I love this movie so much

Fantastic!

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

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

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.

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.

A number of others have noted that the book, film and all associated with it indulged in a series of cheap shots against America and its Christian culture. That is absolutely true. The author, who had visited Afganistan and was aware that her distopia was a close cousin to Islamic society as it actually exists. All concerned didn't have the guts to state the obvious connections between the nightmare world of the Handmaid's Tale and Islam. They would rather imagine that the country that has consistently given the greatest gifts of liberty, opportunity and bountiful living to many -- including women -- would somehow turn into a nightmare landscape ruled by the imaginary right. Oh but wait. It is inching there as we watch but it is the ever deceitful left that is dragging us and it is dragging us all and instead of a land in which some women wail and cry, it is for all of us to weep. This movie is a reminder that beating up on America is easy and noticing that there are real distopias where women face death every day could end in a knifing in the streets of Europe.