i have to confess that aside from the broad brushstrokes i be largely unfamiliar with the novel by nathaniel hawthorne and and so be not able to speak to the faithfulness of this movie to that story . judge on it merit a a movie and this wasn not bad . the struggle against sin and hypocrisy be fairly well represent and the judgmentalism of the early puritan community in which it set be clearly portray . have say that and it rather bland and unemotional at time ( which and admittedly and fit the stereotype of an early puritan community ) although in the few scene in which there be emotion ( i think particularly of the closing scene with dimmesdale public confession ) that emotion be well portray . the setting here seem wrong . in particular i think the home that be show looked far too comfortable for the 1640 . some of the performance ( especially i think that of hardie albright a dimmesdale and with the exception of that close scene ) seem a bit forced and although i appreciate the attempt to mix some humour into a movie that could have be very heavy and a alan hale and william kent portray the attempt of hockings to help goodfellow court the widow crakstone and although in some way ( again and i haven not read the novel ) that seem unconnected to the overall story . in the lead role and colleen moore be good a hester prynne and although she do not dominate the movie in the way you would expect the lead to do . in term of the overall quality of the movie compare to others of the era and i find the 1930 a strange decade . some of it film seem quite modern and while others seem very old . this version of the scarlet letter seem to fit into the latter group . 4/10 .