Before Elisabeth Moss became the face of a resistance movement on Hulu, there was a version of Gilead that felt a lot more like a fever dream from the late eighties. Most people today don't even realize it exists. Honestly, The Handmaid’s Tale movie 1990 is one of those cinematic artifacts that feels like it belongs in a different dimension. It’s got Natasha Richardson, Faye Dunaway, and Robert Duvall. It’s written by Harold Pinter, a literal Nobel Prize winner. Yet, for years, it just sort of sat on the shelf of forgotten VHS tapes while the 2017 series took over the cultural zeitgeist.
Why?
Well, the 1990 film is a strange beast. It’s glossy. It’s weirdly eroticized in ways that feel uncomfortable today. It’s also surprisingly faithful to Margaret Atwood's book in some ways while being totally off the rails in others. If you’ve only seen the show, watching the movie feels like looking at a photograph of a relative you never met but who clearly shares your DNA.
What Actually Happens in the 1990 Version?
The plot follows the same skeleton we all know. Society has collapsed due to declining birth rates and environmental toxins. A group of religious extremists—the Sons of Jacob—has overthrown the U.S. government and established the Republic of Gilead. Women are stripped of their rights, categorized by their "usefulness," and those who are fertile are turned into Handmaids.
Natasha Richardson plays Kate (she’s given a name much earlier than in the book). She’s Offred. She’s posted to the home of the Commander, played by Robert Duvall, and his wife Serena Joy, played by a terrifyingly icy Faye Dunaway.
Here is where it gets interesting.
The film doesn't have the luxury of ten episodes per season to build dread. It moves fast. It’s punchy. One minute she’s being captured at the border, the next she’s in the Red Center being "re-educated" by Victoria Tennant’s Aunt Lydia. It’s a sprint through a nightmare. Unlike the show’s slow-burn psychological torture, the 1990 film plays out more like a political thriller or even a noir film. It’s sweaty. It’s claustrophobic in a different way.
The Pinter Problem and the Screenplay
Harold Pinter is a legend. His style—"Pinteresque"—is known for sparse dialogue, long pauses, and underlying menace. You’d think he was the perfect choice for Atwood’s prose. But the production was reportedly a mess.
✨ Don't miss: Why the Cast of Battle of Britain Faced a Real Logistics War
Pinter eventually distanced himself from the final product. Reports from the time suggest that the director, Volker Schlöndorff, made significant changes to the script during filming. This led to a weird tonal clash. You have Pinter’s cold, sharp dialogue being delivered in a world that looks like a high-budget soap opera. It’s jarring.
The film also makes a massive departure regarding the ending. Without spoiling the specifics for those who haven't seen it, let’s just say the 1990 version leans much harder into the "action hero" trope for Kate/Offred. It’s a very "Hollywood" conclusion. It lacks the ambiguous, haunting "into the darkness or the light" ending of the original novel.
Why Does the 1990 Movie Look So... Different?
If you look at the 1990 film today, the first thing you’ll notice is the color palette. It’s not the desaturated, cold blue and gray world of the Hulu series.
It’s bright.
The Handmaids' red cloaks are vibrant, almost neon. The Commander’s house looks like a luxury estate in Virginia—which it was. They filmed on location at places like Duke University and various spots in North Carolina. This gives the movie a "real world" feeling that the show lacks. In the movie, Gilead doesn't look like a dystopian future; it looks like 1990, just with more guns and weirder clothes.
There’s a specific scene at a "Salvaging" (the public executions) held in a massive stadium. It feels hauntingly plausible because it’s just a regular football stadium. There are no CGI vistas. It’s just people in a field being terrible to each other.
The Cast is Honestly Incredible
You cannot talk about The Handmaid’s Tale movie 1990 without mentioning the heavy hitters in the credits.
- Natasha Richardson: She brings a vulnerability to Kate that is different from Elisabeth Moss’s simmering rage. Richardson’s Kate feels like someone who is constantly on the verge of a panic attack, which, honestly, is probably more realistic.
- Faye Dunaway: She is the MVP. Her Serena Joy is a woman who has traded her soul for power and is now realizing she’s just as much a prisoner as the Handmaids.
- Robert Duvall: His Commander is less of a pathetic bureaucrat and more of a grandfatherly monster. He’s charming in a way that makes your skin crawl.
- Aidan Quinn: He plays Nick. In this version, the romance between Nick and Kate is much more central. It’s almost treated like a traditional movie romance, which is one of the biggest criticisms of the film. It softens the blow of the setting.
Why It Failed to Launch (And Why It’s Ranking Now)
When the movie came out in March 1990, it bombed. It made about $5 million against a much larger budget. Critics weren't kind either.
The problem was timing. In 1990, the Cold War was ending. The Berlin Wall had just come down. The world was looking toward a bright, democratic future. A movie about a fascist theocracy taking over America felt like a relic of the 1980s religious-right scares. It felt dated the second it hit theaters.
Fast forward to the late 2010s and early 2020s. Suddenly, the themes of the book felt urgent again. People went looking for more "Handmaid" content and rediscovered this movie.
It’s also surprisingly sexualized. There’s a scene at "Jezebel’s" (the secret brothel) that feels like it was filmed for a completely different movie. It’s got this weird, 90s-erotic-thriller energy. It’s uncomfortable to watch now because it feels like the camera is enjoying the exploitation a bit too much.
Comparing the 1990 Movie to the Hulu Series
It’s easy to say the show is "better," but that’s not quite fair. They’re trying to do different things.
The show is an endurance test. It wants you to feel every second of June’s suffering. The 1990 movie is a 108-minute narrative arc. It’s a "thriller" version of the story.
One thing the movie does better? The pacing of the world-building. Because it’s so short, you get the sense of how quickly society flipped. In the show, the flashbacks are spread out over years. In the movie, the "before" times feel like they were just yesterday.
Also, the score. The 1990 film features music by Ryuichi Sakamoto. Yes, that Ryuichi Sakamoto. The legendary Japanese composer. His score is synth-heavy, eerie, and beautiful. It gives the film a mechanical, cold heartbeat that is actually much more effective than the pop-song needle drops the Hulu show often relies on.
Critical Reception: What Did the Experts Say?
Back in 1990, Roger Ebert gave it two stars. He said the movie was "too handsome" for its own good. He felt that the world looked too nice to be a dystopia. He wasn't entirely wrong. The cinematography by Igor Luther is stunning, but it does sometimes undercut the horror of the narrative.
Other critics felt the movie focused too much on the "affair" between Kate and Nick and lost the feminist teeth of Atwood’s novel. Atwood herself has been gracious about it over the years, noting that a film is a different medium than a book, but it’s clear which adaptation she feels closer to.
Is It Worth Watching Today?
If you’re a fan of the franchise, absolutely. It’s a fascinating look at how we viewed dystopia thirty years ago.
💡 You might also like: What to Expect From After the Hunt Rotten Tomatoes Scores and Why This Luca Guadagnino Thriller is Already Trending
It’s a time capsule. It shows what happens when a European "art-house" director tries to make a Hollywood thriller out of a complex feminist novel. It’s messy. It’s flawed. But it’s never boring.
You should watch it for Faye Dunaway alone. Watching her navigate the domestic politics of Gilead is like watching a masterclass in suppressed rage. Plus, seeing a young Elizabeth McGovern (Cora from Downton Abbey) as Moira is a trip.
Actionable Steps for Fans
If you want to dive deeper into this specific version of Gilead, don't just stop at the movie.
- Compare the Screenplay: Find the published version of Harold Pinter’s screenplay. Reading what he intended vs. what ended up on screen is a lesson in how movies get changed in the editing room.
- Listen to the Soundtrack: Ryuichi Sakamoto’s score is available on most streaming platforms. It’s arguably the best part of the film and stands alone as a great piece of electronic music.
- Watch the "Making Of" Features: If you can find the old DVD or Bluray extras, the interviews with Volker Schlöndorff are revealing. He talks openly about the struggle to adapt the "internal monologue" of the book—a problem the Hulu show solved with constant voiceovers, but which the movie tried to solve with action.
- Visit the Locations: If you’re ever in Durham, North Carolina, you can visit some of the spots where Gilead was "born." Duke University’s campus provided the gothic backdrop for many of the institutional scenes.
The 1990 film isn't a replacement for the book or the show. It’s a companion piece. It’s a reminder that stories change depending on who is telling them and when they are being told. In 1990, we thought this story was a warning about the past. Today, we treat it like a warning about the future.
Whether you love it or hate it, The Handmaid’s Tale movie 1990 deserves a spot in the conversation. It’s a bold, colorful, weirdly eroticized, and star-studded attempt to capture a story that is notoriously difficult to film. It might not be the "definitive" version, but it’s definitely the most unique one.
Check out the movie on various streaming platforms where "classic" cinema is hosted—often you can find it on Tubi or Pluto TV for free, or for rent on Amazon. It’s a wild ride that will make you appreciate the Hulu version more while also making you wish the show had a bit of that Sakamoto synth energy.