It was an impossible task to update a classic that was embedded in its time and as such could travel the waves of time intact because we could adapt to its historical context. Now this 2008 version seems the one that's dated. I used to love Meg Ryan, reminded me of Carol Lombard now she's more like Joan Rivers, in appearance if not in spirit. There is nothing funny about her. Strangely enough she looks better in the second part of the film. In any case, the modernity of Norma Shearer's performance is unbeatable. Annette Bening is better but couldn't cancel the memory of Rosalind Russell, who could? If one can divorce oneself from the George Cukor original, and one must to be able to sit through it, there are a few pleasures to be had, mostly thanks to Cloris Leachman, Candice Bergen (playing Meg Ryan's mom for the second time, remember "Rich and Famous"?) and Bette Midler in a much to brief stint playing the part once played by Mary Boland. The most unforgivable blunder is Eva Mendes's Crystal. She couldn't fill Joan Crawford's shoes not even by mistake. Her performance is vulgar, jarring and ugly. How strange that someone as smart as Diane English could give us such a confusing picture of women. Oh well, I had to see it, I saw it and I'm very disappointed but hardly surprised.
Add a Review
-
arichmondfwc12 September 2008
-
katiemeyer197913 September 2008Insane really. Even if you haven't seen the original George Cukor movie with Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford, Rosalind Russell, Paulette Goddard, Joan Fontaine and a cast of a thousand other stars you may dismiss this forced, politically correct, depressing comedy. Depressing for many different reasons. Meg Ryan for one. What has she done to herself? Her face can hardly move. That alone puts her miles away from Norma Shearer. Annette Bening should be suing the DP and Debra Messing, what the hell was she doing here? Actresses with no connection in the public's subconscious trying to pass for friends, totally unconvincingly. Eva Mendes in the Joan Crawford part is an outrageous piece of miscasting. What a terrible idea! Her character is like a trans-gender performer without any taste or subtlety. Bizarre to think that a woman adapted and directed this women.The only positive things I can mention are a short but very funny appearance by Bette Midler and Cloris Leachman as the housekeeper.
-
aharmas13 September 2008I believe an entire book can be written about the odyssey to remake the classic film on which this film is loosely based. When Hollywood first started talking about such enterprise, the reaction was always negative because there were just too many aspects that could have gone wrong, starting with the solid ensemble that made the original unforgettable, and that's exactly where things begin souring here, with the selection of actresses that otherwise can do remarkable work, but that are not suited to the parts, and sadly enough, have been directed with the heavy hand of a director that doesn't understand or appreciate the source material.
It seems as if there is no focus or direction, or as if the direction that has been taken is to obliterate anything that was good about the original film. This is called an updating, as in let's drain the story out of humor, snappy dialogue, and any interesting premise. Most of all, let's prove that women have come a long way, except that the problem is that we don't really get (at least by watching this film) where the women are truly going.
For starters, casting Meg Ryan in the central role proves almost fatal to the movie because somehow she seems to have locked herself into some sort of limbo where women don't really change appearances, even after 20 years of working in the movies. Her Mary which proved to be a difficult role in the 30's, somehow grew from her interaction with the other stereotypes, like Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz" by learning, observing, and realizing that she had a choice in the matter. It might not have been a choice that women would celebrate nowadays, but it was fun ride, and part of the fun, was the catty, silly, sometimes slapstick routines that elevated that movie into the realm of the sublime. In here, we are down to earth with a thud. By changing the nature of Sylvia, the film has lost a lot of its spark, and it isn't in anyway Annette Bening's fault. I couldn't help but admiring how she tried to save this sinking ship and got a sinking feeling as she struggled with the horrible lines she was handled. Thankfully I entertained myself by looking at some of her terrific outfits and kept reminding myself how talented this lady really was. Her Sylvia is wise but flawed, and she could have been a great creation. Unfortunately Ms. English wasn't paying attention to her own work and loses control of the one character that could have turned the film into a fresh direction.
Yet that wasn't the biggest blasphemy of them all. In the original, we have Joan Crawford doing probably one of the best performances by a woman. Her Crystal is legendary, with conniving lines, incendiary moves, duplicitous maneuvers, and some very sexy poses. She was the link between the male and the female, and through her we knew what the whole catastrophe was about. She provided the tension between men and women. She was dangerous, sexy, the ultimate femme fatale. A woman of intelligence that we feared and admired, and most importantly, we wanted to destroy to save our heroine. Eva Mendes, as gorgeous as she is, is two dimensional in this outing because of weak writing, and once again, some bad casting.
There are more atrocities in the film, such as the addition of a terrible role for Mensing as the dedicated mother who lives for having babies, and the rather annoying lesbian turn by Pinkett. Then comes the biggest waste of talent in the movie, as Bette Middler, who is a little unrecognizable in her make up, shows the spark of what could have been. Her acidic delivery reminds us of the contemporary angle the film could have taken. Her words revive and put a big of much needed naughtiness in the film, and it is exciting to see that it could really fly, then she is gone. She is in the film all of six minutes, and she fades away in the middle of the muddle.
Here is a movie that raised our anticipation level and truly disappointed us, a film that could have joined the successful "Sex in the City" who made an amazing transition to the big screen because it respected its source material and didn't compromise. It gave us more, bigger and better adaptation. It truly updated what had made it successful before. "The Women" in its present reincarnation needs to go back and rework itself, much like "The Hulk" did it this year, find more suitable performers, a really good writer, and most of all, someone who truly treasures what good movies are about. -
julietareynal17 September 2008As a Spanish tourist in Los Angeles and a fanatic movie lover I committed a terrible mistake. I went to see "The Women" The remake of one of my all time favorites. I've seen the original many many times, in fact I own it. My rushing to see the remake was based on Diane English, the woman responsible for "Murphy Brown" My though was: how bad can it be? She must know what she's doing. Well, I don't know what to say. I don't understand what happened. The Botoxed women is a rather depressing affair. Meg Ryan or whoever played Mary - she looked a bit like a grotesque version of Meg Ryan...another actress perhaps wearing a Meg Ryan mask - she doesn't bring to the character nothing of what Norma Shearer did in 1939. The new one is a tired, unconvincing prototype of what has become a farce within a farce. The "friends" Annette Bening, Debra Messing, Jada Pinket Smith are as disconnected as anything I've ever seen and if this wasn't enough: Eva Mendes as Crystal, the character created by Joan Crawford in one of her best and funniest performances. Eva Mendes's casting is really the poster sign for how wrong, how ill conceived this commercial attempt turned up. I didn't give it a 1 out respect for Candice Bergen and Cloris Leachman
-
davepitts15 September 2008First, I should say that I've seen the '39 version at least 100 times; know all the dialog, and have read the '36 play, which is different from the '39 and contains nuggets of gold of its own. This version is as flat as a Lifetime movie on adultery. There's a reason you haven't seen an expensive campaign of TV ads for it. According to Entertainment Weekly, Bening hated the catty tone of the original and how the women spent the whole time going to war on each other. GUESS WHAT??! That was Booth's intent. It was a slick, theatrical take on gossip, adultery, and back-biting among a set of well-heeled Manhattan socialites. The crowd that made this new version had no intention of honoring the original source material. They pick at it weirdly, putting in half a scene here and half a scene there that come from the first version. Bette Midler (who is in just a few scenes and acts the old Countess part in a broad, grinning style) doesn't have any context in this version. She mentions going after "Buck," which is a key element in the original -- then he's never mentioned again. This movie is so dull that I'm not going to over-analyze it, but here are a few things that I found unbelievable: > Mary Haines bragging to her domestic staff: "I can suck the nails out of a board!" Right. Great writing. Norma Shearer could've done a line reading on that & gotten an Oscar nom, right? > A COMPASSIONATE Sylvia Fowler!!!??? Annette Bening got what she wanted, and the movie just sort of withers away. Claire Booth used Sylvia as the comic engine that swept through the play. As portrayed immortally by Rosalind Russell, she was an ignorant, spiteful woman who rattled off reams of petty, ridiculous, irresistible dialog that is still classic and quotable. She wasn't above biting Paulette Godard's ankle. The 2008 filmmakers decided that this character had to die. In killing her off, they killed the movie.
-
maureenmcqueen20 September 2008To say I was disappointed is an understatement. An amateur film made by professionals. I was about to leave the theater in two or three occasions (something I've never done)I was stopped by Cloris Leachman really. She rings true, the only one I should say. This new women are less modern than the George Cukor women of the 30's. This ones are "acting" for us trying to be with it but their "conflict" is exactly the same as it has always been, in movies anyway. The fun of the original was based on a crisp, vitriolic and very funny script. A masterful direction and an unrepeatable cast. All the elements that are missing here. TV actresses mingling with models and Oscar nominees/winners. There wasn't anything organic about it. The whole thing felt like a put on, improvised in the moment without a clear objective. 2/10
-
I was flabbergasted by the negative critics starting this long list of reviews. I think their mistake was to compare this movie with the old original.
They have nothing to do with each other.
The original one is a classic, I love it fondly. This movie is based on the same novel, but it's absolutely contemporary. Another time, another way of thinking, another set of rules to move in society with.
The old elegance in clothes, the distinguished looks, the excellent manners, all gone..., gone with the wind. But let's face it, our concept of contemporary elegance is what it is, nothing will make us go back to the 1930s idea of elegance, or manners, and if somebody resents that fact..., MMMmmmm, I'm afraid they are out of sync. with the present.
Meg Ryan looks lovely; somebody complained that she cannot move her face... come on! what do you want her to do with it, a Cheeta number?? Her figure, and her legs! are first-class (so are Anne Benning's!!).
The cast is excellent and as everybody complains about Eva Mendez, the original character is exactly like her. Joan Crawford in the old movie couldn't --at the time-- play it so coarse, because of censorship and simply because at that time they didn't portrayed reality as harsh as we use to do it today. Period.
The movie is extremely entertaining, have some good laughs, the timing is excellent..., the photography flawless, the lighting impeccable, the sound perfect... anything else, El Exigente?
I don't think these crew made this film pretending to surpass Antonioni, Visconti or Bergman. I enjoyed very much the 'women alone' dialogs, since they never act like that when even just one man is present. And the speed, spontaneity and sincerity of these dialogs indicate that only a woman could have directed this film.
These group of women --with fantastic openness (something you will never find among men) when talking their hearts out, is so believable and attractive (at least to me), that I wanted this movie to go on forever!!
They made a light --very light-- piece of entertainment, that's all. What really bothered me reading the critics written by men, was their necessity to clarify before hand that "This isn't the kind of picture I would go to see by myself... ME, such a macho man..., I saw it because..." (some excuse or other). Wow! are we tied up in knots, guys!! What is happening out there with those old fashioned ideas about what a man is about!!
Wake up men, or we'll end up missing the boat irremediably!! -
richard-17874 January 2009I rented this because I know the 1939 movie well and wanted to see how it was updated. I sat through the whole thing, but it's really a bad movie.
Let me start by staying that I don't think the 1939 movie is a masterpiece. It has some wonderful scenes, brilliantly directed by George Cukor and brilliantly brought off by a remarkable cast who knew how to deliver bitingly clever dialogue. But there are also maudlin scenes that kill the pacing. An uneven work.
The remake isn't uneven, I'll grant it that. It's uniformly awful all the way through.
To begin with, the characters have no internal coherence, which they most certainly do in the 1939 version. In the remake, it seems that the director did a survey of what would appeal to modern women and then randomly distributed those qualities to the various women in the movie. The modern Chrystal Allen isn't really nasty; unlike in the original, she never betrays Steven Haines. Sylvia Fowler starts off being repulsively self-centered, but then varies back and forth between caring and superficial without ever really being nasty. In fact, NO ONE is really nasty, and that deprives the remake of a lot of the bite of the original.
The modern script is also sadly lacking in humor, unlike the 1939 version. It just isn't that funny. And when it does repeat lines from the original, it is painful to hear how poorly they are delivered.
In short, this movie has nothing to recommend itself. It plays like a mediocre TV show - it was directed by a TV director, so I guess that shouldn't come as a surprise. The 1939 version, though not a masterpiece, remains miles ahead of this sad excuse for a feature film. -
susan-31714 September 2017This movie is a remake of and 1930s movie of the same title and which is a great film. This is not a great film, but it's a good film and holds up well since it's been out for quite awhile now.
Mary Haines has a husband who begins having an affair with a "spritzer girl" from Saks Fifth Avenue. This is the basic plot of both films. In addition, the film has NO male characters - this is also true of both films.
How Mary handles this is different in the 2008 version because women have different lives than they did in the 30s. Duh.
But I like the updated ideas and updated relationships. The 2008 version does not have some of the biting humor of the original but it also lacks some of the sappiness, too.
Bette Midler has a tiny part which mimics the original and which was cut for the 2008 version. I'd have loved to see more of her!
Don't expect a lot, but expect a few giggles. -
mike-seaman20 April 2009I have never seen the original 1930s version of the film, but this remake is one of the worst I have seen from a major production studio in years. Seeing actors such as Meg Ryan and Annette Bening, once near A level talents, sleepwalk their way through poorly scripted roles is painful. There appeared to be no desire to be in front of the camera for anyone in this film.
Jada Pinkett Smith and Debra Messing play worthless roles that have no bearing on the plot and add no entertainment value. Jada Pinkett Smith's character is used as nothing more than a ploy to appear modern, having an African American lesbian character, but in actuality she is there to just look cool. There is no actual reason why Messing in this film other than to fill out the amount of women in the original I take.
The side characters played by Eva Mendes and Debi Mazar are stereotypical female characters, with Mendes portraying the vixen looking to steal the wealthy but bored and mildly neglected husband and Mazar covering the gossip roles.
The movie is boring, lacking charm, humor, or sympathy for any characters. It almost felt like the movie was a punishment for everyone involved, whether in front of or behind the camera.
There is one glimmering hope in the film, however little it is allowed to shine surrounded by the dim and dying stars around it is Cloris Leachman. Leachman is still an amazing talent that brings her remarkable charm and humor to the film, in the small role that she has. -
johnsonmanisha18 June 2019I absolutely love this movie. Not sure why such low reviews
-
bob the moo23 December 2008It appears I am alone on this site in seeing this film having never seen the 1939 original on which it was based and I watched mainly out of interest of what Meg Ryan has been up to and not out of a curiosity over how it stands up by comparison. In a way I guess this would have helped me because I was free from shadows of "classic" films but then at the same time the film still needed to be good to engage me. In this regard the film is "reasonably good" but nothing that is particularly special. It is worth noting that the reviews for this film in the UK press were mostly dismissive (or at least they were in the papers etc that I read) so my expectations were low so perhaps this is why I found the film to be reasonably good in spite of how simple it essentially is.
You see this really is a very target audience affair that is meant to appeal to groups of female friends or mother/daughter combos looking to have a laugh and cry in a bonding fashion. In aiming for this group the film throws in all the genre standards and doesn't worry too much about the detail, how applicable it is and how well it all gels together. What this means is that the film has a broad sweep to it that is good enough to distract in a basic sort of way. Add to this the professional Hollywood sheen that money brings most films and a cast that is starry. The downside is that it does feel very episodic and superficial because it doesn't manage to have a lot of depth or realism within the characters. This was to be expected perhaps with this type of cuddly, daytime TV type product but it is hard not to have hoped for slightly more given the volume of famous actresses involved. Sadly the material hands them chunks of character rather than really letting them build them across the whole film so it does feel like we have had "that" scene and now we are moving onto "this" scene rather than watching a story.
The cast do so-so work, mainly because they are matching the light "now we laugh now we cry" approach to the material and they mostly come across like they are acting the scenario rather than acting the people. Ryan is unsurprisingly bland it is something I had hoped she would break out I guess if you can't hit it in In The Cut then you're not going to lift your game for something like this. Bening is better and makes more of her character hardly a great turn but she does what she can. Messing is comic relief on paper but not in reality while Smith turns in a clichéd sexy lesbian character with all the invention and effort of someone ironing t-shirts (and also, is it healthy to be that thin?). Midler, Fisher, Leachman, Whitfield and a few others turn out without a lot of reason or impact while Mendez is left a thankless role of being sexy a role she can do effortlessly but not often does she have to be the "baddie" while doing it. She doesn't convince because she is more of a fun flirty sexy and the evil man-eater just doesn't sit well on her.
I didn't know The Woman was a remake until afterwards but whether it is directly taken from one source or many, the effect is the same because this is a film that is happy to cover its bases and not play dangerously. It ticks the genre boxes and turns out a polished enough "chick flick" (sorry hate that phrase) but it doesn't have much in the way of character, realism or depth to engage the viewer. For those who see this as a product that they will love then you probably will, but it is just too superficial to play to an audience that comes to it without minds already made up. -
karakovacs478 March 2018I really enjoyed this movie so it upset me to see so many negative reviews. I thought this movie was a great reflection of what women are truly like, as it is so frustrating to me to constantly see women portrayed as "strong" by acting exactly like men. These characters actually acted like women, which was a nice change of pace.
The story itself was a nice balance of humour and heart, with unique characters and an important development of Meg Ryan's character that was subtle and real.
I would understand why men wouldn't like this movie, but I urge women to give it a chance. I really liked it, and although it is not the deepest, most life-changing film out there, it is an enjoyable and relatable cinematic experience. -
ipanema-girl30 July 2009No! no - No - NO! My entire being is revolting against this dreadful remake of a classic movie. I knew we were heading for trouble from the moment Meg Ryan appeared on screen with her ridiculous hair and clothing - literally looking like a scarecrow in that garden she was digging. Meg Ryan playing Meg Ryan - how tiresome is that?! And it got worse ... so much worse. The horribly cliché lines, the stock characters, the increasing sense I was watching a spin-off of "The First Wives Club" and the ultimate hackneyed schtick in the delivery room. How many times have I seen this movie? Only once, but it feel like a dozen times - nothing original or fresh about it. For shame!
-
choua_lo21 September 2008I really wish I had read everyone's review before going to see the movie... it was one of the most excruciating films that I've ever seen. I was ready to leave the theater 5 minutes into the movie; I should have followed my instinct. The movie offered nothing new or clever, it was boring and very cliché. I was surprised to find that it was directed by a woman! The characters did not represent any women that I know, they were boring, bitter and melodramatic. The movie was unrealistic and depressing and a waste of time and money. And the actors looked tired, poor make-up and hair styling. It was recently compared to the Sex and in the City movie; it was not even half as good. My suggestion, do not see this movie!
-
pastorkevin524 January 2009I was very disappointed by this movie. Ms English who says that she is a fan of the original movie seemed to have taken a great piece of artistic work, and transformed it into a flat-lined "ho-hum" you've come a long way baby production. I tried to like Meg Ryan's Mary Haines, but she was just boring. She didn't seem to feel anything about her husband's affair. There was no emotional struggle, no deep hurt. In the original 1939 movie Norma Shearer's Mary Haines felt betrayed, shocked, vulnerable, confused and angry. The 2008 production was more about some fake sisterhood theme, (Actually my wife's words)and didn't make you shed a tear or even chuckle. The only performances that were note worthy we're of Debra Messing, and Bette Midler. (I wanted more of Bette.) There was really no protagonist in this movie. The Sylvia Fowler character had too many sub themes to it. And Crystal Allen had no fire. The remake of the department store encounter with Annette Benning, and Miss Mendez was Luke warm. Also the pacing was slow as well. Obviously the 1939 version needed to be updated, but this one wasn't it. The reason that the original version worked so well was that the characters were dealing with "man" problems. A subject by the way which isn't out-dated. The magic of the original movie was that the movie was about both sexes, while you never saw the men.
-
kookooketchu23 December 2008This movie is not a comedy. It is not even funny in the "this movie is so bad it's funny" department. Rather, it is just plain bad. Other reviewers mention the bad lighting, but beyond that is the abundance of bad plastic surgery.
Meanwhile, a lot of great acting talent was wasted on a poor screenplay and uninspired direction. The main characters are one-dimensional and boring. (It is hard to feel sympathy for any of them). It is also hard to see the four characters as close friends. It seems like just a bunch of women thrown together, pretending to be close.
I won't list all of the problems with this movie, as it doesn't merit that much of anyone's attention. (Nor is it worth the time it takes to watch it). -
When I saw that a TV station was airing a REMAKE of The Women, last night, I anticipated the worst--after all, the stylish original from the 1930's was such fun, that I couldn't imagine how any modern remake could possibly live up to it. I expected it would be so dreadful and politically correct that I'd turn it off within 20 minutes and go to sleep.
Instead, I was pleasantly surprised by a film which was engaging and enjoyable, and which, while BORROWING many of the plot elements from the older film, retold a rather different story, and adhered, almost in a playful manner, to some of the "disciplines" of the original movie, such as never allowing a male to appear on screen.
What really saves this movie is the first-rate performance of Annette Bening, who plays a character named Sylvia Fowler, but who otherwise is a completely different woman from the broad clown character Rosalind Russell created in the older film, with an utterly different story. A similarly successful "transplant" is of Mary Haines' mother, here portrayed wonderfully by Candice Bergen--and another is the role of Edie, here played by Debra Messing (who does give us the sort of broad clowning that we had for that role in the old movie).
One real DISAPPOINTMENT in these updated roles was Bette Midler, who played the character corresponding to the Countess de Lave, expansively and noisily played by Mary Boland in the old movie. The script didn't go into the fun sub-plot of the Countess's boyfriend and his infidelities, and so this character, and its very fortunate casting, remain very tangential; similarly, Cloris Leachman manages to rescue a microscopic role of one of Mary's household staff--but should have been given much more to play with.
Meg Ryan, although turning in a fine performance, is somewhat eclipsed by the talents around her.
However, even though it lacks the style and impact of the classic film, I enjoyed this remake quite a bit, and can recommend it. It won't spoil the old film for you--it's too different from it--and yet, will give you several of your favorite moments from the old film refreshed and renewed, as well as a very different approach to others. -
sam-eci26 November 2012Another Hollywood portrayal of motherhood that is sad and shallow. In this world, Meg Ryan doesn't become much of a mother until she "finds herself" -- through what? A glamorous career of fashion design, of course! It's all about what she wants, don't you know? That's the moral to this story and the real key to happiness in The Women. When Ryan's character was "just" a mom, her preteen daughter just couldn't connect with her, poor thing. But now that she's making the New York scene as a fashion designer, it's all sweetness and light. "Mom, this is so cool!" she fawns lovingly, with new-found admiration for her mother (who basically abandoned her while she was off "finding herself.") And, of course, the cheating husband is SO attracted to her now that's she's focused on herself. Meanwhile, the only mother in the group with more than one offspring is the ridiculous Debra Messing who plays up every possible stereotype of a "breeder." Always pregnant and binge eating, and of course her children are running around wild and screaming in public places. Well, that's what you get for having more than one. Everyone knows having more than one kid is a nightmare, and so demeaning and beneath us as women. And that's just how confining and depressing motherhood is,right? Who in their right mind would want that when she could be the person she was truly meant to be (by being a fashion designer, with great hair, by the way!) It is a sad thing, and misleading, to portray motherhood this way. The truth is that women were made to have and sacrifice for their children. It is the source and meaning of true love. Motherhood is not only the most important thing a woman can ever do, it is the most beautiful and fulfilling, but only when viewed through the eyes of love and self-giving. This movie is supposed to be all about women and getting what they want. Too bad it denies the source of true beauty and happiness: self-giving,the opposite of "all about getting what you want."
-
The original 1939 "The Women" garnered some really die hard followers. There are message boards still going on it. "I have two questions; first, what did she say about _______; and, second _________." Someone comes along a few posts later and says she can answer the first part of the question, and does, but not sure yet about the second. It's that embedded. Most of the fan-atics of the original warned against any attempt to remake something so perfect. They jumped on "The Opposite Sex," and trounced that rather thoroughly. It was a bad movie. But, their full fury is earned here. It turns out their dire prediction of failure is vindicated in both cases. At least "The Opposite Sex" changed the name before they changed it all around. Here, it's not only a change-around, but an even further deterioration in flow, timing, direction, authenticity with added errors in casting and performance. Don't directors know how to say "cut" anymore? This should be followed by a firm instruction as to what's really going on here, how the characters feel in this scene, and, let's start again from – whatever point. They used to say at the end of filming that it's in the can, meaning the finished reel is in its metal case and ready to be distributed. Sadly, this weak effort with its canned performances was finished before production ended, and quite unready for distribution.
-
dierregi24 November 2017This is definitely no masterpiece, but such a low rating indicates that probably the vast majority of IMDb reviewers are young, male and/or misogynists (or all). Even Suicide Squad and the Transformers movies have higher ratings and for sure they are no better movies, unless you are into senseless violence, overblown CGI and paper thin characters.
The two main problems of this remake are product placement and too much political correctness. The original was a great idea, because women were (are?) so marginal in society that a movie without a single man in sight must have seemed a real challenge.
For hundreds of movies with an all-male cast (think about all those war and prison movies ) showing how women exist without a man in sight is still peculiar. In this version, not only they exist but they also manage to make a living on their own.
Annette Bening is the strongest character of the cast, as Sylvie, a sophisticated editor who's best friend with Meg Ryan's Mary. Mary is a much more conventional character. Having discovered that her husband cheats on her, Mary goes from partially employed/rich socialite to successful business woman far too quickly.
Their other two friends are irrelevant and are in this only to add a taste of "Sex & the City". Messing is Edie, a full time mother who stands for "women should be free to choose whatever they want, even staying-at-home mums are OK" and Pinkett-Smith is lesbian Alex, who stands for "everything else is OK, too".
Elderly ladies have Bergen (Mary's mother) and Leachman (Mary's housekeeper) to prove they can still hold their own. Teenage angst is embodied by Mary's daughter and Mendes is temptress Crystal, doing nothing more than shaking her booty and completing the cast for all the Latinos. Only an oriental lady is missing to check all the boxes for the politically correct police.
Most memorable in the movie are opulent interiors and beautiful clothes/accessories. Bening does an impressive job, also because lately she seems to appear only in unsophisticated roles - but a bit of comedy and stylish clothes do her good.
The final scene, with Messing giving birth, drags on forever. It is a cliché giving-birth, with way too much shouting – which definitely did not help with wrapping up the story, even if it introduced for a few seconds the only male (luckily we're spared sight of his thingy). -
vtiff14 September 2008I've never seen the original movie others have commented on, so my perspective is just about this movie without comparison.
I found the message of the movie to be,: if you only worry about yourself, all will be right with the world, everything will fall into place, your lovers will love you more, your friends will respect and like you more, your employers will want you more, pay you more and even your own children and parents will love you more.
I find this message to be reprehensible and totally false.
Kudos for the very funny birthing scene at the end; there isn't a mother out there who won't laugh during that scene.
Overall a very disappointing movie plot. I didn't find myself rooting for anyone in this movie. I thought they were all pathetic self absorbed individuals that I just didn't care what happened to them and that's not a movie people want to see. -
cliffcarson-112 October 2008Like a lot of people familiar with some of the reviews, I had prepared myself for a flat remake full of catty women priding themselves on being put down artists. I didn't plan to see this movie. It was almost by default that I did. In fact, if it hadn't been playing around the corner at a second run movie theater (and at discount prices) I wouldn't have seen it. After all, I'm not a particular fan of anyone in the cast. Like a lot of people I thought, what are all these rich actresses doing remaking this dated story? I'm not a big fan of the original 1939 Cukor version either. Yeah, the comedy plays well on screen but in reality, no friendship could survive the way those women treated each another. The June Allison musical remake of the 50's is as gaudy and depressing as any movie ever made, so going in I already had a bias against this type of thing. LET IT BE KNOWN, no matter what you've heard about THE WOMEN 2008, it is DEFINITELY the best version of this story ever film.
I think the people disappointed in this new version are the ones hoping to see these characters as they were portrayed in the original. Women backstabbing, cat fighting and sabotaging each other while exchanging quick catty put down lines. Director Diane English has not remade THE WOMEN of 1939, she has re-imagined the material into a film that actually MEANS something. A transformation of the old material that is full of new characters that, for the most part, are every bit as memorable as the ones in the 1939 version. The only similarity they have with the original are the names. This movie surprised me.
If any story needed to be "re-imagined" for a present day audience, it's this one. I've never been a fan of Meg Ryan and I'm not a charitable audience in any movie, but Ryan completely won me over by the end of this film. These actresses know they're contending with a 1939 classic, but under the direction of English, they follow their own instincts and in doing so have redefined the characters and made them memorable and touching on their own. It's refreshing to see women on the screen presented this way. Grappling with decisions that will affect their lives, their families, their careers, their friendships and most importantly, their consciousness. Also refreshing is how English doesn't pander down to her audience. She gives us material that we have to rise up to. The characters are given decisions that we as an audience wonder what we would do in that situation. As a director, her pacing and edits are quick and assured. She knows the material and knows how she wants to present it.
What elevates this film above the 1939 and 1956 versions are the ideas presented in it. The nasty cattiness between the women has been replaced with more thought provoking ideas. Only the manicurist, played by Debi Mazar stays true to the 1939 character. The rest of the cast are basically new characters with the same names. Eva Mendes is a knock out and not as hateful as the Joan Crawford characterization.
Without question, the real surprise of this film is Annette Bening. English gives everyone a chance to shine in this film, but it is Annette Bening's character that gives the film it's center. If you're looking for a Rosaline Russell interpretation you're going to be disappointed. This is a new character and Bening makes her every bit as interesting and memorable as Russell made hers, only in a different way. I liked the way her character comes clean with Meg Ryan at the table about selling her out. I also liked the scene between Bening and her best friends daughter on the park bench. Equally as wonderful are the scenes of Bening pushing her ideas for the magazine on her reluctant associates and eventually selling her ideas out in order to save her job. I also thought it was smart on the part of English not to have a physical cat fight between these ladies. English winks at her audience by having Bening toss a banana at Meg Ryan and hitting her on the head, but only as a way of getting her attention. I also disagree the the criticisms of the way Bening looks in this film. She is nothing short of beautiful. Also wonderful is the casting of Candice Bergen as Meg Ryan's mother. The chemistry they display here seems an interesting extension of the mother and daughter roles they played in 1981's RICH AND FAMOUS. Jada Pinkett Smith is very likable and Carrie Fisher is memorable in her one scene. I could have done without the final baby sequence at the end of the picture and I had problems with the casting of Bette Midler. In all fairness, the audience in the screening I saw this movie in loved that baby delivery sequence, but I'm a guy and it kind of grossed me out. Bette Midler has become one of those actresses that thinks she can do no wrong in a movie, but whether it's the part as written or her acting, I was uncomfortable watching her. Her delivery of the "lamour, l'amour" line lands with a thud if you're familiar with the '39 original.
OK, so this film did not fair well at the box office, but look for it to strike a cord and become popular on television. The message of this movie being that one does not need to be in a relationship to feel complete. You can be complete on your own, whether you're a man or a woman. -
didi-51 December 2009'The Women', originally a play by Clare Boothe Luce, was filmed in 1939 (with Norma Shearer as Mary Haines and Joan Crawford as Crystal Allen), in 1956 (as a musical, 'The Opposite Sex', with June Allyson as Kay Hilliard and Joan Collins as Crystal Allen), and now with Meg Ryan and Eva Mendes as Mary and Crystal.
The story has been slightly updated - Stephen regularly phones Mary's mobile, Sylvie (Annette Bening) is the editor of a fashion magazine, one of the circle of friends is a lesbian - but the basic premise (and that is the plus) is still there, complete with some scenes verbatim from earlier versions (especially the changing room confrontation).
There's also the mother giving words of wisdom (Candice Bergen, who is only slightly less plastic looking than Meg Ryan herself), but with some irony, while Bette Midler plays the much-married rich lady (once a Countess, played with aplomb by Mary Boland, now an actor's agent) who pursues the mysterious Buck Winston. There's also nice support from Cloris Leachman as the Haines' housekeeper.
Like the 1939 version, no men appear in this film other than one baby boy. Even the dogs are bitches. It however suffers from colourless playing of the leads, in particular Eva Mendes, and from a lack of humour. So it is a reasonable remake, but ultimately a bit pointless. -
Agatha66622 September 2008I am a big fan of the original not because I believe that the antiquated story line makes sense for anyone much less women in modern society, I am a fan because of that great scene with Joan Crawford in the bathtub. I love that bathroom. I was dragged to this remake by a friend knowing that it would be disappointing. Horrid, is more like it! First of all, it looks like they lit the whole film with florescent lighting and those shots of Annette Bennings hands, she should sue! I think this was really a remake of the Valley of the Dolls and they just mislabeled the prints. Meg Ryan has lost her spunk and is completely flat on screen, Debra Messing's character is dressed like a bag lady, Eva Mendez compared to Joan Crawford (need I say more), just terrible. Terrible performances, it felt at times that the cast was trying to remember their lines. The dialogue was trite and boring. And to top it all off, instead of making some adjustments to the story to make it work for the modern woman, they left it with Meg Ryan blaming herself for her husbands infidelity and falling wonderfully in love with the cheating schmuck because after all it is not enough to have an extremely successful clothing line, a wonderful daughter and tons of money, you have to have a man! Nightmare! Rent Sex and the City instead which makes you want to jump on a plane and spend the weekend in Manhatten with the girls.