The Handmaid's Tale (1990) User Reviews

Disappointing...

[Yvie81 · 5/10 · 26 April 2021]

I know I shouldn't be comparing this movie with the recent (superb) series but it's kind of hard not to when you've never seen this movie prior to the series. Anyway, I get you can't stuff everything into a 2 hour film, but unfortunately it still disappointed me. This movie just looked like a weak rehash of the book, with an open ending that is not satisfactory at all. I'm assuming they had a part 2 planned, but it just never happened. I'm guessing cause the movie wasn't received too well back then? Anyway, just to sum up what bothered me: the wives were all stereotypical 'older ladies', the men mostly too old as well (I mean, Robert Duvall was already 59 by the time this movie was released...he could have passed as a baby-grandfather instead of a baby-daddy!). There was hardly any chemistry between Kate (Offred) and Nick. I mean the first time they were alone together he pretty much jumped upon her with no introduction. He looked like just another pervert who was simply desperate to get laid to me! So their romance looked very forced.. Some scenes were seriously laughable, like the 'ceremony scenes'.... I didn't know men could have sex with their pants still on! Also the scene where Kate killed Fred with a knife...I just started laughing, it looked so silly and clumsy! And aunt Lydia was a miscast. She is supposed to be a harsh and strict lady. The woman cast for this role came across anything but that! And then there was this huge open ending like "I'm in the mountains now, pregnant and waiting....and that's all folks!" Anyway, I'm glad they remade this into a series with a perfect cast, great script and 100 times better acting performances! Just a few days left until season 4 of the series starts! :)

Very disturbing and depressing

[preppy-3 · 6/10 · 7 September 2009]

This is a nightmare vision of the future. It seems 1 out of every 100 women is fertile (for some reason). The ones who aren't perform slave labor. The ones that are are "sold" off to rich families where they have sex with the husband to produce a baby. Kate (the late and missed Natasha Richardson) is one such servant to Serena Joy (Faye Dunaway) and her husband the Commander (Robert Duvall). Kate wants out--but it seems there's no way.

The synopsis only scratches the surface of a VERY dark and disturbing movie. It slowly shows how women are treated and used and it just gets more horrifying as it unfolds. The parallels to Hitler's Nazi Germany are fairly obvious but here we have barren women instead of Jews and gays. The good acting by everybody makes this hard to shake off. Aidan Quinn (as Nick) and Duvall are OK; Victoria Tennant is chilling as a leader of the camps; Elizabeth McGovern is just great as a fellow prisoner who befriends Kate; Dunaway is also very good in her role. Best of all is Richardson. This couldn't have been an easy role but she pulls it off beautifully. She died at far too young an age. This is basically an unknown movie and it's easy to see why--it's far too dark and disturbing for a general audience. However the ending is (sort of) uplifting (and changed from the book). Grim, dark and depressing. View it at your own risk. The ceremony sequences are almost impossible to watch and shocked the hell out of me the first time I saw this.

This is why there's a separation of church and state

[princesssidhedomini · 6/10 · 1 June 2004]

This movie is about what can happen when religious nuts take over the country's government. People who are different are either killed or enslaved in one way or another. Let's see...we have murder and public display of anyone who isn't of the religion that took over....women who are fertile enslaved for religious higher-up's in the government...anyone who's different, and ISN'T killed enslaved in radioactive areas...makes you realize why people fight so hard against religion intruding into politics. Like the scholars from the future of this story who have a hard time believing it actually happened, despite hearing the story with their own ears, people nowadays don't believe that "people of God" in government would be so bad. Watch this movie and think on it. This is why there's a separation of church and state.

Not a bad movie, kind of slow at times though

[tex-42 · 15 October 2002]

This movie, based on Margaret Atwood's story, concerns a woman living in the not too distant future in the Republic of Gilead, a country that was once the United States. The country is now run by fundamentalist Christians who have demoted all women to a second class citizenship. Nuclear war has made most women infertile, so the government has forced all the fertile women to serve as handmaids and bear children for the leaders and their infertile wives as part of a biblical prophecy. The infertile women are sent off to toil as slaves and clean up nuclear waste. This movie concerns one handmaid, Offred (Kate) and her struggle to escape Gilead, find her daughter, and flee to Canada. Not a bad movie at all, all the actors do very well. The material just runs very slow at points, and the character's aren't all that well developed.

Chilling Parallels to modern-day societies

[majic-5 · 7/10 · 23 December 2005]

The point of this movie is not to advance a plot or develop characters. The point is to explain how a society like Gilead can come into being, and to provide a lens for viewing that dystopia — and what a chilling view that is.

The movie explores these major themes:

• Language as a tool of power

• Women's bodies as political instruments

• The complicity, explicit and implicit, of those who are oppressed in supporting totalitarianism

Given the limited time of a movie, A Handmaid's Tale does a remarkably good job of this exploration. As in Nazi society, the oppressed are given derogatory labels: Jews are referred to as "Sons of Jacob;" African-Americans are "Children of Ham,"; feminists are "unwomen." These labels separate them from the rest of society, thereby making it easier to persecute. The naming conventions of handmaids and the ritualized greetings they give each other reinforce their role in their society.

The other two themes are intertwined. There is no way the men of Gilead could control women's reproduction unless they give some bit of privilege to a select group of women, with their price for that privilege being to repress the majority of women. This strategy recalls the use of Jewish police by the Nazi Gestapo in WWII, and the use of "trustys" in modern prisons. The Wives and Aunts serve this function in Gilead, and Faye Dunaway, the Wife in the household in which Offred serves, gives a nuanced performance of a Wife. She is by turns indifferent and cruel to Offred, but shows subtle signs of deep unhappiness with her lot. She is also covertly subversive, willing to let the gardener impregnate Offred, when it becomes clear that her husband cannot, for the status that having a child conveys in Gilead.

Robert Duvall, as the Commander of the household, is the only major figure allowed any individuality, and he turns in a rich performance. Treating Offred like a favored slave, he reveals himself as both a misogynist, unable/unwilling to understand the suffocation of women that his society imposes, and as a lonely man, a victim of the rigid roles that his society requires.

Offred, played by Elizabeth McGovern, presented a bit of a problem for me. Portrayed as someone who is gradually surrendering to her circumstances, I was surprised by the change from her as melancholy and passive to someone who is lively and passionate, leading to a climactic act that seemed completely out of character. I learned that this development diverges from the source book on the which the movie is based. While I understand the desire for dramatic tension on the part of the filmmakers, Offred's continued passivity in the book makes a lot more sense.

Even with this flaw, the movie packed an emotional punch for me, given the parallels with the theocratic-leaning Bush administration and Nazi Germany. I suspect that the film's cautionary messages will resonate with many Americans.

Compelling - I may want to read the book

[vldazzle · 7/10 · 19 March 2009]

This world was more frightening than 1984, Brave New World or Mad Max! In a way it had issues raised but those (the Orwell and Huxley books I had read both in younger days and more recently). When I chose it out of a list of possible viewings last week, the title suggested something adapted from Chaucer, so I was not expecting this. I also only noted the recently departed actress in the cast at the end (I think it was a coincidence that Encore Love channel scheduled that). In spite of the negative comments that I see on the board, it is definitely worth watching! If it is not as good as the book (which 1984 and Brave New World were most assuredly not), then I may also check that out. The major players were well cast and although I don't care for so much violence, it was mostly all fitting to the plot. My only complaint was the opening where it is unclear where the family are or why they are at a border (entering or leaving) or even why they are being persecuted (although I saw that in a review by someone who read the book). I went on to watch "Genesis" (an Indie film with a much more calming effect)- also well worth the time to view it.

A good adaptation of a controversial book...

[theaz_man · 7/10 · 3 February 2005]

Although some would say it isn't anything on the book, it is still a fairly good film in its own right, apart from the dodgy 80's effects and music. Terminator anyone?!

In the film, a woman called Kate is stripped of her identity and forced to become a handmaid to an in-fertile woman in a right-wing, totalitarianism country, in order to re-populate the state. Some might find the scenes shocking, and I certainly did when I first saw them, but they are purposely included to show the nature of this brutally right-wing state, and hopefully stop it from ever happening...

A feminist version of '1984'? Possibly, but it's a lot deeper than that. It's a film about love, loss and redemption.

Dystopia

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 9 April 2009]

I haven't read Margaret Atwood's novel but judging from this movie version of it, I'd have to guess she dislikes social constraints, war, patriarchal societies, and religion.

It's the future, kind of, without much in the way of futuristic technology but a social order that amount to a projection of women's fantasies circa 1970. The Commander (Robert Duvall) rules the roost, and what a roost it is, and with what a codified pecking order. Toxic substances have so polluted our resources that 99 out of 100 women have been rendered sterile. The remaining fertile ones are put through a kind of Fascist Esalen Institute and have their collective consciousness raised. Like the rest of the community -- except for the Rebels who blow things up once in a while -- the school is based on the Old Testament and everyone goes around mouthing clichés like "may the Lord open." The more adaptable of the handmaids graduate and their wardrobe changes from scarlet to a rich blue. The ones who misbehave are punished. Slight infractions include such perversions as masturbation and they lead to the bastinado. More serious breaches of the code, such as fornication, lead to the noose. Sex is for procreation, not recreation. And the Commander has his choice of students whom he tries ad seriatim to impregnate. What he doesn't know is that while his chosen partners may be fertile, he's shooting blanks. The reason he doesn't know this is that men aren't tested, just women.

The plot is a little too crazy to describe in detail. The eponymous handmaid is Natasha Richardson, and she takes a lover on the side, Aidan Quinn. The Commander gets what's coming to him, I guess, and the film ends hopefully.

Wow, this story dates badly, gushing as it does from the same well as "The Stepford Wives." The difference is that "The Stepford Wives" was so ludicrous as to be funny. (Even the author, Ira Levin, joked about it.) This one takes itself seriously.

I don't know where to begin in trying to assess this. The only time this brainwashed student body can express anger is during public executions. There is a scene in which the red-robed young women of the school loose their pustular passion on some poor guy who's supposedly raped a woman. (Actually, "he's a political.") This horde of women descend on him like a pack of African wild dogs and literally rip his head off. It may be a little unlady-like but it happens. When the Mojave Indians waged war, they would stun their enemies and throw the bodies back to the women, where the victim would be systematically deboned and excoriated. And that's nothing, compared to my ex wife.

There are many different ways to impregnate a woman to insure the survival of the species but anything other than the old-fashioned way is abjured because the Bible doesn't have anything in it about modern technology. Natasha Richardson must put up with matter-of-fact couplings during her periods of ovulation, and she winds up cutting Duvall's throat, even though he's grown a little fond of her over the months. Not in LOVE with her. He's too insensitive for that. But fond of her in the way that we might be fond of a pet cat or dog.

There is a shot of black people being rounded up and hauled away by armed guards. And that scene reminded me of a popular essay from the late 1960s, passed from hand to hand, when everyone wanted Victim Power. It was written, I think, by some college student and entitled "The Student as N*****." Everyone wanted to be compared to blacks -- exploited, looked down upon, and generally held in contempt.

The movie reflects this desire for victimhood paradoxically. It rejects the exercise of power by endorsing the empowerment of women. Most "anti-war" movies are similarly configured. We can revel in the horrors our men and women undergo while winning the war and still leave the theater filled with jingoistic pride and ready to kick butt someplace else. Cecil B. DeMille was fond of demonstrating how disgusting decadence and sex were by showing us as much of it as he could.

The acting isn't bad, except for Victoria Tennant, who has never uttered a believable line in any of her films. Natasha Richardson is about perfect in the part of the victimized handmaid. She's been there before as Patty Hearst. And she fits the part -- petite, winsome, and thoughtful too. Elizabeth McGovern has the role of the requisite wise guy, secretly rebellious, earthy and full of common sense. Every prison story needs this character.

I don't really think, though, that men want to dominate women in the heartless way this film shows, though no doubt that men would like cooperative and, at times, compliant wives, just as women would like husbands who aren't ashamed to talk about relationships and weep. If nothing else, every human being, regardless of sex, has a mother and that fact must in some way shape our attitudes towards women in general. Atwood's paranoid vision is flawed, an obsession rather than a fully thought-out image of what we all are.

Still horrible 30 years later...

[bobkuhl · 4/10 · 21 February 2022]

Just a superficial treatment of Margaret Atwood's novel that strays so far from the book's storyline and with such a superficial shallow treatment as to make it virtually pointless. Wooden acting, horrible directing (i e. Women raking gravel and puttingg it back in bags? As if the director gave them rakes and shovels and said here do something. In good movies details matter, in this movie they don't).

Atwood's novel dealt less with the physical force (ie soldiers) and more with the rigid societal structure and its accompanying corruption and contradictions, and how those things, along with a gentle shove, led to its downfall. This movie has none of that and the similarly plotted Logan's Run contains more depth than this sloppy piece of doo doo.

excellent movie, if it weren't for the stiff acting

[alrk66-1 · 7/10 · 18 August 2002]

enjoyed it immensely, even if the book recieved EXTENSIVE rewrite to make the story line work. Acting by main actors was somewhat stilted and forced at times as if they weren't sure of how to do the part. overall, good movie, but a hard one to perform satisfactorily

unconvincing dystopian fable

[mjneu59 · 5/10 · 25 November 2010]

There's nothing subtle about this screen adaptation of Margaret Atwood's cautionary fable, but the premise is nothing if not provocative: in a repressive fundamentalist dictatorship (called Gilead, but ostensibly America in the near future) the few remaining fertile women are forced to bear children, in effect becoming sexual servants to the (male) powers-that-be. Gilead may be colored red, white and blue, but there's more than a passing resemblance to Orwell's Oceana; even the act of conception is reduced to a ritual, with the euphemism 'ceremony' doubling for intercourse. A talented cast does its best with Harold Pinter's typically inscrutable screenplay, but under Volker Schlondorff's dispassionate direction the film never achieves a convincing level of oppression or paranoia. Worse, it lacks a story to match its scenario; the handmaid Offred's redemption is achieved only with the help of another man, which seems to deflate the feminist slant. The final result is nowhere near a successful movie, but never less than a fascinating failure.

as good as commercial film gets

[realreel · 9/10 · 7 January 2003]

I'm surprised by some of the negative comments on this film. In my opinion, it represents the best kind of literary adaptation that the cinema offers: One in which the screenwriter and director clearly remained faithful to the spirit of the book without attempting to reproduce it. How can you go wrong with a Margaret Atwood book, a Harold Pinter screenplay and Volker Schlöndorff's direction? Some have suggested that the film suffered from "wooden" acting. Personally, I thought it was a fantastic cast: Robert Duvall and Victoria Tennant at their evil best; Faye Dunnaway as the "defeated" wife; Elizabeth McGovern as saucy as ever; Aidan Quinn and Natascha Richardson in the necessarily bland roles that drive the narrative. What holes here?

Commercial film doesn't get any better. "The Handmaid's Tale" is a dark portrait of a world unlike ours and yet so much like ours... in which a right-wing, bureaucratic patriarchy dominates the land. Women have three main functions (for which their clothing is color coded): Red for the handmaids, who are walking wombs; white for the innnocent children; blue for the sterile trophy wives. Brown is worn by the "aunts", a futuristic equivalent of the Sonderkomando (i.e., Jews who worked on behalf of the Nazi's in the death camps), evil schoolmistress types who both train/brainwash young women for assignment and occasionally destroy them. A fifth function, for which the garb is particularly interesting, is "working" in Gilead's underground social club (essentially a den of iniquity, rife with prostitution and drugs.) Point is... by splitting up these functions, hasn't Atwood described the basic roles that women play within our own male-dominated society, in various different permutations and combinations? To the patriarchy, women are mothers, models, sluts, angels and, when professionals, they are not to aspire to more teaching posts. In Gilead, the lines are clearer; in our own society, aren't most women "supposed to" play some combination of all of these roles?

I get the feeling that most moviegoers are looking for something else in "sci-fi." Here's a new plot twist: The rebels feed Kate some kind of medication that allows her to read the commander's mind while destroying his brain. Wait... that's "Scanners." Oops. Seriously, two of the reviews on this site made spedific mention of Schlöndorff's "horrible", "atrocious" directorial skills. Ahem. Perhaps before they weigh in on the auteur, they ought to see "Young Törless", "Coup de grâce", "The Tin Drum" and all of his other wonderful efforts. As a matter of fact, to insinuate that someone who could bring Grass' Tin Drum to the screen in such a stunning fashion is a lousy director is PREPOSTEROUS. Schlöndorff is a giant of the New German Cinema, and it underscores the ignorance of the Hollywooders when they cast such baseless aspersions.

harrowing world

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 30 August 2015]

In a world consumed by infertility, Kate (Natasha Richardson) is trying to escape the Republic of Gilead with her family. It's a totalitarian Christian state where fertile women are forced to conceive. The blacks, welfare, women's liberation and in vitro fertilization are among the things blamed for the world's problems. Kate and her daughter are captured while her husband is killed. Kate is made to be a handmaid trained by Aunt Lydia (Victoria Tennant). She befriends lesbian Moira (Elizabeth McGovern). She is placed with the commander (Robert Duvall) and given the new name Offred. She is ritualistically raped and expected to conceive for them. As he takes an interest in her, she fears retribution from his wife Serena Joy (Faye Dunaway). The commander is infertile and she falls for the help Nick (Aidan Quinn).

It's a harrowing world. The problem is trying to get a compelling story out of it. It's fine for the most part although the production design could be better. The last act needs an explosive ending. The movie decides on an actual explosion which does nothing for the tension. With its obvious restraints, the movie needs a less expensive and more intense final conflict. In my mind, she needs to also kill Serena Joy in an all out fight. Kate ends up waiting around for the men to save the world. It's not a terribly liberated ending.

Harold Pinter cheapens Atwood

[Mr. Frog · 5/10 · 24 March 1999]

An unfortunate movie which is definitely more like Harold Pinter's earlier plays than anything Margaret Atwood ever produced. No attempt is made to bring out Atwood's clever social message, and we're all supposed to be shocked at the sexual content. A shame, because Atwood's version might have made a good film.

great book but why did the creators decide to ruin this film?

[lorna_dunc · 26 May 2004]

I have just one point to make about this film, and that is why on earth did the director decided to name Offred kate. In the book, which I hope to god the producers etc actually read, there is no mention of the name kate what so ever, the only name that we could possibly guess would be June which is supplied to us in the first chapter but even then we never learn her real name. And this is of great significant importance, the fact that we as readers or viewers never learn her name means something and to simply choose a name out of a hat is destroying a piece of the character created for us by Margaret Attwood. Also reading the plot outline makes me wonder whether whoever wrote that even saw the film, especially where it says "Kate is a criminal, guilty of the crime of trying to escape from the US, and is sentenced to become a Handmaid." when really "KATE" becomes a handmaid as her husband was married once before and their marriage never really existed in the eyes of the law. Also i read on to see that "After ruthless group training by Serena Joy in the proper way to behave, Kate is assigned as Handmaid to the Commander." Well that is not at all true as anyone who has seen this film will notice that Serena Joy is the commanders wife and not one of the Aunts and the Red Centre. Please in the future get your facts right and also thanks to director Volker Schlöndorff for ruining a perfectly enjoyable book. My advice stick to the book and not the watered down version for the small minded.

The Future

[billcr12 · 7/10 · 14 June 2017]

Margaret Atwood's future is bleak. The world has deteriorated into a Combination of poisoned air and water and women are 99% infertile. The men in charge have developed an elaborate system for selecting those still able to produce children. Kate (Natasha Richardson) is captured attempting to escape to Canada and is forced to become a handmaiden, as in the Old Testament. The commander (Robert Duvall), is married to Serena (Faye Dunaway), who is too old to have children, and so Kate becomes a surrogate. A bizarre ritual follows, with the commander doing the deed with the handmaid resting between Serena's legs. The government has a school of sorts, where the women are brainwashed with constant religious and patriotic messages. The story is strongly influenced by both Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World. 1984 was written in 1948, and Atwood's book in 1985. Even though they have similar themes, Handmaid stands out as an accurate look at our current situation. The right to privacy has become a sick joke and we are sedated by reality television, with its mastermind now in charge. A truly frightening movie , one perfectly appropriate for our current times.

there are politicians who interpret this as a how-to manual

[lee_eisenberg · 6/10 · 24 January 2021]

Margaret Atwood's novel came to people's attention a few years ago with the release of a Hulu miniseries based on it. I've seen the miniseries but not read the book. I decided to check out the first adaptation of her portrayal of a theocratic future United States turning fertile women into sex slaves.

Volker Schlöndorff's version of "The Handmaid's Tale" depicts Gilead's ruling class as more jovial than does the miniseries; this makes their evil deeds more insidious. If you've seen the miniseries - which has apparently extended past what the novel depicts - then you'll know what to expect here, as Offred (Natasha Richardson) gets raped by the Commander (Robert Duvall) while Serena (Faye Dunaway) lies behind her to experience the supposed pleasure. There's no shortage of "praise be" and "blessed be the fruit", while LGBT people get persecuted for "gender treason". Obviously the action is more condensed due to the time constraint; scary stuff nonetheless.

If the movie seems flat, well...it's no flatter than the miniseries. I've seen far worse. I hope to eventually read the book. In addition to the aforementioned cast members, there's also Elizabeth McGovern, Aidan Quinn, Blanche Baker (Carroll Baker's daughter), Victoria Tennant (Steve Martin's ex who co-starred with him in "All of Me" and "L.A. Story") and Muse Watson (the killer in "I Know What You Did Last Summer").

A horrifying dystopia vision from Atwood's novel

[swilliky · 6/10 · 15 June 2017]

Margaret Atwood's nightmarish Gilead was first brought to the screen in 1990. Kate (Natasha Richardson) is introduced on the run trying to escape across the border of Gilead but she is caught. Her husband is shot and her child is lost in the wilderness. She is shipped off to a camp where they are sorting through the people by race. Trucks of people are shipped away as women proved to be without illness and viable for pregnancy are sent to conditioning. Many women suffer breakdowns during the harsh treatment as the vicious tutors like Aunt Lydia (Victoria Tennant) degrade them in order to convert them to their new lifestyle.

Once Kate shows good behavior, she is presented to the family as a potential surrogate. She will assist Serena Joy (Faye Dunaway) and the Commander (Robert Duvall) by allowing her body be used to have a baby. This forced surrogacy occurs in an odd ceremony where the wife hold the handmaid down while the husband has sex with her. The Commander takes a liking to Kate, now Offred, and plays games with her in his private office, also rewarding her with old beauty magazines. Dressed in a red uniform and a veil, Offred is allowed to go shopping amidst security guards who scan her security bracelet and a fellow handmaid Ofglen (Blanche Baker).

Check out more of this review and others at swilliky.com

Nothing like the TV series in some good ways

[malpasc-391-915380 · 6/10 · 30 December 2023]

We all know the TV series goes WAY past the book in terms of storyline, whilst this 1990 version gets to about the same point as the book but the ending is slightly more "hopeful" if one can be happier with the world of Gilead, which anyone in their right mind cannot be.

The premise is the same - after a civil war the former United States has been taken over and is now governed as a theocracy based on the Old Testament. Women no longer have a status in Gilead other than to be wives and servants essentially.

It starts pretty much like the TV series but this time the protagonist is called Kate rather than June and is again caught trying to escape to the border with her husband and daughter. We don't see them again and Kate being found to be one of the 1 in 100 women in this world who is still fertile, is sentenced to work as a Handmaid.

This film goes through the process of her being forced into this role very quickly, going from the Red Centre to being assigned to her commander and his wife Serena Joy. In a way it's good that this happens quickly as we are spared a lot of the brutality shown to these "fallen" women as depicted in the TV series.

Whilst in the TV series Serena Joy is shown to be as nasty as the men in many ways, her character in the movie played by Faye Dunaway is almost sympathetic - more neurotic and anxious as opposed to cold and vicious in terms of trying to have a baby via Kate (now Offred) and her fertile womb. Again we are spared a lot of the brutality on screen, though of course ritualised rape is still rape and we do see a small scene depicting the "ceremony".

Kate/Offred in the film also doesn't seem to be as affected or traumatised by what has happened to her compared to the TV series. Yes she's angry and only wants to get back to her daughter and husband, but doesn't seem to be so almost completely hypnotically angry as she is played in the show. This is probably a mix of the script and how Natasha Richardson interpreted the character for the film. Kate here in some scenes especially with the commander almost seems to be happy and though not equal to him in status, talks to him almost like an equal. Trauma can have profound effects on people.

Visually this film is totally different too. Whilst Gilead in the TV show is dark, often raining and cold, Gilead here is almost like a twisted version of Stepford - very brightly lit, mostly sunny, and the costumes of the women almost match this look. It's actually visually very striking and something I really quite liked as it is so different to what I've known about this story due to the TV series.

The downsides to the film are generally that everything happens incredibly quickly and a lot of the awful world of Gilead is almost completely skirted over and very much implied rather than seen. Obviously this happens because of time limitations - you can't have the same level of exposition in a 100 minute film that you would expect in a TV show that is about to have its 6th and final season. What happens to Offred with Chauffeur Nick happens very quickly and seems to be over almost as soon as it began. In many ways the speed of the story in the film works favourably because we are spared a lot of the awful things depicted in the TV show. In fact the TV show is so slow as to be glacial and seems to relish focusing on the misery rather than moving the story forwards, especially in the first 3 seasons or so.

When the ending of the film comes it again happens very quickly and again doesn't take the same ending as the book, giving it in a way a much more final style.

To sum up for me, I quite liked this film. Obviously it's depicting a world most of us never want to see or experience ourselves, with women subjugated and subject to incredibly awful things, but for me as a piece of work this film has a lot to like in terms of visuals, there is almost some dark humour at times, and it goes along at a pace, whereas the TV show I have always said is something to be endured rather than enjoyed.

I'm glad I've watched this.

It portends to be deep and meaningful...not a blockbuster

[moonspinner55 · 5/10 · 13 April 2008]

Margaret Atwood's acclaimed novel, adapted for the screen and turned into a high-minded but posed, uncomfortable human drama, despite an expert cast. Taking place in the soulless distant future, all young women have been turned into child-breeders for wealthy, infertile couples, with Natasha Richardson assigned to nightmarish twosome Robert Duvall and Faye Dunaway. Elizabeth McGovern plays a lesbian who hopes to make a break for it (every totalitarian society should have one). Certainly watchable, though an icy cold presentation which promises to be much more than it is. Richardson doesn't flash a hint of her feisty personality, though McGovern is very good and Duvall does what he can with a terrible role. ** from ****

A steak dinner, with the steak removed.

[kimdino-1 · 3/10 · 5 June 2019]

Attwoods novel truly is one of the alltime great novels, illustrating that a populist movement can easily take over a democratic nation and enslave its people. She also shows that the USA could easily fall into that trap, it is only the peoples vigilance in monitoring political motives that keeps it safe. It is this EXTREMELY valuable lesson that makes the novel great.

Those who know the novel will already know the the real meat of the story lies in the final chapter. Offred is shown to be a relative nonenity, just of of many as she disappears leaving behind only diary to be discovered years later. It is the analysis of this story that is the real meat of the book. How corrupt powermongers use religion and fear to bamboozle populations into supporting their takeover, and enslavement. And nothing of the mass murders. And of how the USA could easily fall into this trap.

This films hardly tries to do justice. It just shows Offreds story trimmed of anything worthwhile. If this is your thing, then there is plenty of better versions out there. I offer 'A Thousand Splendid Suns' & 'The Diary of Anne Frank' as examples. Both based on real situations where populist movements turned a democracy into a monstrous dictatorship. Or even READ Attwoods novel. But don't bother with this crap.

This film is not about adoption...

[John Bethea · 9/10 · 21 July 2003]

To whomever it is that wrote the comment that this is an excellent film portraying an alternative form of adoption, you've totally missed the boat. This film is about class warfare and sexual slavery. It is about the degradation of humanity and the rich over the hungry and weak. If this is one of your favorite films, you like it for all the wrong reasons.

This movie needed a director

[finley_58 · 4/10 · 29 September 2005]

This movie is a disappointment, on the whole. Robert Duvall and Faye Dunaway certainly help, but the acting, filming, and directing are generally amateurish. Elizabeth McGovern clearly is an actress who has (had?) possibilities, but she obviously needs good direction. It is a shame that this novel could not be better represented on film, as it is topical and becomes more so even in the year 2005, with the debates raging about separation of church and state and the power of the Christian Right in politics. Also, I think that more could be made of the scenes at "The Red Center." In Atwood's novel, much of the rationale for the establishment of this theocratic dystopia is given in the episodes of the novel where Offred is "trained" to be a Handmaid, but the film treats these scenes - and the characters of the "aunts" - in a ham-handed and clumsy way and, as a result, the movie's version of the story is bereft of some of its foundation.

Intriguing and downright scary!

[grendelkhan · 12 March 2004]

This film was marketed, somewhat, as a sci-fi film (mainly due to the speculative nature of its society); but, in my opinion, it's more horrific than anything from Stephen King. Imagine a society ruled by a totalitarian theocracy, and a patriarchal one at that. Women have been reduced to subservient roles and minorities have been removed. Environmental matters and social upheaval have left a large portion of the controlling population sterile. To counteract this, fertile women are forced to become "handmaids", breeding stock for those in power (justified by a small passage from Genesis). What really makes this premise scary, is that it represents ideas pushed by some fundamentalist groups within this society. Also, there is enough twisted logic to almost make it seem benign; but, that is always the way with fascists.

Spoilers: Natasha Richardson plays Kate, a former librarian who tries to flee this repressive state with her family. They are caught at the border, where her husband is shot and killed and she becomes separated from her daughter. She is then transported to a holding facility where she is subjected to indoctrination, prior to being placed in the home of one of the society elites. Richardson is rather low key throughout the film. She never really seems to generate much emotion, even when asking about her missing daughter. Normally this would be a problem, but it works within this sterile society. Perhaps she has been so brutalized by this society, she has lost touch with her emotions. In other roles, this lack of emotional range has hindered Richardson; here, it is an asset.

Faye Dunaway is chilling as Serena Joy. She is cold, calculating and ruthless, which Dunaway is an expert at portraying. She is lost in this society, where her identity entirely revolves around her role as the Commander's wife, when she once held celebrity status. She no longer has any emotional connection to her husband, and thinks a child will change that. She doesn't even care if the child is fathered by her husband, just so long as it exists.

Victoria Tennant is even scarier. As Aunt Lyddia, she exudes a calm demeanor as she spouts a twisted ideology. She becomes even more terrifying as a psychotic gleam enters her eyes; like when she spreads the lies that the political prisoner, who is murdered by the mob of handmaids, was a rapist and murderer. Tennant conveys so much menace with a look. She is easily Dunaway's equal in the villainy department and a highly under-utilized actress.

Elizabeth McGovern is Moira, a lesbian who befriends Kate at the indoctrination center. She is smart and sassy and it's her intelligence, not her sexuality that presents a threat to this society. She is able to counteract their indoctrination and, briefly, escape her fate. She ultimately ends up as a prostitute in a secret brothel. The very nature of this brothel exposes the religious hypocrisy of this society.

Finally, Robert Duvall is the Commander, one of the leaders of this state. At first, he almost seems like a kind, decent man. He tries to befriend Kate and takes pleasure in her intelligence. It's only when you see him try to justify his role in this society and the actions that were take to create it, that you begin to see what a little man he is. He is like so many figures within fascist states: failures in their previous endeavors who take out their frustrations on others in weaker positions. Despite his superior position in society, the true power of the family is Serena Joy. He lives in fear of her and probably acted initially at her urging.

The other male character of consequence is Aidan Quinn, as Nick, the Commander's driver. He is a more positive male figure, one who loves Kate and, ultimately, helps her escape. He is a rebel, living undercover, who is trying to tear down this society. The question that is left open is whether he was always in league with the rebels, or only sought them out after falling in love with Kate. Quinn is fairly emotionless throughout; but, again, it works within the context of this society. He is probably the weakest of the cast, though.

I haven't read the novel, although I have skimmed through it. While the film may not be wholly faithful to the novel, it does capture the spirit and themes of the book. I saw the film first, attracted by the alternate world scenario. When I looked through the book, I discovered the concept of the handmaid's names. In the film, hearing Kate being called "Offred" didn't register in my brain as "Of Fred", meaning she was his property. It sounded like a weird name in a strange society, not unlike the names slaves were given in the South, or one that would be given to a pet. That alone illustrates how chilling this society is: that they can present an evil idea in such a way as you don't connect the evil to the idea.

Ultimately, this is a flawed film, but one that succeeds in conveying its ideas. I shudder to think how this would have been done with an American director and a Hollywood studio production. It clearly illustrates the dangers of fundamentalism and the stagnating force of totalitarian regimes.

classic novel, great acting, terrible film

[rakabak · 4/10 · 8 August 2010]

The story is from the book and is what it is - I happen to like it very much. Some seem to think the story is ridiculous, over the top, irrelevant - I happen to disagree but I still say the movie is a serious disappointment as a film.

With the exception of the cast, which of course a book doesn't have, everything that's great about the movie is derived from the book, and everything that's terrible about the movie is the film's own. Some have commented on the vibrant colors of the womens' caste clothing - red, blue, white - the veils, the crowd scenes - these are Atwood's creation, clearly described and strongly symbolic throughout the novel. Actually, the cinematography doesn't make any specific use of these elements at all - the elements just exist as described in the book, and the meaning is actually reduced in the film as compared to the book. For example, whereas the book repeats motifs such as the bodies swaying over the archway, and makes them meaningful, the camera glances over these elements once only and reduces them to a vague element that's basically been checked off the list of items to be adhered to. Another example is the Salvaging scene - the book makes it clear that the venue is re-purposed from a cultural facility, a place with meaning to Offred. The scene is massive, the emotion is throbbing, the pressure is overwhelming. The film reduces this scene to a cheap little temporary grandstand next to a forgotten courtyard and about thirty individualized handmaids - not the herd of emotional, blindly following women described so effectively by Atwood.

That Salvaging scene is also an example of how the film defuses at every turn any potential for character development and emotional tension. In the book, Offred doesn't know Ofglen, doesn't trust the situation even when she begins to think that Ofglen might be making overtures, always feels afraid of giving away her inner state before this other red-veiled woman - until the Salvaging scene. When the man is beaten by the women, Ofglen leaps into the fray and knocks the man unconscious. Offred is shocked and taken aback, until Ofglen explains extremely quietly (not overtly as in the film) that he was a political. The book makes it clear that women have been turned against one another by this regime, anyone could be a secret agent or a true believer, everyone is isolated from each other. The film on the other hand shows Offred making allies everywhere she goes, and this simply isn't true to the book's premise. The Martha (the caste name for female servants) isn't particularly friendly, Nick is an ambiguous figure, Serena Joy is rather crazier and more unpredictable than her role on screen.

Those are just a few examples of the degradation of the story in this film adaptation. If you haven't yet read the book, the story in the film might still be strong enough to watch, and I think it's a useful and interesting story overall, so I wouldn't advise against watching the film - but be warned, the cinematography and set design is just about as boring as it could possibly be. Camera angles - nonexistent. Depth of field - rotten. Mood - tolerable but less dynamic and compelling than it could have been, by a wide margin.

The story arc and the editing were also extremely bland, and the sad thing here is, if the direction had simply adhered to Atwood's style, which used flashbacks at Offred's times of emotional stress to develop the back story, the film could have been a ground-breaker. If Offred hadn't been tarted up with her open jacket and her exposed hair, the contrast between her mandated outward state and her conflicted inner states could have come through more strongly. If the house and her room had as forbidding as in the novel - her actions and resources curtailed in order to prevent another suicide and to keep her under control - the film might have captured some of the book's power.

There were even allusions made in the screenplay that started to follow the novel's depth but then weren't followed up on, such as the novel's reference to the prior Handmaiden's suicide and Offred's subsequent inspection of her room for avenues of self-destruction, or the tentative overtures Ofglen made to Offred by using the words "May Day", and how this overture might have backfired on Offred when she attempted to use it later with the new Ofglen. What a disappointment the film was in this respect.

Taken all in all, the film just began to seem lazy.

And yet, the novel is a solid work of literature and it can't be easy to turn a work of internal drama into a visual form while retaining subtlety and staying faithful to the entire plot. Even so, the film wasted a lot of time on plot elements that didn't even exist in the book. Spending so many frames on the border scene, with multiple flashbacks to her child's wanderings, when these weren't even part of the original story and many other flashbacks didn't make it in - this seems like a serious error to me.

The actors were very good. I can't fault any of them. They were all entirely believable. The adaptation just wasn't as rich as the novel, nor as rich as many movies manage to be.

If for example a friend wanted to see the movie, I would watch it again. It's not terribly torturous, it's just rather tedious and it does the novel a disservice. It doesn't make use of the unique power of the camera to tell a story. While the story will remain a classic, the film adds nothing to it.