The Handmaid's Tale | | Cast : | Natasha Richardson, Faye Dunaway | | Director : | Volker Schlöndorff | | Studio : | Mgm/Ua Studios | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Widescreen | | Released Date : | March 09, 1990 | | DVD Released Date : | December 11, 2001 | | Language : | French (Subtitled), English (Dubbed), English (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled), English (Original Language) | | Audience Rating : | R (Restricted) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | August 07, 2005 | | Summary | Good re-mastering of original | Content
 | The DVD was a good remastering of the original movie which I saw some year's ago. Movie presents a portrait of a totalitarian society where most women have lost the ability to reproduce. |
| Rating | | | Date | May 03, 2005 | | Summary | Overwrought tripe. | Content
| The Handmaid's Tale spins a limply dystopian tale projecting the horrors that would come about were a misogynist Christian cult to rule the country. Although the concept of widespread infertility due to pollution and the resulting enslavement of fertile women is intriguing, this movie really fails to capitalize on the possibilities. Rather than explore the Orwellian experience of fear and isolation, the viewer is fed a depressing load of leftist propaganda about the dangers of people who own a Bible. Strong acting and a captivating story may have been able to distract from the impression that you're watching a commercial for Planned Parenthood, but sadly the film has neither of these. Instead, we're treated to (read: asked to endure) an acting performance from Natasha Richardson the caliber of which hasn't been seen since I got rid of my Darth Vader carboard stand-up in college.
The end result of your 2 hour investment are the life-changing realizations that men are bad, Christians are bad, and Robert Duvall has been in some movies of really shaky quality. For some top-notch Duvall, see Secondhand Lions, Apocalypse Now, or the Godfather instead. As for Ms. Richardson, the best you can do is probably the Parent Trap remake. |
| Rating | | | Date | March 11, 2005 | | Summary | good movie | Content
| I saw the movie years before I read the book. I really enjoyed the movie because I felt that it dealt with important suject matter. In current times, the events described could happen almost overnight given the right circumstances. True, the acting is a little soft or dumbed down than hoped for, but what do you expect from a movie directed, produced, designed, edited entirely by men. It is still a powerful and moving film worth exploring. I hope to someday see a re-make done by women with more attention to the emotional side of the story. The book spends much more time exploring this matter and has become one of my favorites. However, I must say I liked the ending of the movie more than I liked the ending of the book. I personally liked the inspiration and hope that the ending left me with, to the wondering and worrying desperation that the book left me feeling. I reccommend seeing the movie first, then reading the book. I think if I had read the book first, the movies lessened focus on the emotional aspects would have made me like it less, but it is still better than most movies I've seen lately. |
| Rating | | | Date | February 23, 2005 | | Summary | EXCELLENT FILM! | Content
| I first saw this movie on cable because I'm a big fan of actress Traci Lin, so I taped this movie on that basis first... Once I watched it, I instantly fell in love with this film. It's really an amazing film. Very interesting and scary to think what if this actually happened in today's society. It's fascinating to think about. I'm currently reading the book and they both are excellent. Natasha Richardson is just wonderful, I'm forever a fan of her work after this role, Elizabeth MaGovern is classic, these two characters made me feel something, and I love when a movie effects me in that way.
A real recommendation. I think children in schools should be watching this film.
|
| Rating | | | Date | December 31, 2004 | | Summary | book/film arguement again, and lecturer ooo get you!!! | Content
| 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 |
|
Picture 01 (20)
