Rating: 
Summary: thought provoking reading and viewing
Review: I taught this particular novel and showed the movie in my AP senior lit and comp class several years ago. After I made the decision to teach the book, I read a review in The English Journal by another teacher who had taught it. She raved about it. My students said the same things hers did..."Why did you save the best until last?" I lent my video to a student who lent it to a friend. I never got it back. The book and the movie force us all to examine how we view women...how we view women in the church...how we view women in society. They force us to examine the separation of church and state. The book is not the product of a bored, sick mind, but rather the product of a contemporary feminist author whose work routinely asks us to reexamine ourselves. The video is a good representation of the book, bringing to life events portrayed. The book is better, but the video is certainly worth watching. And for the love of God, let's not let the USA become Gilead.
Rating: 
Summary: book/film arguement again, and lecturer ooo get you!!!
Review: i too have studied the book at a-level and would agree that the film is a load of 'old bobbins.' whatever thats supposed to mean, it think it means rubbish 'cos thats what the film is.
i however do not admire atwood as much as everyone else seems to. the novel is good but wholly unoriginal and platent plagerism. The book borrows and steals heavily from other writers. not that that is all bad, intertextuality is good and the way she plays with the room 101 thing in her link to 1984 in chapter 37 is fantastic. but everyone keeps going on about the flashback idea, and existence through a narrative that slips and slides in time. people seem to think this is her idea, Well thats rubbish. Joseph Heller uses similar techniques and it is plain to see that Kurt Vonneguts Slaughter House 5 is a far superior example. however none of this is the plagerism i mentioned. many writers borrow eachothers ideas it happens all the time it is very rare to discover an original idea. However far from being original Margaret Atwoods novel is basically a re-write of John Wyndham's novel THE CHRISILIDS. it has the same palimpsest theme with the perversion of the bible. the idea of 'unwomen' and 'unbabies' is from him and a bleak dystopian regime to the back drop of nuclear disaster is also Wyndham's idea. Atwood has just taken his idea and tacked feminism on the side. The HAndmaids Tale should be called MEN ARE BAD... THE NOVEL. Her ideas and insight into our world is sound and true but the book is 324 pages of utter over kill, but there you go. im sorry to everyone who loves the novel. i respect your opinion and dont want to change it, i love literature and just love discussing different views, so please if you like it dont get upset about this, remember like all arts literature is a subjective gesture
Rating:
Summary: Don't waste your time or money!!!!
Review: I was not expecting this movie to wholy capture the essence of the book, but I also wasn't expecting to be this disappointed. Key elements of the book were omitted making the movie an empty shell of Atwood's work. The movie fails to capture Offred's internal struggles and the presentation of her name from the time before increases that failure. If you hadn't read the book first, much of the movie is left flat. If you have read the book, you'll likely be left wondering why so much is missing. Combine this with dry performances from the actors and an ending changed so dramatically the original intent is lost and you're left wanting the hour or so of your life that you've wasted back.
Rating: 
Summary: Strong idea story, but flat pacing
Review: I watched this movie several years ago, and saw it again yesterday, after having read several reviews here. At first glance, the movie may seem to be pro-choice and opposed to conservative religious political activism. Certainly, the author of the book, Atwood, might fall in those categories. Nevertheless, my second viewing in a different stage in my life, gave me a broader insight. This movie is more about freedom of conscience than it is about politics or religion. A previous reviewer pointed out that the national symbol of the Republic of Gilead (the theocratic state in which the story is situated) is more Masonic than Christian, and that the rebels are Baptists. Perhaps, these choices are due to Masonry's secretive nature and its male-only membership. Additionally, traditional Baptists opposed standardized creeds and centralized denominational polity. Ironically, the Handmaid's Tale message to religious people is quite similar to Jesus' approach--we are to win disciples, not conquer territories. Though the plot and themes of the story were most intriguing, the tempo of the story was flat. I was often curious about what would happen to characters, and how things would turn out, but I was never drawn or gripped. There was little tension or suspense. I dare say the acting was under-dramatic. Bottom-line: The story is an interesting conversation starter, and offers much food for thought. Nevertheless, the acting was overly subdued and underwhelming.
Rating:
Summary: Strong idea story, but flat pacing
Review: I watched this movie several years ago, and saw it again yesterday, after having read several reviews here. At first glance, the movie may seem to be pro-choice and opposed to conservative religious political activism. Certainly, the author of the book, Atwood, might fall in those categories. Nevertheless, my second viewing in a different stage in my life, gave me a broader insight. This movie is more about freedom of conscience than it is about politics or religion. A previous reviewer pointed out that the national symbol of the Republic of Gilead (the theocratic state in which the story is situated) is more Masonic than Christian, and that the rebels are Baptists. Perhaps, these choices are due to Masonry's secretive nature and its male-only membership. Additionally, traditional Baptists opposed standardized creeds and centralized denominational polity. Ironically, the Handmaid's Tale message to religious people is quite similar to Jesus' approach--we are to win disciples, not conquer territories. Though the plot and themes of the story were most intriguing, the tempo of the story was flat. I was often curious about what would happen to characters, and how things would turn out, but I was never drawn or gripped. There was little tension or suspense. I dare say the acting was under-dramatic. Bottom-line: The story is an interesting conversation starter, and offers much food for thought. Nevertheless, the acting was overly subdued and underwhelming.
Rating: 
Summary: Okay Flick, From a Marxist-Feminist Point of View
Review: It was an okay film, in my opinion. I can see why lots of people like it, though. You need to have a certain socio-feminist perspective, really, to enjoy it. Overall, though, it's a polemic against those who espouse conservative and/or religious values.
Rating:
Summary: ENOUGH with the book everybody. jeezus...
Review: It's a good MOVIE. Apparently adapted from some book, but who cares?? We want to know about the MOVIE.
Rating: 
Summary: Wonderfully Spooky
Review: It's a spooky vision of the future ruled by a slightly-twisted religion. And yet, sometimes it seems perfectly possible -- it's a tale of corrupted power, women's rights (or lack thereof), and the struggle to find a better life. Read this book, and make sure it doesn't happen to us. END
Rating:
Summary: A really stunning work
Review: Religious extremism in America is the target of this tale. I think this film and the book show us what would happen if the Contract on America had been fully executed. I expect many people not to like this work because it drives home how powerless Christian women really are within the supposedly benevolent protection of their God. Dunaway makes a good canvas on which to display the anger of a woman trying to be a righteous and obedient Christian woman of Gilead and finding out it only makes her invisible and angry and powerless and filled with hate in the end. Many of the incidents and attitudes Atwood describes were copied from the Iranian revolution, and now the Taliban in Afghanistan is starting their own Republic of Gilead. This work is not as far-fetched as people think. In our past women have lost rights and gained them back many times. This is one of the more plausible sci-fi apocalypse films I have ever seen.
Rating:
Summary: Did they read the book!
Review: The book was full of action and suspense yet the film lacked all of this. The film lacked the feeling of opression and inner rebellion that offred experienced throughout the novel, and turned the ending into something like a trite romance movie, the same applies to her relationship with Nick. The regime of Gilead is barely addressed, and instead it seemed to concentrate on offred's relationship with men, changing the plot until it was barely recognizable, a dead Luke and Commander? Ruin the plot why don't you! However, Serena Joy (Faye Dunaway) gave a good performance in a totally new role independent of the book, as did the commander.
|
