Gail_Moyer3
I was so excited when I saw that there was a movie version of Moll Flanders. It is, perhaps, my favorite book of all time. I put on the movie, curled up w/ some popcorn and a drink, and waited to be awed. Well, I was awed, but not in a good way. This movie had absolutely nothing to do with the book! The only thing it has in common is the title, and the fact that Moll's mother had given birth to her while in prison. Other than that- nothing! Moll was NOT a prostitute, like the movie portrayed. Granted, in the novel, she did go through husbands quite quickly. But they were marriages! If I had never read the book, I would have deeply enjoyed this movie. I love all the actors in the movie. Morgan Freeman is one of my favorite male actors. But, I ended up yelling at the TV during the entire movie. I was fortunate enough to see the 1996 British TV version starring Alex Kingston. That was remarkable, and very accurate. I would suggest to everyone to see this version!
Mike S
If you like period pieces of redemption / revenge / resolution after long struggle through hardship and injustice (for example, Count of Monte Cristo, Shawshank Redemption, Red Violin) you will like Moll Flanders.Robin Wright does a great job and is as beautiful as ever. Aisling Corcoran, who plays young Flora, is skilled beyond her years. Morgan Freeman also does a pretty good job, although this role does not seem to draw on his talents as much as Moll brings out greatness from Robin.I saw it on free-on-demand, but it's worth a rent for sure if you can't get it free in your area.
PreSoylentGreen-1
This movie is only barely similar to the book, "The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the famous Moll Flanders" written by Daniel Defoe and published in 1722. So if you've read the book don't worry about it spoiling the movie for you. In fact the movie is spoiled all by itself. What a waste of time.Yes, the cast is good and I think they did as much with this movie as they could. A story like this one is takes skillful telling and this seemed to be put together no better than Frankenstein's monster. Just one scene attached to another from beginning to end.Even in the book Moll Flanders was not a sympathetic character but I believe they do try to make her one in the movie. They failed. Moll in the movie flows from one moment to the next without ever really taking charge of her life, very unlike the character in the book.The entire movie is no better than the average television soap opera. Characters display extreme emotions that didn't seem realistic and too often without us really understanding why. Groundwork was not laid for many of the scenes and so the movie left me wondering 'why did they do that' for about two seconds. And then I realized I really didn't care.A good cast and a movie based on a good book, it really should have been so much better.
brooklynnewyorknewyork52
This film is underrated. It has more to offer than noted. It focuses on life in a society where the "haves" lead an entirely different existence/reality than those who "have not. Though apparently dated somewhat earlier it is reminiscent of a Dickensian message. Like Dickens it endeavors to point out that not everybody fits a mold, yet in a society where humanist values are lacking, the selflessness of a few are not enough . The complaint that it is rather slow is apparently based on the fact that time was invested into character development. In that way it is more like a European film than a fast paced American production. Its not an action film and should not be judged in comparison with that genre. It would have been impossible to tell the story without the time invested in plot development. It was a revealing and visually beautiful story -- some lovely imagery - vignettes that linger for just long enough to communicate the portrayal of a classical painting - a momentary shift from film to traditional visual art. The film was multifaceted.
AD
