I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

For those who think this might be far-fetched I refer to the Christian and very influential theologian, St Augustine of Hippo, who thought sex was disgusting (and he had had quite a bit of it) and only redeemed by its procreative aspect. This ably demonstrates that reducing sex to that function is debased, and totally wrong. Yet sanctions on contraception are still widely upheld. Figure out the implications of that. The series ably illustrates the ridiculous and artificial restrictions on female behavior: women are overly delicate in speech and gesture but when violence is mandated they are expected to, and do, comply. And even for unbelievers, quaint, pious expressions are so successfully inculcated they can't resist mouthing them even when unobserved. It reminded me suddenly of Joan of Arc who saved France as a separate country, but simply had to die, because, what do you do with a talented, heroic female soldier whose existence undermines the male biases of the whole system? This movie is not merely futuristic but a kind of parodic reflection of the status and lives of most women in this so-called civilized world. Traditional religion has not been the only negative factor, but it certainly hasn't helped much.

Boring as heck with the worst possible acting. Like acting so terrible and emotionless, it makes Kristen Stewart in Twilight look like she could play the Joker. The book, which I had to analyse at school, was tedious, disturbing in its descriptions, and had a horrible ending - but I would honest to god think that watching paint dry would interest me more than this plot less trash that has (no joke) ten-minute sex scenes that we thankfully skipped past. It is even less about feminism than the book and fails to explain how their society came to be the way it is (not that the book really did that either). Don't put yourselves through the torture - if I could've given it a negative star rating, I would have.

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.

As a rule, movies based on books are usually not as good as the book. I think there are only two exceptions to this rule, and both are because the original book was no great shakes to start with. The one was Jaws, a mediocre potboiler about a small-town melodrama with a few paragraphs about a shark in there... Steven Spielberg had the good sense to throw out everything but the Shark, and then let his fine cast of actors carry the film.Then we get to "A Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood. Whenevery I hear a feminist say that the "Christian Right" wants to turn America into a version of "A Handmaid's Tale", I reply, "You mean they want us to be a nation of bad prose and disjointed narrative?" The Horror. The Horror.The director had the good sense to make some changes. First, he had the good sense to dump Atwood's non-linear narrative and run the story from Offred/Kate getting caught trying to sneak into Canada, to her eventual escape. Secondly, he made Offred a dynamic character, and not the limp dishrag who gets pushed around throughout the novel. The movie is further elevated by Faye Dunaway and Robert Duvall (their first paring since Network, which is a much better example of social satire.) The plot, for those unfamiliar is that there has been an ecological disaster where 90% of women are infertile, and a theocratic government takes over, renaming the US "Gilead" and forcing the few remaining fertile women to become baby machines. The fertile women become "handmaids", drawing inspiration from the Bible story where Abraham fathered a child on Sarah's handmaid, Hagar. The heroine is pawned off to an official called "The Commander", and his wife, former Christian TV personality Serena Joy. (It should be pointed out in Atwood's narrative, these were code-names, not the actual characters' names.) Of course, the couple are hypocrites, not really believing in the Bible. The heroine is rescued by rebels out to topple the government.Now, Atwood said her inspiration was her concern that feminism was selling its soul by aligning with the Christian Right in the 1980's against pornography. (In reality, feminism became obsolete when it was hijacked by abortionists and radical lesbians, alienating most mainstream women.) She never made her characters anything above charactictures. Duvall and Dunaway actually put more of an effort, probably what elevates this film above ind-film garbage, but again, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.If you are a fan of Atwood's work, you might actually enjoy this film. Then again, if you are fan of Atwood's work, you really need to develop literary taste.