Rating: 
Summary: FRIGHTNING, EXCELLENT, COMPELLING- A MUST!
Review: 'The Handmaids Tale' is a very god film/ a definite favourite of mine. I really like this film, and find the events that take place very interesting/ compelling and damn right scary if it were to really happen in the near future. Natasha Richardson is excellent in the lead. All the actors were well casted, and I love Traci Lin's small part in the film who's always a favourite of mine. I absoluely recommend this film to anyone that is curious and/or interested in this film.
By Justine Ryan
Rating: 
Summary: An Insult to Margaret Atwood.
Review: A cheesy, thoughtless rendition of one of my favorite books. The book contains some of the most beautiful narrative told in Atwood's unmistakable prose... the movie replaces ALL of her work with this with some talentless hollywood hack's shallow after-school-special dialog... and that's just the tip of the iceberg. I'd recommend "Volcano" before I'd recommend this trash.
Rating: 
Summary: Strange Things Afoot
Review: A very strange visionary tale that I believe suffers in adaptation from book to the silver screen, THE HANDMAID'S TALE does boast a very solid performance from an exuberant Natasha Richardson and an unusually stoic Robert Duvall. While I'm not exactly certain whether or not the point of the picture is made as soundly as it could be, the theme of genetic perfection is often times handled all too delicately on film. That said, the films does contain the pivotal scene of attempted conception, with Duvall and Richardson doing the nasty, while Duvall's wife aids somewhat in the process; this single scene, filmed in almost a basic documentary style and void of passion, stays with the average viewer long after the picture fades.
Rating: 
Summary: This movie is downright scary
Review: Although the movie was made in 1990 (and the book to the movie was written in 1985) I was absolutely spooked by this movie. I have been really concerned about fundamentalism, and theocratic regimes, like the Taliban or Iran. Also I've been very concerned about Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition who also have similar theocratic tendencies. The movie is a theory on what would happen if America was under a Christian theocracy, and the results would be something like this film. Back in 1990, the Christian Coalition was a very new organizaion (Robertson founded it in the previous year in 1989 when he lost his bid for President in 1988), and there were several repressive Islamic countries in the Middle East, like Iran and Saudi Arabia who had little concern over women's rights. In the Handmaid's Tale, the film depicted America that looked scarily like a Christian version of Taliban-ran Afghanistan, even though the Taliban didn't rise to power until another six years or so later. Women were required to wear what looks eerily like a veil or burqa. But the movie was set in the far future when pollution had rendered a better portion of the population sterile, so when a woman gave birth to a child, the public watched, since it was such a rare sight. I was also very disturbed over the execution scene just because that person violated something society deemed as "immoral". I have not read the book, but it's said to be better than the movie (it always seems that the movie adaptation of books are never as good as the books themselves). Handmaid's Tale is scary because it seems almost too accurate on what a theocratic regime might look like in America. It's not that hard to figure out, given what Afghanistan went through under the Taliban, or countless other countries in the Middle East under theocracy. This movie proves that a Christian theocracy is just as dangerous and repressive as an Islamic theocracy. My biggest complaint of the film is some really slow and drawn out parts that seem unnecessary.
Rating:
Summary: Visually flat, despite the interesting story.
Review: As can be seen in the other reviews, this is an adaptation (though some prefer the word mutilation) of the novel by Margaret Atwood. Issues of gender, religious "fundamentalism", and personal freedom/autonomy play a large part in constructing the film. Moreover, post-apocalyptic themes (the prominent role of procreation, for example) mingle with authoritarian/big-brother ones, creating a rather compelling and apt atmosphere in our own controversial times (though the book was published in 1986 and the movie was released in 1990).
In terms of the film itself, as I mentioned before, it is visually flat. Scenes are industrial and muted (black and gray cars; desolate, industrial scenes, and a shunning of panaromic shots), contrasting with the garb of the women (blue for the wealthy wives, red for the handmaids). There are only a few shots that bring any depth to the film, with a result that the color scheme seems overused and pedestrian.
The acting is good, with Duvall bringing some complexity to his character. Unfortunately, Natasha Richardson doesn't bring much to her character, only shining periodically through the film. She seems neither overwhelmed nor angered by what is happening to her in the story. While there are excellent scenes by all of the actors and actresses, there just don't seem to be enough of them.
For myself, the real value of the film is not the cinematography or the acting, but the ways in which it makes one consider the present and the future. Basically, does this movie portray a future that is possible, and what would lead to such a possibility? Any mediocrity of the film adaptation seems (to me) to be lifted via the power of Margaret Atwood's original novel.
Rating: 
Summary: Read it!
Review: Don't judge a book by it's movie!...For the film, the book was contorted into a chronological sequence. Also, the film's Offred has more of her wits about her than the book (whose Offred clings to her right mind whenever she can manage), loosing the romance of the book heroine piecing together the remnants of her story. And yet it's still a movie that doesn't digest so easily-the film is quite haunting, actually, if a little campy.
This film is over ten years old. Call it a cult classic!
Rating:
Summary: THE HANDMAID'S TALE
Review: Great movie---but need to read the book to keep pace. Loved both the book and the movie.
Rating:
Summary: disappointing in comparison to the novel
Review: Having read the book, the film was a bit of a let down for me. It loses the seriousness of the themes it conveys by over-glamourizing the situation. In my opinion, it used more artistic licence than should be allowed, and even had major changes which undermined the whole concept of Offred NOT being a heroine, and lost the ambiguity of the ending. Whilst interesting for someone not already acquainted with The Handmaid's Tale, if you already know Margaret Atwood's novel you will be disappointed. I would reccommend reading the text to anyone who has watched the film and wants a deeper representation.
Rating:
Summary: Makes you think
Review: I feel that a book is not only rated by its entertainment merit but also by the amount the it affects you and makes you think about it after. For those that catch the point and interesting ideas in The Handmaid's Tale, I'm sure will agree that it made you think. It was a warped book filled with many different, yet interesting ideas. END
Rating:
Summary: Very poor adaptation of an excellent novel...
Review: I first read Margaret Atwood's book The Handmaid's Tale for a women's studies course at my local community college and I enjoyed it very much. It is a very important work, much in the same vein as Orwell's "1984," but more hopeful, and told from the perspective of a woman. However, the movie was a huge disappointment and loses much of Atwood's message.A quick overview of the story: Offred is a Handmaid in a futuristic, dystopian society known as Gilead. The birthrate in Gilead is very low due to severe toxic pollution, and so the remaining fertile women are selected to be Handmaids whose sole purpose is to become pregnant by the upper class men (called Commanders). As soon as they provide their Commander with a child, they are packed off to another household to do it all again. If they are ever unable to bear more children, they will more than likely be labeled "Unwomen" and shipped away to a work colony to die. Handmaids are not allowed to read, and can only leave the house with permission. The book consists mostly of Offred's thoughts about her former life and her current position. There are hints of a resistance movement, but no one in this world can ever be sure that anyone else is trustworthy. Offred does not know what is real, or what is safe, and lives in constant fear. The regime has made it illegal for a man to be termed infertile, so if a Handmaid has no children, it is blamed on her without question. Offred's Commander is obviously incapable of fathering children, and she faces relocation to the colonies if she does not conceive. As her time runs out, the suspense builds to a crescendo of urgency and terror. The film does not capture the full horror of the world Offred, the story's main character, lives in. In the movie she appears to have almost unrestricted freedom of movement, able to wander about the house and even leave it without permission (for example, she just trots off to the Red Center one day and spends the night - this never happened in the original story), whereas in the book she was monitored constantly. There is also absolutely no reference to the Handmaids not being allowed to read, so a viewer that has not read the book would likely wonder at the significance of the scene where the Commander presents Offred with a magazine as a gift. Offred also smiles quite often in the movie, and there are no allusions to her frequent thoughts of suicide, which are readily apparent in the novel. My biggest disappointment with the movie, however, was the altered ending. Atwood's book leaves us wondering, and actually gives the reader the task of creating the end of the story themself through the way they choose to live their life. The movie, however, provides us with a very neat, tidy, pretty little ending that allows the viewer to forget all about the characters without a twinge of conscience - they're obviously ok, right? So what's that got to do with my life? The movie ending does nothing to make the viewer think or realize that if we aren't careful right here and now in our own lives, everything might not turn out so prettily. There is no lesson, or moral to the story, when Atwood very plainly intended for her work to pack a real punch. I really don't think the novel is even a good candidate for adaptation into a movie, because the book is very slow, centering mostly around Offred's thoughts. She cannot do much, so most of the time she just sits in her room, and it is her contemplations during this time that make up the bulk of the writing. It would be very hard to accurately represent the novel in film without making the movie boring. The director of this film obviously realized this and so he spiced it up and tried to make it into an action movie. It just doesn't work. To make matters worse, the acting in the film is very wooden. Natasha Richardson, who plays the main character, is particularly unconvincing. It is hard to feel for the characters because they just don't seem real. The whole atmosphere of the film is stiff and unnatural. Nevertheless, before I close, I would like to point out the few things I actually did like about the movie (and hence why I'm giving it two stars rather than just one): The scene depicting the monthly "ceremony" is particularly moving. It is rather hard to watch, but I believe it really captures the event as described in the novel. I particularly liked the fact that the camera focuses for a moment on Serena Joy at the end of the scene, showing her emotions as the Wife - something we don't get so much of in the novel. The movie also does a good job of showing the relationship between Offred and the Commander. The viewer can easily see that the Commander sees Offred as a pet - something fun to play with and indulge, but nothing he really cares about. She is like a toy for him, and one that can easily be replaced, just as Offred has replaced the Handmaid before her. Overall, though, I would not recommend this movie to anyone. It just doesn't convey the message that Atwood intended, and it's not even very entertaining in and of itself. Read the book instead. You'll get so much more out of it.
|
