freebyte
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.
untitledfilmstill7
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?
john_cberry
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.
aerochickie
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.
