It took a long time for me to get into this movie. But I stuck with it because there was nothing else on. I am glad I did, because after about 45 minutes I was intrigued, and then I found myself wanting to know what would happen next. Parts of the movie were predictable, even the ending was in a way. But there was a nice twist when something I expected to happen didn't happen. I still don't understand why the women did what they did, and we will be talking about it for a while. Which makes a good movie in the long run. That said, I doubt I will watch it again. I found the acting wooden in places, the direction rather staid, and the cinematography uninspired. But then, as a made for TV movie, it won't be expected to win any awards.
16 Reviews
Clever, well acted and produced but curiously uninvolving
simonize-122 January 2007
I found myself comparing this to another psychological thriller I had seen recently - CACHE aka HIDDEN - much to the disadvantage of THE ROBBER BRIDE.
The film begins with a scene that makes the viewer expect an investigation a la CSI. Instead it is a single individual investigating a team of trio of women for the possible murder of a woman they all knew in their university years. John's character and personality seems to disappear as we learn more about Zenia the possible woman and the women, Charis, Roz and Tony.
None of the latter women engendered any of my sympathy, though the story argues (or does it?) that all three have been victimized by Zenia, who unerringly detects how best and how deeply the three can be hurt.
I found the choice of Mary-Louise Parker interesting in that she resembled a younger, more feminine Margaret Atwood.
I imagine that I missed a considerable amount of subtext because I have not read much Atwood, and as this is a fairly recent work, it very likely reiterates themes that she finds important.
I edited the commercials out of the film, and was left with slightly less than 89 minutes; so I must applaud those who sat through the live broadcast of THE ROBBER BRIDE, often enduring lengthy 4 minute or longer commercial - I found it incredibly annoying to fight off the numerous pop ups, usually for forthcoming programming, to the extent that I couldn't read or digest the all important closing credits!
The film begins with a scene that makes the viewer expect an investigation a la CSI. Instead it is a single individual investigating a team of trio of women for the possible murder of a woman they all knew in their university years. John's character and personality seems to disappear as we learn more about Zenia the possible woman and the women, Charis, Roz and Tony.
None of the latter women engendered any of my sympathy, though the story argues (or does it?) that all three have been victimized by Zenia, who unerringly detects how best and how deeply the three can be hurt.
I found the choice of Mary-Louise Parker interesting in that she resembled a younger, more feminine Margaret Atwood.
I imagine that I missed a considerable amount of subtext because I have not read much Atwood, and as this is a fairly recent work, it very likely reiterates themes that she finds important.
I edited the commercials out of the film, and was left with slightly less than 89 minutes; so I must applaud those who sat through the live broadcast of THE ROBBER BRIDE, often enduring lengthy 4 minute or longer commercial - I found it incredibly annoying to fight off the numerous pop ups, usually for forthcoming programming, to the extent that I couldn't read or digest the all important closing credits!
TV movie turns Margaret Atwood's comic novel into comic thriller
john_cberry22 January 2007
Margaret Atwood novels have not fared well as movies because she is far more interested in ideas than stories. The Handmaid's Tale had such powerful ideas it wasn't surprising the movie version disappointed. I'm not sure if Atwood was trying to write a comic novel when she wrote Robber Bride or trying to get as close as she could to a mystery novel. As with so many of her efforts, she wasn't successful at either, but the quality of her work makes reading her worthwhile anyway. CBC was pretty daring even to try to turn the novel into a TV movie. They chose the easy way out and turned it into a comic thriller. It works as well as other comic thrillers, better than the recent CTV adaptations of detective novels. It is the acting by Mary-Louise Parker, Amanda Root and others which earned it an above-average rating for me. Maybe with more money they could have turned it into a good cinema film.
A slight to Margaret Atwood and women everywhere
untitledfilmstill75 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
When I saw that Mary Louise Parker was associated with this epic novel turned film, I was intrigued. Being a fan of the book, I assumed she'd be playing Tony, Roz, or Charis, but more so, I was intrigued to see how they would turn this very head-y, almost psychological (but not psychological thriller) novel in to a movie that would be accessible to those who hadn't read the novel, and that would be at least mildly satisfying for those who had. The book is a complex reflection of society, women, and modern life, and I was interested to see how they used the 3 different narratives that lead to the unfolding of the story in a film. What they actually did was a crime.
The biggest error and confusing issue is: Why would Oxygen, a network that advertises as being for women, take an amazing book about how complex, wonderful, and terrible women are and can be, and change the protagonist from 3 women to some dumb former cop with no real motive to be involved in the story? It seems like whoever adapted it took an easy way out by using this guy to straight up ask Roz, Tony, and Charis about how they knew Zenia and in doing that, they rushed through bulk of the book. In doing this though they muddied the story and cut everything that is great about the characters in it, aside from making it so the audience had no one credible to associate with. In the film, these women aren't people, they are characters.
In the book Zenia does fake her death, but the book mentions it to get this point across, while the film wastes 30-45 minutes focusing on this former cop running around and doing nothing of use. They tried to make this complex book an episode of Law and Order or CSI.
It turns out that Mary Louise Parker played Zenia, which was SO wrong. Zenia is a Catherine Zeta-Jones, Angelina Jolie, or maybe even a Scarlett Johnasson type. She is a woman men can't not adore, and a woman that women are intrigued and threatened by, but in a "keep your enemies closer" kind of way. And once she gets closer, she seems totally genuine and trust worthy, despite your better judgment. She's the kind of woman who, even when she loses, she wins: she's always still beautiful, still rich, and there are always still people out there who don't know her game.
In the film, Zenia didn't take Charis's man (the blonde American draft dodger who was using Charis in the first place...) but instead took August and tried to become her legal guardian (and apparently came back to be her Lesbian lover as a lingering kiss at the coffee shop implies). And Zenia did kill the chickens before leaving with August, but it made no sense since all of the build up to it was removed. It's was as if whoever wrote the screenplay was grasping at straws to satisfy those of us who read the book, but I think had I not read the book, I would have spent the whole movie confused, if I had bothered to stick with it at all.
And Roz's husband was dead before Zenia came in to the picture (which was weird since Zenia took Roz's business AND home life in the book, which is why Roz hated her so much) and she and Zenia had conspired to kill Roz's husband years and years back. And according to the film Tony and West had been dating forever...even at the party where Zenia and West (in the book) had painted the whole place black and they made Tony seem like this totally with it (and evil, bitchy) person who was always respected by everyone for her intelligence and popular for it. Tony's character was SO wrong in this film...she seemed a little psycho and like the mastermind behind whatever conspiring was going down as opposed to the kind of gawky, mildly reclusive teacher that she was in the book. The film basically implied smart women are evil, beautiful women are evil, powerful women are evil, and women who teach yoga are off their rockers.
They basically tried to make it so Zenia wasn't necessarily as awful as she was in the book, and then, in the end, the three women convince this former cop (who, of course in the process of researching this, meets Zenia and has an affair with her that is supposed to end with them moving to Barbados or something ridiculous, which of course Zenia bails on) to hide Zenia's body (which they found splat at the hotel she was staying at, but the film implies that one of the three women pushed her over the balcony, or they conspired together to do it...) and then Zenia also managed to take all of Roz's money in the process. By the end of the film I was only half paying attention between commercials b/c it had spiraled so far out in space from what it could and should have been.
If you aren't confused by this breakdown of the film, then maybe you would like it, because I have read the book and seen the movie, and from the movie alone I am ridiculously confused. It was terrible. I get that making a film out of that book is quite a task, but if you are going to take on the task, you should start by determining what in the book is unnecessary, instead of creating some useless character to be our Alice in wonderland.
Are there really no fluffier books that Oxygen could be making at least half decent TV movies of?
The biggest error and confusing issue is: Why would Oxygen, a network that advertises as being for women, take an amazing book about how complex, wonderful, and terrible women are and can be, and change the protagonist from 3 women to some dumb former cop with no real motive to be involved in the story? It seems like whoever adapted it took an easy way out by using this guy to straight up ask Roz, Tony, and Charis about how they knew Zenia and in doing that, they rushed through bulk of the book. In doing this though they muddied the story and cut everything that is great about the characters in it, aside from making it so the audience had no one credible to associate with. In the film, these women aren't people, they are characters.
In the book Zenia does fake her death, but the book mentions it to get this point across, while the film wastes 30-45 minutes focusing on this former cop running around and doing nothing of use. They tried to make this complex book an episode of Law and Order or CSI.
It turns out that Mary Louise Parker played Zenia, which was SO wrong. Zenia is a Catherine Zeta-Jones, Angelina Jolie, or maybe even a Scarlett Johnasson type. She is a woman men can't not adore, and a woman that women are intrigued and threatened by, but in a "keep your enemies closer" kind of way. And once she gets closer, she seems totally genuine and trust worthy, despite your better judgment. She's the kind of woman who, even when she loses, she wins: she's always still beautiful, still rich, and there are always still people out there who don't know her game.
In the film, Zenia didn't take Charis's man (the blonde American draft dodger who was using Charis in the first place...) but instead took August and tried to become her legal guardian (and apparently came back to be her Lesbian lover as a lingering kiss at the coffee shop implies). And Zenia did kill the chickens before leaving with August, but it made no sense since all of the build up to it was removed. It's was as if whoever wrote the screenplay was grasping at straws to satisfy those of us who read the book, but I think had I not read the book, I would have spent the whole movie confused, if I had bothered to stick with it at all.
And Roz's husband was dead before Zenia came in to the picture (which was weird since Zenia took Roz's business AND home life in the book, which is why Roz hated her so much) and she and Zenia had conspired to kill Roz's husband years and years back. And according to the film Tony and West had been dating forever...even at the party where Zenia and West (in the book) had painted the whole place black and they made Tony seem like this totally with it (and evil, bitchy) person who was always respected by everyone for her intelligence and popular for it. Tony's character was SO wrong in this film...she seemed a little psycho and like the mastermind behind whatever conspiring was going down as opposed to the kind of gawky, mildly reclusive teacher that she was in the book. The film basically implied smart women are evil, beautiful women are evil, powerful women are evil, and women who teach yoga are off their rockers.
They basically tried to make it so Zenia wasn't necessarily as awful as she was in the book, and then, in the end, the three women convince this former cop (who, of course in the process of researching this, meets Zenia and has an affair with her that is supposed to end with them moving to Barbados or something ridiculous, which of course Zenia bails on) to hide Zenia's body (which they found splat at the hotel she was staying at, but the film implies that one of the three women pushed her over the balcony, or they conspired together to do it...) and then Zenia also managed to take all of Roz's money in the process. By the end of the film I was only half paying attention between commercials b/c it had spiraled so far out in space from what it could and should have been.
If you aren't confused by this breakdown of the film, then maybe you would like it, because I have read the book and seen the movie, and from the movie alone I am ridiculously confused. It was terrible. I get that making a film out of that book is quite a task, but if you are going to take on the task, you should start by determining what in the book is unnecessary, instead of creating some useless character to be our Alice in wonderland.
Are there really no fluffier books that Oxygen could be making at least half decent TV movies of?
Not so bad
twofortulip6 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
My take on this movie is not that of an Atwood fan. I never read the book. As to the movie, I missed the first part of it, but, unlike others, had no trouble following the plot. I liked the twists and turns.
Zenia is a total user; so resentful of the "happy" lives of others that she enters a life, like that of Roz or Tony or Charis, and takes over an aspect: husband, child, or career. If it doesn't work for her she moves on leaving a mess behind. Along the way she makes herself unforgettable but unforgivable, apparently not. Here comes in the notion that the three women friends, for various reasons, will help Zenia despite her actions. As Zenia puts it she helped Roz's business, Charis' daughter, and Tony's career which flourished when her husband was lured away by Zenia. Why not help her, after all Zenia was the potential victim of a violent boyfriend who threatened murder and Zenia gave him a taste of the punishment had he actually killed her (though he never learns she is alive until she actually isn't.) Pretty cool idea.
I really liked Shawn Doyle in the role of ex-cop John working to clear the accused boyfriend-cop, Henry. You're sure he is too strong to be over-powered by Zenia until he meets her. Then, he too nearly becomes a victim. But, in the end they all get their revenge. Roz asks: "Are we like her?" John's reply: "No, we're good." They became the only people who could stop her wickedness without adding John to her list of victims. Not perfect, (What movie is?) but I enjoyed it.
Zenia is a total user; so resentful of the "happy" lives of others that she enters a life, like that of Roz or Tony or Charis, and takes over an aspect: husband, child, or career. If it doesn't work for her she moves on leaving a mess behind. Along the way she makes herself unforgettable but unforgivable, apparently not. Here comes in the notion that the three women friends, for various reasons, will help Zenia despite her actions. As Zenia puts it she helped Roz's business, Charis' daughter, and Tony's career which flourished when her husband was lured away by Zenia. Why not help her, after all Zenia was the potential victim of a violent boyfriend who threatened murder and Zenia gave him a taste of the punishment had he actually killed her (though he never learns she is alive until she actually isn't.) Pretty cool idea.
I really liked Shawn Doyle in the role of ex-cop John working to clear the accused boyfriend-cop, Henry. You're sure he is too strong to be over-powered by Zenia until he meets her. Then, he too nearly becomes a victim. But, in the end they all get their revenge. Roz asks: "Are we like her?" John's reply: "No, we're good." They became the only people who could stop her wickedness without adding John to her list of victims. Not perfect, (What movie is?) but I enjoyed it.
Utterly disappointing...
never_thirst4 March 2007
I don't know what Margaret Atwood was thinking to allow this movie to have the same name as her book. I've always been a big fan of The Robber Bride and was so excited to learn there was a movie in the works. I am aware that the translation of book to movie isn't perfect but this movie was the worst ever. The names of the women are correct and some of the back story is correct but that is about it. I feel like I lost a good portion of my time trying to make it through this movie. This really should have been a mini-series to tell the story the way it was written.
The actors for Roz, Tony, Charis and Zenia were well-chosen even though I was skeptical at first about Mary-Louise Parker. I only wish they'd had a better script to work with because this really had nothing to do with the book at all.
The actors for Roz, Tony, Charis and Zenia were well-chosen even though I was skeptical at first about Mary-Louise Parker. I only wish they'd had a better script to work with because this really had nothing to do with the book at all.
none are trustworthy
SnoopyStyle18 August 2018
A finger is found along with a bloody abandoned car. The victim is believed to be journalist Zenia Arden (Mary-Louise Parker). Police detective Henry Kelly fears being implicated in her murder as her secret source and love interest. He recruits ex-cop John Grismer (Shawn Doyle) to investigate. As Henry gets arrested for the murder, John finds that she had many enemies including her former boss Roz Andrews. She was staying with Charis White on Toronto Island and takes an interest in her daughter Augusta (Tatiana Maslany).
This is adapted from the Margaret Atwood novel. I don't know much about the book. The first half is structured like a traditional police procedural. The investigation is essentially interviewing one character after another with one flashback after another and non of them can be relied upon. The twist in the middle is not surprising. I kept thinking that Henry is a cop in prison and every second counts. I never trusted Arden for one second which makes any backstabbing rather expected. It's obvious that he should have brought her to various security cameras so that the police would be able to check even if she runs away. The whole blood sample and notary preparation is unnecessary. None of these characters can be trusted and I'm not shocked at any possible resolution.
This is adapted from the Margaret Atwood novel. I don't know much about the book. The first half is structured like a traditional police procedural. The investigation is essentially interviewing one character after another with one flashback after another and non of them can be relied upon. The twist in the middle is not surprising. I kept thinking that Henry is a cop in prison and every second counts. I never trusted Arden for one second which makes any backstabbing rather expected. It's obvious that he should have brought her to various security cameras so that the police would be able to check even if she runs away. The whole blood sample and notary preparation is unnecessary. None of these characters can be trusted and I'm not shocked at any possible resolution.
What was Mary Louise thinking?
jotix10028 March 2008
The first thought that came into this viewer's mind was to question Ms. Parker on her choice of vehicles. After having seen her in the New York stage in the brilliant "Dead Man Cell Phone", one can't only guess it was a project that looked good in the written page and it turned out to be a different thing when it started shooting.
Granted, Margaret Atwood's novel is not exactly the easiest thing to adapt for the big screen, or even television, as it's the case with this ill conceived idea. Our only suggestion to this talented actress is to stay in New York where she seems to have a knack for choosing plays in which to shine, as she has proved with "How I Learned to Drive" and "Proof", just to mention two other plays in which she shone.
While this is not a horrible film, by any means, the people behind it seem to have not get the essence of Ms. Atwood's work by the way it's presented. Better luck next time.
Granted, Margaret Atwood's novel is not exactly the easiest thing to adapt for the big screen, or even television, as it's the case with this ill conceived idea. Our only suggestion to this talented actress is to stay in New York where she seems to have a knack for choosing plays in which to shine, as she has proved with "How I Learned to Drive" and "Proof", just to mention two other plays in which she shone.
While this is not a horrible film, by any means, the people behind it seem to have not get the essence of Ms. Atwood's work by the way it's presented. Better luck next time.
It's a Man's World
freebyte18 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I greatly enjoyed Margaret Atwood's novel 'The Robber Bride', and I was thrilled to see there was a movie version. A woman frames a cop boyfriend for her own murder, and his buddy, an ex-cop journalist, tries to clear his name by checking up on the dead woman's crazy female friends. It's fortunate that the movie script fixes Ms. Atwood's clumsy plotting by focusing on the story of these two men, victims of scheming women...
Heh. Okay, you got me. If these guys are mentioned in the book, and I'm pretty sure they're entirely made up for the movie, I'll eat the dust cover of my hardback copy. Apparently, the three main female characters of the novel aren't enough to carry the movie. Zenia's manipulations aren't interesting unless we see them happen to a man, and a man's life is screwed up. Roz, Charis, and Toni tell their stories -- to a man. Because it's not important if a man doesn't hear them.
I liked the characters in the book. It hurts to see them pushed off to the side for a man's story. I normally do not look for feminist angles on media, and I tried to enjoy the movie as is. If I hadn't read the book, I might have enjoyed the movie a lot more. So if you like the cop and the ex-cop, and you want to read more about them, you're out of luck. Read the novel, if you want to enjoy luscious prose and characterization subtly layered through a plot. It's the same plot: the movie excavated it, ironed it, and sprinkled it with male angst. It's like Zenia's revenge on Margaret Atwood.
Heh. Okay, you got me. If these guys are mentioned in the book, and I'm pretty sure they're entirely made up for the movie, I'll eat the dust cover of my hardback copy. Apparently, the three main female characters of the novel aren't enough to carry the movie. Zenia's manipulations aren't interesting unless we see them happen to a man, and a man's life is screwed up. Roz, Charis, and Toni tell their stories -- to a man. Because it's not important if a man doesn't hear them.
I liked the characters in the book. It hurts to see them pushed off to the side for a man's story. I normally do not look for feminist angles on media, and I tried to enjoy the movie as is. If I hadn't read the book, I might have enjoyed the movie a lot more. So if you like the cop and the ex-cop, and you want to read more about them, you're out of luck. Read the novel, if you want to enjoy luscious prose and characterization subtly layered through a plot. It's the same plot: the movie excavated it, ironed it, and sprinkled it with male angst. It's like Zenia's revenge on Margaret Atwood.
Well done! Simple, clear, and fun story that was well acted and directed.
rvanderkam22 January 2007
I watched this movie last night on TV and even the commercial interruptions didn't dull my enjoyment of it. In fact, it was actually kind of enjoyable to be able to discuss how the plot was thickening every once in a while. The acting was well done - from the lame-brained hippie on Toronto Island to the scientist, the publisher etc, everyone did a great job. So does that imply it was well directed? I think so. It flowed well, the storyline was clear and I was left with the impression that Atwood's original book would be great fun to read. It wasn't perfect, mind you, but the weaknesses were minor, probably because it didn't aim to be some fantastic sophisticated production. It was simple, clear, and fun.
It's a TV movie
tkoriordan22 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I have to admit, it is a little confusing at points and a little dumb at other points. Nevertheless, I though that it was a good little TV movie. I liked the suspense and the misdirection, and I liked how it was ambiguous at the end. It was well worth a Sunday evening.
My only major criticism is that I don't think Mary-Louise Parker was that good. She coasted through the bulk of the movie, only to come out at the end as a brilliant mastermind. I didn't really buy it. The other actors were quite capable, and they managed to pull their parts together quite well. It is likely the supporting cast is not as good as Parker, which would make the acting quality unequal, but she really stuck out in this and not in a good way.
My only major criticism is that I don't think Mary-Louise Parker was that good. She coasted through the bulk of the movie, only to come out at the end as a brilliant mastermind. I didn't really buy it. The other actors were quite capable, and they managed to pull their parts together quite well. It is likely the supporting cast is not as good as Parker, which would make the acting quality unequal, but she really stuck out in this and not in a good way.
Compared to the actual book..
mellissaafoster10 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
If I had never read the book, I would have said it was a good movie. BUT I did read the book. Who ever did the screen write ruined the storyline. There is so many changes, that it wasn't really worthy of the Title. Character changes, plot changes, time line changes...
First off who was Henry and the investigator? They weren't in the story. Henry had Mitch's persona somewhat, but Mitch wasn't a cop. No you made it so Roz, helped 'sink ' his body and used that as Zenia's blackmail against Roz. The real so called blackmail was Roz thought Zenia was sleeping with her son and wanted her to get away from him. Her son was also being blackmailed because he was hiding being Gay from his mother. Her son wasn't even really mentioned in the story. Neither I don't believe was his lover, Roz's secretary.
Tony and West were not together in the beginning. He was actually with Zenia first while in college. The black painted apartment was their Idea, Tony just went to visit. This is where Zenia and Tony meet, become fast friends. Tony hides her love for West. Then Zenia left west, with cash from Tony, then West and Tony get together. Eventually marry, at some point West leaves Tony for Zenia again for a short time. Only to be heart broken again. Then go back to Tony. Zenia's blackmail for Tony was that Tony had written a test paper for Zenia. Now being a Professor at College she didn't want to let it get out. I will say the character who played Tony did it wonderfully.
Charis character was a blond, not that it really matters. Zenia didn't trick her about having cancer while Augusta was alive. No she was there when Charis had a lover named billy. Augusta's father, he was a draft dodger in the Vietnam war. Eventually after Charis takes care of Zenia for months for what was actually drug withdrawal. Zenia and Billy have an affair right under Charis's nose while taking care of them both. Then Zenia turns in Billy to the government, and leaves on the ferry with him. Not with Augusta, Charis was pregnant with her tho. Charis also had a split personality, Karen was her real name.
Zenia did not die from being cut up into piece's.... she fell or was possibly pushed (we never really knew) off the balcony and landed in a fountain. She had almost pure grade heroin in her blood and it was likely she took some not knowing and fell off as she OD'd. She was also really dieing of Cancer this time around.
It didn't show any of the childhood memories or anything that endeared the characters to the reader. The Book was striped down to its bare bones. Then re made in someone else's vision. Why couldn't you just write your own story along the lines of what you made the movie. It was different enough, and I'm sure could have been made more so.
First off who was Henry and the investigator? They weren't in the story. Henry had Mitch's persona somewhat, but Mitch wasn't a cop. No you made it so Roz, helped 'sink ' his body and used that as Zenia's blackmail against Roz. The real so called blackmail was Roz thought Zenia was sleeping with her son and wanted her to get away from him. Her son was also being blackmailed because he was hiding being Gay from his mother. Her son wasn't even really mentioned in the story. Neither I don't believe was his lover, Roz's secretary.
Tony and West were not together in the beginning. He was actually with Zenia first while in college. The black painted apartment was their Idea, Tony just went to visit. This is where Zenia and Tony meet, become fast friends. Tony hides her love for West. Then Zenia left west, with cash from Tony, then West and Tony get together. Eventually marry, at some point West leaves Tony for Zenia again for a short time. Only to be heart broken again. Then go back to Tony. Zenia's blackmail for Tony was that Tony had written a test paper for Zenia. Now being a Professor at College she didn't want to let it get out. I will say the character who played Tony did it wonderfully.
Charis character was a blond, not that it really matters. Zenia didn't trick her about having cancer while Augusta was alive. No she was there when Charis had a lover named billy. Augusta's father, he was a draft dodger in the Vietnam war. Eventually after Charis takes care of Zenia for months for what was actually drug withdrawal. Zenia and Billy have an affair right under Charis's nose while taking care of them both. Then Zenia turns in Billy to the government, and leaves on the ferry with him. Not with Augusta, Charis was pregnant with her tho. Charis also had a split personality, Karen was her real name.
Zenia did not die from being cut up into piece's.... she fell or was possibly pushed (we never really knew) off the balcony and landed in a fountain. She had almost pure grade heroin in her blood and it was likely she took some not knowing and fell off as she OD'd. She was also really dieing of Cancer this time around.
It didn't show any of the childhood memories or anything that endeared the characters to the reader. The Book was striped down to its bare bones. Then re made in someone else's vision. Why couldn't you just write your own story along the lines of what you made the movie. It was different enough, and I'm sure could have been made more so.
read the book
aerochickie22 January 2007
First of all, I didn't actually sit through the entire film. This is mainly because I sat down very excited about seeing a movie version, as I absolutely love the novel. However, it seemed to me that they were changing the entire story and for no reason. (You know how there are logical changes made whenever filmmakers translate a book into a movie? The changes made to The Robber Bride made absolutely no sense.) Having realized just how much they changed it about 45 minutes into the film, I then turned it off. I think that it might be a good film if you watch it without reading the novel, because it seems to play with interesting elements and they've put in this whole mystery/crime-solving storyline. Since I didn't see the movie all the way through, I don't want to condemn it outright. Also, the acting was good. I just think the book was so excellent and the changes detract from what the book, to me, was expressing.
Truly appalling film
skasturi25 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I have not read Margaret Atwood's book, and after seeing this film I initially did not want to. However, I then looked up reviews and synopses of The Robber Bride, which made the novel sound infinitely more interesting than this wretched film. This adaptation is so heavy-handed and moronic that it almost makes something like Basic Instinct stand up as a paragon of subtlety and imagination. The characters are almost uniformly unlikeable, but they're not even unlikeable in any kind of interesting way! And all of them behave like complete idiots. From synopses of Atwood's novel, it would appear that the frame story in this film (that of a crime/murder investigation) doesn't even exist in the book. If that's the case, then frankly, I think Atwood should sue over this travesty. I hope, at the very least, she got a hefty paycheque. That might make up for a lot. Don't waste your valuable time on this mind-numbing excuse for cinema. Really, really, really badly written and directed. Where's Atwood's sarcasm? Her sense of humour? Her sly wit?? Lost in bad writing and bad directing. I can't even blame the actors. They're doing their best with some outrageously bad material. Speaking of actors, MUST every film made in Canada star the same subgroup of thespians? Seriously? There's a lot of untapped talent out there. Imagine if Nicole Kidman starred in 90% of the films that came out of the U.S. How believable would you find her in anything, then? Wouldn't it make you tired? But I digress. Avoid the film version of The Robber Bride at all costs. Go read the real thing instead.
Confusing mess
rps-221 January 2007
I watched this movie for its two hours and have absolutely no idea what it's about. Somebody got murdered or maybe they didn't and maybe somebody did it or maybe they didn't. This brought back memories of the good old days (bad old days?) when all CBC Canadian movies were stinkers. Lately stinkers have been the exception but this confused hodge podge of trendy feminism, mind reeling flash backs and mumbled dialogue makes up for lost time. I've never found Margaret Atwood's books easy to read. This movie continues that fine Canadian tradition. It isn't easy to watch. Maybe the trendy folks at the chi chi Toronto cocktail parties will pretend they liked it. Us folks in the boonies are a little less pretentious.
You won't believe what this guy does next (no, really)
petrelet26 December 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I haven't yet read the Margaret Atwood novel that loosely inspired this CBC movie, so it doesn't terribly bother me that it's been somehow been converted into a detective thriller. But did they have to make the detective -that- guy?
(Spoilers start here, although they won't spoil things very much if you know anything about this movie at all)
So, seriously, we learn early on that the apparently-murdered Zenia was a sociopathic liar and predator. And the modern viewer will only be put on their guard by the line that "she must absolutely be dead, we found three pints of blood!" (This dodge has been used more than once since 2007, in culture and also in real life.)
What will surprise you is that this detective, a former cop, mind you, who already has a good picture of Zenia's lying manipulativeness, pretty much immediately upon having the opportunity allows himself to get seduced by said lies and manipulations, temporarily abandoning in murderer's jail the supposed friend who brought him into the case. I know guys are stupid in real life and even stupider in movies, but this is just painful to watch.
(Yes, I noticed that they threw in a little bit about "well, he got thrown off the force for covering up for a drug-using woman partner, so it's in character, he's just that kind of guy." Sorry, that doesn't impress me.)
That's why I'm spoiling this so much. I really don't want to you go to the trouble of finding this movie and then suffering. There are plenty of other women sociopaths in the movies and on TV these days. You don't need to settle for this.
Also, the movie then gets a little self-conscious about abandoning its literary-fiction roots and finishes up with a kind of Rashomon ending where you don't know what really happened and don't really care. That's about it. The acting and production are decent, but nobody can build on the marshy foundation of this screenplay.
(Spoilers start here, although they won't spoil things very much if you know anything about this movie at all)
So, seriously, we learn early on that the apparently-murdered Zenia was a sociopathic liar and predator. And the modern viewer will only be put on their guard by the line that "she must absolutely be dead, we found three pints of blood!" (This dodge has been used more than once since 2007, in culture and also in real life.)
What will surprise you is that this detective, a former cop, mind you, who already has a good picture of Zenia's lying manipulativeness, pretty much immediately upon having the opportunity allows himself to get seduced by said lies and manipulations, temporarily abandoning in murderer's jail the supposed friend who brought him into the case. I know guys are stupid in real life and even stupider in movies, but this is just painful to watch.
(Yes, I noticed that they threw in a little bit about "well, he got thrown off the force for covering up for a drug-using woman partner, so it's in character, he's just that kind of guy." Sorry, that doesn't impress me.)
That's why I'm spoiling this so much. I really don't want to you go to the trouble of finding this movie and then suffering. There are plenty of other women sociopaths in the movies and on TV these days. You don't need to settle for this.
Also, the movie then gets a little self-conscious about abandoning its literary-fiction roots and finishes up with a kind of Rashomon ending where you don't know what really happened and don't really care. That's about it. The acting and production are decent, but nobody can build on the marshy foundation of this screenplay.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
