Roy Dotrice, Joan Plowright, Malcolm Storry, James Bearden, Larissa Laskin, Amy Wright, George Aguilar, Tim Woodward, Joan Gregson,
- Director:Roland Joffé,
- Writer:Nathaniel Hawthorne (novel), Douglas Day Stewart (screenplay)
After a young widow (Demi Moore) has a child and refuses to name the father, a Puritan community forces her to wear the letter A as adulteress. Suddenly her husband, who had been captured by the Indians returns and that is when the trouble really starts. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
The Scarlet Letter torrent reviews
(mx) wrote: I watched I Melt With You last night and although I thought there were a couple flaws, found it refreshingly original and very well done for an independent!I came here to Rotten Tomatoes and to my surprise read all of these "clever" little reviews panning it. Wow. I seem to be in the minority here - but then again, episodic TV and cable channel releases make me want to SLIT MY WRISTS with their flat lighting, one dimensional stories and flimsy, robotic, predictably beautiful characters.Maybe the movie struck a chord in me because I enjoy watching great acting and interesting, off beat stories that don't follow the typical, obvious Hollywood model.There are no car chase scenes here . . . oh my. Maybe that's why some people didn't like it. There is little nudity. No love story. No couples cheating on one another behind each others backs. And there are no superheros, gangsters, guns, vampires, talent shows or even one single dance competition in the entire script!Well . . . one can easily see that this originally written and expertly executed flick is not for the average movie goer . . .; )Peace
(de) wrote: This above-average but violent made-for-television western pits the villainous land-hungry railroad against the defenseless small-frye ranchers whose lands lay on the railroad route. ACTION JACKSON director Craig R. Baxley helms this exciting little horse opera with flair to spare and the momentum never lags during its concise 87 minutes. Baxley spent over 30 years performing stunts on movies like DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER as well as the NBC blockbuster hit THE A-TEAM so he has a knack for orchestrating interesting stunts. The photography by Yaron Levy of STREET WARRIOR constantly thrusts you into the thick of the gunfire and the camera work is nimble, lending the film a palatable sense of versimilitude. As the protagonist named Luke Rivers, Casper Van Dien is actually tolerable for a change and the beard gives him a lot of maturity. Late in the action, he puts on a poncho and vaguely resembles Clint Eastwood. The sturdy cast includes Bruce Boxleitner as a believable gunfighter named D.C. Cracker. D.C. has a hard time deciding which side of the fight he is going to be on when trouble comes calling. Ninety-one year old Ernest Borgnine of THE WILD BUNCH and VERA CRUZ plays one of the chief ranchers that the railroad has been harassing about his land. He does not scare easily and Luke and he become friends. SUGARLAND EXPRESS star William Atherton makes a slimy bad guy named Howard. Jeff Kobar as a killer named Tate is particularly vicious without a sympathetic bone in his wiicked body. He exudes evil. Of course, the devious Chicago-based railroad company doesn't want to pay a penny more for the land than necessary. ACES N EIGHTS springs more surprises than you might imagine for its humble origins without violating any of the formula conventions of westerns. Make no mistake, this western is at times rather brutal. Jack Noseworthy of BREAKDOWN stands out as a member of the railroad who has come to negotiate a peaceful settlement between the railroad and the landowners. The gunfights are noisy but not bloody. The treacherous hired guns working for the railroad terrorize and murder land owners and their wives to scare them into selling out. One indication of a good movie is when the chief characters change and evolve during the trajectory of the narrative. The finale is a well-staged UNFORGIVEN gunfight between the heroes and the villains with a surprisingly conclusion.
(fr) wrote: Learning that the male lead also wrote this thing explains a lot. The movie is pretty much as generic as its title. I was hoping for at least a LITTLE hip-hop dancing, but no: all ballroom, all the time. Eh.
(kr) wrote: Wonderful animals, my favourite was the lion couple. My advice is to watch this movie with your love partner.
(kr) wrote: love it its a fantastic film
(jp) wrote: This movie was odd and reminiscent a lot of Donnie Darko at times. There were very confusing moments and others that made a lot of sense. It would probably make more sense after multiple viewings. Still it had a huge cast led by the Rock, Justin Timberlake, and Sean William Scott. Not a bad film and after thinking about it, I quite liked it. B
(us) wrote: Quite significantly better than the first film. With the fellowship separated, war has begun, but Frodo and Sam are still alive and are that much closer to Mount Doom to destroy the One Ring. There are many good reason's one why this film was considered bigger and better. The battles were larger, it was practically one the main climaxes of the series, and the story is more in depth. Once again, the overall film was well crafted and well directed much like it's previous. The humor was also exceptionally better as well. Let us not forget the Ents also. They were also a good addition to this one, as they attacked one of the most main areas in the film: One of the two towers known as Isengard. The story continues...
(us) wrote: Fairly different drama that observes the life of a croupier (Clive Owen), who often works odd hours at casino, while balancing a relationship with his woman (Gina McKee) and his job. However, his profession (along with his love life with his woman) gets sticky when he starts to have flings with other females, including a supervisor (Kate Hardie) and a mature South-African woman (Alex Kingston). In addition, he begins to see the laundering industry come into play with the gambling industry, and some of those players involved are pretty vicious. Clive Owen is the main player here and he is the best thing within the movie, although McKee, Hardie, and Kingston supporting are also quite good. For me, though, there is really not much of a plot, as their some disjointedness in the storyline, but more of a character study, and the payoff surprisingly works. Also, the irony of the film is quite memorable, as the term "croupier" comes from the French for gambler and Owen claims he is not a gambler (although he does take a job in a casino that leads to his risking his own life so essentially he is mistaken about that).
(nl) wrote: Dolph = 5 out of 10. regardless of how crappy the story is :)
(it) wrote: When looked at in terms of the depiction of tactics, Zulu both suceeds and fails to capture but when seen from the aspect of the period in which is was filmed, one can truly admire the film and the grandeur it portrayed.One of the nice aspects of Zulu is seeing a very young Michael Caine in one of his earliest acting roles and possibly the film that launched him into stardom. By todays standards his performance might not seem like much but there's no dennying he does command the screen.Zulu is highly enjoyable warfare made entertainment and a recommend to any fans of the genre or classic films. Modern day audiences will likely find the pseudo violence silly, the acting stiff and the overall look of the film as being too old... but that's their loss not mine.
(it) wrote: Anthony Mann directs the hell out of this picture; and Barbara Stanwyck and Walter Huston duke it out as father and daughter. One of Mann's best westerns, and maybe the best one not starring Jimmy Stewart.
(us) wrote: A wrong timeline, but a hilarious adventure!I remember seeing the French version of this film on the television when I was a kid, but don't recall much other than two men from the medieval in the streets of the modern world. Somehow I found this, and after some research I chose this version to watch which I thought easy to understand, as well as for the reason some updates were made in this. Well, I know nothing can beat the original, but for those haven't seen the original, this is not a bad one. Quite an enjoyable film with a simple theme and a simple adventure.Seems a very familiar concept, but surely a unique product. Jean Reno was brilliant and so his sidekick and other supporting characters. Top notch jokes, felt like I had some loud laughs after a long time. Of course, there are some flaws, but minors, like relocating from Europe to the US since it is a Hollywood production. It is a time travel theme in fantasy. There's no time machine, instead a wizard behind the adventure through the time.A perfect family film. It's not about prediction, since watching the first scene you would know what follows it and how it all ends. So you're relieved from guessing stuff and can sit back relaxedly and enjoy it as much you can. It is your average film, but if you're seeking a good comedy, then it is surely above that. There are thousands of masterpiece comedies, this is not one of them, though must see from this genre.7/10