If you mention The Handmaid’s Tale today, almost everyone assumes you’re talking about Elisabeth Moss staring intensely into a camera lens while wearing a white bonnet. It’s the Hulu juggernaut. It’s the cultural touchstone that launched a thousand protest outfits. But there is this weird, shiny relic from 1990—the Handmaid's Tale movie—that feels like it fell through a crack in cinematic history.
It’s bizarre.
You have a film written by Harold Pinter. Yes, that Harold Pinter, the Nobel Prize winner. It stars Natasha Richardson, Faye Dunaway, Robert Duvall, and Aidan Quinn. On paper, it’s a prestige powerhouse. In reality? It’s a fascinating, neon-tinted, slightly confused 90s thriller that tried to turn Margaret Atwood’s cautionary tale into a Hollywood psychodrama.
✨ Don't miss: The Jack Frost Movie (1998) is Still Such a Weird Trip
Most people don't realize how much the Handmaid's Tale movie actually differs from both the book and the series. It’s not just the aesthetics. It’s the vibe. While the show feels like a slow-burn nightmare you can’t wake up from, the movie feels like a high-stakes escape room.
The Shocking Casting of the 1990 Handmaid's Tale movie
Casting is everything.
In the 1990 film, Natasha Richardson plays Offred (whose real name is Kate here, unlike the show’s June). Richardson brings a certain softness, a vulnerability that feels very different from the jagged, simmering rage we see in modern interpretations. Then you have Robert Duvall as the Commander. He’s Robert Duvall, so he’s excellent, but he plays the character with a strange, almost grandfatherly detachment that makes the horror of the "Ceremony" feel even more clinical and weirdly mundane.
Then there’s Faye Dunaway as Serena Joy.
Honestly, Dunaway is the best part of the whole thing. She plays Serena with this brittle, terrifying desperation. You can see the cracks in her makeup. You can feel her hatred for the system she helped build, even as she tries to navigate it. It’s a masterclass in "villain who thinks they're the victim."
The movie also took a massive swing with its ending. If you’ve read the book, you know it ends on a cliffhanger. "And so I step up, into the darkness within; or else the light." We don't know if she's saved or caught. The Handmaid's Tale movie? It wanted closure. It gave us a full-blown action sequence. Kate doesn't just wait for the van; she takes matters into her own hands in a way that feels very "90s thriller protagonist."
How the Aesthetics Date the Film (In a Fun Way)
The costumes in the movie were designed by Colleen Atwood. She’s a legend. She’s won four Oscars. But her vision of Gilead is... bright.
Instead of the deep, oppressive blood-red we see in the Hulu series, the movie uses a much more vibrant, almost primary red. The sets have this strange, sterile, 1980s-corporate-office feel. There’s a lot of glass and cold lighting. It doesn’t feel like a crumbling society returning to the dark ages; it feels like a very expensive, very evil wellness retreat.
It’s an interesting choice. It suggests that fascism doesn’t always look like dusty ruins. Sometimes it looks like a clean, well-lit room with nice furniture and a very high body count.
Why Critics Originally Hated It
When it premiered at the Berlin International Film Festival, the reception was chilly. Critics didn't know what to make of it. At the time, Margaret Atwood’s book was only five years old. It was still fresh, still radical.
The main complaint? That the movie stripped away the internal monologue.
The book is almost entirely Offred’s internal thoughts—her memories, her fears, her sensory observations. Film is an external medium. Without a narrator (the movie uses very little voiceover compared to the show), Offred can seem passive. She looks like a passenger in her own story.
Also, the 1990 Handmaid's Tale movie leaned heavily into the romance between Kate and Nick. In the book, the relationship is messy and transactional and fueled by a desperate need for human touch. In the movie, it’s a bit more... Hollywood. Aidan Quinn is very handsome, and the chemistry is there, but some felt it undercut the political message.
It’s a fair critique. If you make a movie about the systematic oppression of women and spend thirty minutes on a steamy romance, the message gets a little muddled.
The Pinter Script: A Missed Opportunity?
Harold Pinter is known for the "Pinter Pause." He’s a master of what isn't said. You’d think he’d be the perfect fit for a society where women are literally forbidden from speaking freely.
But rumors from the set suggest it wasn't a smooth process.
Director Volker Schlöndorff (who directed The Tin Drum) reportedly struggled with the pacing. Pinter’s script was lean. Maybe too lean. The resulting film feels like it’s rushing to get to the third act. We don't get the same sense of the "Salvagings" or the "Particicutions" that the TV show spends hours building up.
Despite this, the film has a cult following now. People are revisiting it as a "what if?" What if the franchise stayed as a standalone film? What if we kept that 90s synth-heavy score? (The music is by Ryūichi Sakamoto, by the way, which is another reason it’s worth a watch just for the pedigree alone.)
The Legacy of the 1990 Version vs. The Hulu Series
It’s impossible to talk about the Handmaid's Tale movie without acknowledging why it was overshadowed.
- Length: A two-hour movie cannot capture the suffocating world-building of a 50-hour TV show.
- Timing: In 1990, the themes of the book felt like a "could happen" warning. In the 2020s, they feel like a "happening now" documentary to many viewers. The urgency changed.
- Budget: The Hulu show has a massive budget for cinematography. Every frame looks like a painting. The movie looks like... well, a 1990 movie.
However, the movie gets one thing right that the show sometimes misses: brevity. The show has been criticized for "misery porn"—dragging out the suffering of the characters for season after season. The movie hits the notes and gets out. It’s a punch to the gut rather than a slow strangulation.
💡 You might also like: Paul Walker Fast Furious 1: Why Brian O'Conner Still Matters
Watching It Today: What to Look For
If you decide to track down a copy (it’s often buried on streaming services like Tubi or Pluto TV), watch it as a period piece.
- The Colors: Notice how the red of the Handmaids' dresses pops against the grey, brutalist architecture.
- The Technology: There’s something hilarious and terrifying about Gilead using 1980s computer tech to track people.
- The Ending: Compare it to the book. It’s wildly different. It gives a sense of agency to the protagonist that the book intentionally denies.
Is it a masterpiece? No. Is it a fascinating failure? Maybe. But it’s a crucial piece of the Atwood legacy. It shows how every generation reinterprets this story based on their own fears. In the 90s, we feared a clinical, corporate takeover. Today, we fear a messy, populist collapse.
Real-World Impact and Controversy
The Handmaid's Tale movie didn't just exist in a vacuum. It was released during a time of significant political shift in the U.S. The "Culture Wars" of the late 80s were in full swing.
Some religious groups at the time protested the film, seeing it as an attack on traditional values. This is a recurring theme with this story. Every time it gets adapted, someone gets angry. Margaret Atwood famously said she didn't put anything in the book that hadn't already happened somewhere in history. The movie tried to stay true to that, even if it polished the edges for a mass audience.
Interestingly, the movie actually features a cameo by Margaret Atwood herself. She’s one of the Aunts! It’s a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it moment, but it’s a nice nod to the creator of this nightmare world.
Actionable Takeaways for Fans of the Franchise
If you've only seen the show, you're missing out on the full evolution of Gilead. Here is how to actually engage with the history of this story:
- Read the book first. Seriously. Neither the movie nor the show captures the prose.
- Watch the 1990 film with an open mind. Don't compare it to Elisabeth Moss. Compare it to other 90s thrillers like Children of Men (the book version) or The Stepford Wives.
- Listen to the Sakamoto score. Even if you hate the movie, the music is haunting. It captures the loneliness of Offred better than some of the dialogue does.
- Look for the differences in the names. In the movie, the protagonist has a name she uses. In the show, her name is June. In the book, her real name is never explicitly confirmed (though many fans deduced it was June). This choice changes how you view her identity.
The Handmaid's Tale movie is a reminder that stories are living things. They change. They grow. They sometimes get weird 90s adaptations with Robert Duvall. And that’s okay. It’s part of the fabric of how we process these terrifying ideas.
Go find a copy. It’s a trip. You’ll see the "red center" in a whole new light—specifically, the light of a 1990s film set.
Next Steps for the curious:
Compare the "Scrabble scene" in the movie to the one in the TV show. It’s the same basic setup, but the power dynamic is totally different. In the movie, it feels like a flirtation; in the show, it feels like a psychological war game. Seeing the two side-by-side tells you everything you need to know about how our perception of power and gender has shifted in thirty years.
📖 Related: Caliban X Men Apocalypse: The Mutant Broker Who Deserved a Better Shake
Once you've done that, check out the 1990 film's trailer on YouTube. It’s cut like a standard thriller, complete with a deep-voiced narrator. It’s a perfect example of how Hollywood tries to market "difficult" stories to the general public by making them look like something they're not.