mellissaafoster 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.

never_thirst 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.

Sandra Kasturi 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.

eefrost 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.