Voleuse de vies

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.

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 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.

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.

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.