Moll Flanders (1996)

To me, this movie is perfection.

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Absolutely Fantastic

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

This is an epic and unexpected period tale with some rather out of place modern touches to the story. It covers quite a sweeping journey from orphanage to whorehouse to art to class differences to the New World. Whatever the differences from the novel, it is a moderately watchable movie.There are some hits and misses with the casting. Robin Wright in the title role is a bit old for the role - when she tries to play a virgin wench it's a bit frightful. Might have been better to use a different actress for the earlier part and then switch to her. Stockard Channing is suitably grotesque as the madam. Morgan Freeman is watchable even though his accent is neither here nor there. The English cast is more convincing but I guess they needed some international names for box office draw.Overall worth a watch but not a great movie.

Defoe's original novel, even after all these years, is funny, sad, entertaining and fast-moving. The film is basically only sad, with little resemblance to the novel. It is also dreadfully slow in parts. Some of the acting is good- Stockard Channing makes an excellent Madam, and Aisling Corcoran as the little girl is splendid, producing the few flashes of humour, and there are some very nice cameo parts from well-known British and Irish actors. However, Morgan Freeman (normally a very good actor) seems to have a rather variable accent and to be wondering how he got into this film (not quite Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins, but...), and Robin Wright doesn't really convince me as a lower-class London girl. The costumes and settings give a good impression of what must have been a much less colourful world- particularly effective are the candle-lit indoor scenes. We get an interesting glimpse of the life and customs of late 17th-century/early 18th century England. However, there are some strange anachronisms- for instance, according to the novel, Moll was born in about 1614, but the clients at Mrs Allworthy's house seem to pay with bank-notes, which would have been extremely unusual at that time. Also I doubt that any little girl (even a feisty one like this) brought up in a Catholic orphanage would have used such strong language. This is nit-picking, I know, and it's only a film, but it's a pity that, with a bit more attention to the story-line and the script, the film could have been so much better.

I watched this movie when it came to TV, trying to catch the interest that it may have. But actually I found a 20th century mentality wrong placed in the 18th century, too many stereotypes to consider this film really good, vulgarity used as a sample of good acting and moral used always to define hypocritical and obscure people. The fight against the moral of the time was a very used argument in the 1990s movies to destroy (or at least distort seriously) the History (watch also some other movies of that genre made in those times and you'll know what I mean). Definitely, don't expect a good movie from this version (especially if you have read the novel or seen the 1960s version): it's got no relationship at all.

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.