Moll Flanders (1996)

You won't be disappointed!

Sick Product of a Sick System

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

I have seen many bad interpretations of books, but this one takes the cake in that it bears NOT EVEN ONE piece of a shadow of a resemblance to the book it is supposed to be based on. It leaves one to wonder where on earth this story came from and why bother using the title "Moll Flanders" at all? Maybe the producers needed to do that in order to keep the money happy? I am flabbergasted, especially since I know and own the vastly superior Masterpiece Theater version starring Alex Kingston that is such a faithful and wonderful interpretation. (I highly recommend THAT version, if you can find it. It's out of print and the reworked 'Fortunes and Misfortunes of Moll Flanders' is a bit tampered with, though also OOP)Despite everything, I found the film, apart from the inexcusable deviations, enjoyable in itself. There are preposterous things that could have never happened in that century, which others have already gone into in their reviews, but the story and movie itself is not actually ALL that bad, and there is some excellent work by crew and cast...which is why I gave it some stars. The acting was superb, and the visuals and costuming were a real treat. Bravo to the actors and the costumers. Though overly sentimental and awkwardly structured, the story was serviceable and enjoyable, overall, too, if you allow a little liberty with the realities of the time period, and the ridiculous notion that the story was ordered to be told to the child.I do have a big complaint, as a visual artist myself, about the paintings that were supposedly the work of Moll's artist-husband. I hate to say, but the artists' paintings should have been much better executed. Though John Lynch's character was supposed to have been an artist who was struggling and always frustrated by his efforts, the execution of an trained artist of that time would have been more mechanically sophisticated, unless he was a primitive self-taught, which, given the well-heeled upbringing of the character, doesn't seem very likely, as lessons in the arts and sciences were common education for the wealthy of that period. The artist was meant to be struggling with the expression of the spirit and essence of the model, not the actual mechanics of the paintings. It is clear in the dialogue that he was struggling to express something finer and deeper about the model, which is more of a metaphysical matter. He says himself, when complimented on how good the painting is, that it is "all mechanical". I believe the designer and the scenic artists sadly misinterpreted the intent of this part of the script, or they just did not have the capabilities or resources to produce the right sort of paintings, which, along with a certain clumsiness in the script, makes the whole premise fall flat. It is too bad because it is one of the better parts of the story.I give this film four stars. If you enjoy films of this type, do yourself a favor and see the vastly superior Masterpiece Theater version of the book. You won't be sorry you did!

The main problem with this film is that it calls itself "Moll Flanders." It has very little to do with the Defoe novel. Moll Flanders, who in the novel appears as a resourceful, intelligent, fun-loving and talented woman is transformed here into a helpless fallen angel who has little control over her own fate. There is no mention in this film of her many husbands (as well as the clever ways she obtained them), her thieving career, her other children, her mother and brother, and generally everything else in the novel that was entertaining and meaningful. Robin Wright Penn is boring and anemic in a role that demands the opposite. Sentimental Hollywood has never before ruined a good story with such skill. If you want to get the full flavor of this great novel, do yourself a favor and watch instead the British adaptation with Alex Kingston, also from 1996.

What a travesty! I was expecting a remake of the charming 1965 version staring Kim Knovak. This mess bore no relationship to the novel which I enjoyed so much. Definitely not for Defoe fans. It is difficult enough to abridge such works as Moll Flanders and the recently released "Vanity Fair" so I'm prepared for some liberties to be taken but I think the fundamental themes and tone of the original work should be maintained. This is certainly not the case with this version. Incidentally, Robin Wright is a sad disappointment in the portrayal of one of the most interesting and like able characters of English Literature. She is far too wooden and not nearly attractive enough. Sorry Sean.

Over all, I thought that "Moll Flanders" was a good movie. It is a little slow moving. That's the only complaint though. The story revolves around Moll Flanders. She's a slave whom goes into prostitution. And one of her customers happens to fall in love with her. They also have a child together. The movie is just about her life. But it's very heart warming, and I think any woman would enjoy it. If you enjoy Morgan Freeman or Robin Write, this is one of their best performances. I'm a little surprised with the rating. But, I guess you can't win them all. I would recommend "Moll Flanders".7/10