Voleuse de vies

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.

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 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.

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.

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.