The Women Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
It's all about...
The new comedy about finding out what you really want.
The story centers on a group of gossipy, high-society women who spend their days at the beauty salon and haunting fashion shows. The sweet, happily-wedded Mary Haines finds her marriage in trouble when shop girl Crystal Allen gets her hooks into Mary's man. Naturally, this situation becomes the hot talk amongst Mary's catty friends, especially the scandalmonger Sylvia Fowler, who has little room to talk - she finds herself on a train to Reno and headed for divorce right after Mary.
| Meg Ryan | Mary Haines |
| Annette Bening | Sylvia Fowler |
| Eva Mendes | Crystal Allen |
| Debra Messing | Edie Cohen |
| Jada Pinkett Smith | Alex Fisher |
| Bette Midler | Leah Miller |
| Candice Bergen | Catherine Frazier |
| Carrie Fisher | Bailey Smith |
| Cloris Leachman | Maggie |
| Debi Mazar | Tanya |
| India Ennenga | Molly Haines |
| Natasha Alam | Natasha |
| Ana Gasteyer | Pat |
| Joanna Gleason | Barbara Delacorte |
| Tilly Scott Pedersen | Uta |
| Diane English |
4.50 out of 10 (1914 votes)
Visitor Reviews
The one good thing about this picture...
posted on 31 Aug 2009I thought Debi Mazar was steller as the Saks nail tech. She was the only one who brought any of the charm from the original to this wretched cinemabomination.I adore Eva Mendes but casting a bombshell/SUPERVIXEN! as Crystal totally took the fire out of the dynamics of the characters and sent it reeling into a totally clichéd arena. In the original, viewers had to wonder why Stephen would leave sweet Mary for a crafty shop girl and were led to believe that something was really wrong in their marriage. Both viewers and Mary were left to figure out just what went wrong. But one look at Eva and all mystery vanished. Stephen was just a typical low-down dirty dog who was helpless against the power of boobs. Joan Crawford's Crystal was way more menacing because she was everywoman. It is way more frightening to think that you could loose your man to your average shop girl, waitress, receptionist, etc. How do you fight back against that? You are more vulnerable when it isn't about looks. Joan Crawford was attractive, but for 1939 she was no Rita Hayworth, and certainly no where near Eva Mendes.
A group of women are close friends after leading very different lives
posted on 27 Aug 2009This has to be one of the worst movies I ever sat through... It barely had a plot, just a bunch of friends and a slut! It jumped around too much and the characters were barely portrayed at best... I know that all of these women are better actresses, for Christ sakes its Meg Ryan, Annet freaking Benning, Debra Messing! These are leading ladies who turned out horrible performances! I felt that Jada Pinket Smith took lessons from her husband on how to be a man, which made her portrayal of a lesbian horrible... The scene at the end where the baby was born had to be the worst thing ever!! I would not ever see this movie again, and if I did I would drink, a lot! One of the WORST MOVIES EVER!!
Ahmmm...No
posted on 25 Aug 2009Near the end of "The Women" I was thinking that there isn't one single frame of the movie with a man in it, or at least I was almost sure about it; or sure enough not to go back and check the images of the film and find out. It is a horrible movie, and not in the sense that it looks bad, in the sense you use to refer to a very bad movie. Because the argument plays like a romantic comedy, blame me if I think that the charming smile of someone like Richard Gere (or Dermot Mulroney, possibly) could have made it a little better, or more romantic.It's not easy to deal with female friendship in movies; it's less easy if the women aren't young and even less easy if there are no men around to complicate things. Writer/director Dane English, in a sort of remake of a movie I haven't seen, plays with all of these elements in "The Women", as Mary's (Meg Ryan) friends, Sylvia (Annette Bening), Edie (Debra Messing) and Alex (Jada Pinkett Smith) find out her husband is cheating on her and start acting like teenagers, visiting the place the lover in question (Eva Mendes) works at.Now I still can't decide if English has the wrong eye for comedy or romance, or if he just suffers of a bad ear. There's not a single laugh in the whole movie until the final scene, in which Messing gives us a scream that could compete with Ryan's famous fake orgasm in "When Harry met Sally"; and there's no hint of romance, because English never lets us see the ones to blame for these women's pain which, at least in this film, are always men. We can't even feel empathy for Mary, because Mendes' lover walks sexy and doesn't seem to have the fault for what happened, and there's a dramatic approach of a mother-daughter relationship that never works; partly because of an inexpressive India Ennenga (as Ryan's daughter) and a script that most of the time is too corny.I had written some shameful lines of the screenplay but I lost them somewhere. The problem here with the friendship (mainly the one between Mary and Sylvia, the Bening character) is that everything is too much and too shallow, as Mendes points accurately in one of the film's best scenes. Don't get confused, the characters are credible, but they are all extreme. And maybe we can rescue the director for some performances that are worth mentioning, even if it seems it will never end.Thanks to Bening's work (in something similar to what Meryl Streep achieved in the equally awful "The Devil Wears Prada"), Sylvia doesn't seem like a machine and her neurosis brings the movie to life from time to time. Messing's performance, with her four kids and all the food she can eat, is heartfelt; so is Ryan's. Pinkett Smith suffers of a stereotyped character, but she gets the best out of her lesbian. There's a sincere appearance by Candice Bergen as Mary's mother and an unbearable scene with Bette Midler.The best performance though, comes from Cloris Leachman, as a housekeeper who knows about life and still has the spice of life with her. She's fabulous, and we can still thank cinema for women actors, but we could never thank cinema for "The Women".
A stellar cast make an enjoyable film.
posted on 23 Aug 2009A terrific comedy-drama about the powers of friendship. Despite it's a remake of a 1939 film of the same title, it would probably be compared to Sex And The City. I would not compare to it totally. The story starts with Mary(Meg Ryan) who seems to the life most women would envy, she's happily married, has a good daughter, great friends, and a great home. But Marys perfect life isn't what it seems, when she discovers her husband is cheating on her with Crystal(Eve Mendes) from Zach's. Mary is puzzled and doesn't know what to do. But her four good friends, Sylvia(Annette Bening), Edie(Debra Messing), and Alex(Jada Pickett Smith) try to be there for her in anyway they can. I really don't want to give anymore away. But I found this enjoyable, and I'm a man. Meg Ryan is great, it is nice to see her in on the screen again, after a series of flops. And the rest of the cast are also great including Eve Mendes as Crystal. Just an enjoyable lighthearted comedy.
A mediocre remake
posted on 21 Aug 2009When the remake of The Women (1939) was announced,I decided to see the original film when,as a coincidence,it was transmitted on TV.I liked it pretty much,not only for its story and performances,but also for the contrast of the sexual politics of that moment and now.The remake resulted to be pretty mediocre and a wasted opportunity.One of the few elements I liked on this weak remake was the cast.Meg Ryan,Annette Bening,Debra Messing and Jada Pinkett-Smith fit on their roles very well.But my favorite performances are the ones from Candice Bergen,Carrie Fisher and the brilliant Cloris Leachman.But,in spite of the good cast,I did not like this movie because of its various negative points.For one sight,the screenplay is not decided between making a copy of the original film or laughing at it.Screenwriter Diane English (who also makes her first work as a director) is famous for having created the TV series Murphy Brown and My Sister Sam,which are intelligent portraits of women facing the modern world,without obsessing about the "male control",but without ignoring the sad realities from that situation.However,the women from this film define their lives because of the men and they are free on many aspects but they feel slaves of the men.I am obviously saying this from a male perspective,so a woman may lead to another conclusion that mine.What I wanna say with my conclusion,is that the film wasted the opportunity of bringing a honest and realistic message.Besides,the film bored me pretty much and the ending is tremendously ridiculous.The element which most bothered me from this movie is its lack of ambition : instead of making an update of the story and the message from the original movie,it only made an update of the clothes and cars.Although the cast from this movie is good,I cannot give this film a recommendation because it bored me pretty much and it represents wasted potential.Try to see the original film,which is much more interesting and entertaining than this weak remake.
Actually not bad, but the movie is a little hypocritical
posted on 21 Aug 2009So I had the opportunity to see The Women, even though I'm not a huge fan of chick flicks, this did look a little interesting. I admit, I haven't seen the original, but I am a little curious, because from what I was seeing, this seemed like an ultra updated version that might have chopped up the original, maybe that's why there are so many harsh reviews. But just seeing this movie, it wasn't as bad as I was expecting, it's so rare we have the movies with an ALL WOMEN cast, I mean literally, no men, not even a man's voice is used in this movie, it's always put down by the guys because it's automatically going to be a "bad chick flick". But we do have a strong cast, although, I still have my doubts about Meg Ryan, not sure why she's still in movies, no offense to her, just I don't see her as a strong leading actress any more. But the story works and makes it a nice little watch for a group of friends looking for a movie.Mary seems to have it all, a rich husband, a daughter, and 3 loving friends who would do anything for her. But the bad news is her daughter and her do not get along at all, her daughter even asks for advice from her best friend, Sylvia. Then from a manicurist's mouth, she hears that her husband is cheating on her with the hot little number in perfumes, she tells her mother, her mom says to not tell her husband, make him grateful for her, the plan actually works. Mary goes home happy and relieved that her husband wants her back so badly, but then her friends tell her to get angry, she does and ends up separating with husband only to find out about herself before it's too late.The only thing I really didn't like about this film is that it has a slight message in the middle of it where it's saying how magazines are hypocritical of women today, that on the cover there's a hot young air brushed actress and on the inside it says to love yourself just the way you are, then we have 4 older but extremely attractive actresses who have in no right what so ever to complain about their looks. Meg Ryan doesn't look a day over 30, and I'm supposed to think yeah, I feel bad for her, it's understandable that her husband would see that she's slipping in the looks department, when it's the complete opposite. That's why I'm giving this movie a 5, it's enjoyable, but the message is just hypocritical. For a few chuckles, it's worth the watch, not a horrible movie, but I think I'm going to check out the original.5/10
I want my money back!!!!
posted on 17 Aug 2009Anyone who has seen the original 1939 production, or a stage showing of this delightful story need not bother with this pointless, ridiculous remake. I went in knowing I would hate this, and I was exactly right. Why in the h**l does Hollywood insist on remaking beautiful incredibly well done movies into crappy modern flicks?? I don't think this movie should have been remade at all. Diane English is an idiot. I certainly hope that filmmakers are not umping on this remake bandwagon intent on reviving all the classics. Modern takes on classic films have proved to be box-office bombs, and this is certainly no exception. The sad thing is that loads of people who love the original version will go to see this, holding a tiny gleam of hope in their hearts, and will leave angry, having paid their money into the box office, for which their is no recourse. Even if the movie is complete crap, the box office taking are the only sing of a movie's success, despite the fact that over half of the audiences leave in a very bad mood, having just wasted perfectly good money on a terrible film.
The Women 08 It's Not A 30's Movie
posted on 17 Aug 2009It 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.
Subtle, humorous and touching with plenty of interesting characters. Highly recommended.
posted on 07 Aug 2009I haven't see the 1939 version of this film and, after seeing this remake (which I enjoyed very much), I am definitely encouraged to see that earlier version. It is a little strange to see a whole film in which there is not a single male actor. I guess the whole point is to show - in a somewhat self mocking way since this is a comedy - the relative importance (or otherwise) that women often put on the opinions and/or advice of other women. I found the humour to be quite subtle (rather than 'laugh out loud'), which is the kind of humour I generally prefer. I liked the pairing of Meg Ryan and Annette Benning. All the many characters came across as 'likeable' individuals. Highly recommended.
it was okay
posted on 05 Aug 2009I will never watch this movie ever again. It was so boring, plus it was a chick flick without movies. Yes I do know the original 1930s movie of "The Women" didn't have any men actors in it either, so they were just following that. It just didn't feel real without any male lead actors in it. It was like this boring women's soap opera.Okay this is a major spoiler, but I don't like how in the end she takes her husband back. In the original movie, she did the same thing. I also felt like the character Crystal Allen should have been given a bigger role, I wish she had done something that made her really hate you and that she was a real threat to their marriage. But I felt like Eva Mendes's portrayal of the other woman was flat.Anyway the movie was just a one time view for me, I wouldn't watch it again.
Pointless trash
posted on 24 Jul 2009I really hate this movie, but not because it strays from the original. I'm often annoyed by people who criticize a film solely on how well it relates to its source material. I don't care about whether a remake is true to its original as long as the film can stand on its own merits. This film does not.The writer here clumsily pulls pieces out of the original, but for no reason! Nothing in this dog of a movie happens for any good reason. There was ample opportunity to make a compelling story here, but none of it is realized. Just when you think something interesting is going to happen, it doesn't. As long as you're going to cut and paste pieces out of the original, why not grab some of the timeless parts: like have Crystal mess around with Buck and ruin her stolen meal ticket! The little Haines girl overhears her flirting on the phone, and leaks the scandal back to her mother. Sorry, I guess something compelling and relevant to the story would have taken too much time away from the fashion career plot line. Instead, many of the worst elements of the original are preserved: like how important money is and how inheriting a bunch of it can solve all your problems. Don't forget to reinforce the importance of social status, and where you shop.Please, movie industry: hire some writers. Your business is supposed to be all about telling stories. The casting here is great, but the plot stinks, and none of the characters remain true to themselves. I like these actresses and thought they did fine, considering the lines they were handed. But the 10 best actresses in existence running around disjointedly rehashing a few lines from a classic movie doesn't merit my 5 bucks on pay-per-view.This movie is junk. It makes me sad, because it's such a glaring example of what's wrong with the whole industry. It's why more and more often, I browse production years rather than titles when looking for something to watch, because the newer it is, the more likely it is to sound like it was written by a 5th grader.
Ho Hum
posted on 22 Jul 2009Just like "Burn After Reading," I wish the trailer would have given me a heads up about what the movie was really about rather than just trying to sell me to get me in the door. I was, of course, sold on the fact that there was such a great cast, and expected something a little different. Especially, after just coming out on the eve of the "Sex in the City" movie. Normally I would just say that this was a bad movie, but every woman in the audience who was in their 40's and 50's really seemed to be enjoying it. And that is what I got the sense of when I was watching this. I suspected that the writer/director was in her 50's (upon investigation that is true) and that if I was older I would probably "get it" and maybe enjoy it. It was almost painful for me, who is younger. It's like, they hit every mark of what "should" be in a movie about women. Like they were trying to hit every beat possible to try and seem liberal and attract all women. The part they missed, was, any woman under 40 who doesn't live in the midwest. Seriously, this script could have done so much more if they had just hired an early 30's writer to savvy it up a bit. Why not appeal to the Carrie Bradshaw crowd as well? If this film had been made 10 years ago, I think I really would have enjoyed it. But it really seemed like beliefs from a time a while ago, and a slightly older generation. Which, there is nothing wrong with that, but if you put a hot 30's/40's cast in it, I'm going to expect them to act and believe things that women their age would. I want to promote women's films, I just want them to be a little more smart about executing them. That being said, I'm sure my mom would enjoy this film, I'm just not sure that I would recommend it. Seriously, there are a lot of good 30's to 40's female writers in this town. I would say, implement their talents on your next film.
Re: Benning should sue
posted on 18 Jul 2009I 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.
Women Women and More Women
posted on 18 Jul 2009Yes, this film is another remake. Yes, this film can be considered a chick-flick. And yes, this film is not perfect. The Women is however a clever modern update on the social behaviors of all women, with an impressive cast of A-listers including Meg Ryan, Debra Messing, Annette Benning and Bette Midler.The film revolves around four main characters, Mary (Ryan), her best friend, editor-in-chief, Sylvie (Benning), Alex (Jada Pinkett-Smith) and Edie (Debra Messing) and the out-of-this-world female creature who is responsible for most of the film's drama,named Crystal (Eva Mendez). Mary is trying to deal with her cheating husband (who's never actually seen in the film), by following the advice of both her friends and her mother (Candice Bergen).Aside from Mary, there's Sylvie who's torn between her social life and her professional life. She has decisions to make that test her moral and ethic values. Then there's writer Alex who's a lesbian, with a lot of spunk, but knows her way with words. And finally Edie with four girls and another baby on the way, who loves children and has a heart of gold, with a hidden secret revealed at the end.Together the women live for revenge, rely on each other, and give each other life lessons. But it's the cameos by Bette Midler, Candice Bergen, Cloris Leachman, Carrie Fisher, and Debi Mazar, that show the cruel and usual behavior of women. Bergen plays Ryan's mother, she's tough, silver-tongued, experienced, and yet feels she could have become what her daughter does later. There's Fisher who shows how to blackmail and test the boundaries of selfishness, morals, and betrayal. Mazar, the gossip girl, that shows no mercy for what she says and whom she says it to. Leachman who plays Ryan's sassy housekeeper, she knows her place, when and where she's needed, and how to deliver a good one-liner. Finally there's MIdler, who plays Leah Miller, a crazy eclectic but wise Hollywood agent. She's the one character who gives Ryan's Mary an epiphany on who she truly is by discovering "what do I want." Despite Midler's scene stealing performance and memorable quotes, she was underused.But back to the film, together the women show the audience what it means to live in the 21st century without knowing exactly what you want until the time comes when you answer that very own question. It tackles feminism, what it means to be a woman (fierce, ruthless, bad-ass, tacky, smart, sly, clever, shy, proud, ashame, self-conscious, careless, beautiful, strong, independent); and also what it is that women want, why are women the way they are. It's funny, modern and by all means not a masterpiece. But the Bottom line is, it's worth the money and time to see veteran and younger actresses teach us all about women.
Polished enough for genre viewers but too superficial and basic to appeal to a wider audience
posted on 16 Jul 2009It 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.
Breathtakingly Captures the Female of This Generation
posted on 10 Jul 2009Like "Mama Mia" (2008) captured the musical presentation of contemporary family life, "Women" (2008) captures the comedy-drama of contemporary female life. Both on the surface and underneath, this delightful, funny movie presents most of the female characteristics, the fine nuances of many fascinating female personas without pretense, without dramatic flair. The performances are actually more sensitive with dazzling undertones, hues, feelings that really hit home, the pulse, the frantic energy, the intellectual interplay. This fusion and immersion of many well-known actresses of our age is one of the highlights of the year for female movies, perhaps in many years. The ending also lifts the notion of male and female relational movies a definite notch...making this movie standout. Nine out of Ten Stars.
Entertaining & FUN!! We loved it!
posted on 06 Jul 2009Never a dull moment & lessons to be learned thru this movie! As a mother, Candice Bergman gave excellent advice many of us could use. If your a female w/ close friends who are good-fun like mines, watch it w/ your girls! Or even alone. We were all able to relate to the characters, situations & parenting issues in the movie, maybe that's what made it emotional yet so hilarious. Everyone wanted to borrow our friend's rented DVD to watch it again so I went out & bought my own knowing it was the kind of movie I could watch over & over, especially when down & out. It's all in good fun while it lasts, seriously, and you won't be disappointed in comparison to all the other cra* rentals out. I didn't even know this was a remake till I read another post but I think I'd rather look at Eva than Joan Crawford. I don't think Joan Crawford could make me laugh period. I think of Mommie Dearest every time someone mentions her name. The script was well written & the main characters all played their parts w/ good humor well. It was also exhilarating to see most my favorite great actresses in a single movie! I even got misty eyed when Annette's character remorsefully confessed she betrayed her friend (Meg) b/c her job was at stake. I was kind of disappointed that Jada looked so thin. Natasha Alam wasn't convincing at all as Jada's gay love interest or a fashion model, which is what she is. Bad acting complicates role-playing for other actors making it a challenge for them to be convincing, but Jada's professionalism out shined Natasha's flawed acting & carried us over to the next scene. It was a bumpy ride but she managed & it was smooth sailing after that! Her character was me to the tee, I can't stand being out in the day or I have to keep my shades on, lol. Although it was Mary Haines (Meg Ryan) 1st fashion show, they could have did better w/ the clothing. The first set of dresses were so plain & so tight around the model's breast that it was unrealistic anyone would allow them to walk out like that. Worst yet, caught a store like Sak's attention. She made her point tho, and that was that we can't take care of others until we learn how to take care of our own needs first. The more we give our children & husband to love & respect, the more love & respect they'll have for us! Great ending!
What Women?
posted on 30 Jun 2009To 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
The BEST version of this story ever filmed
posted on 28 Jun 2009Like 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.
A very fun romantic movie for women
posted on 31 Aug 2009The Women was a very good movie for women to see. If you liked Sex And The City then this is a perfect movie for you. Meg Ryan was fun and charming at the same time. Then she did show how to be a good and bad mother. The movie kind of has a weird direction. It seems hard to find out the direction for the film but after a little while it was good. The messages were good and there were many. Jada Pinkett Smith was very funny and should have had more screen time. She really glowed in this movie. It is a very enjoyable movie. I was surprised on how good it was coming from a teenage guy. The movie didn't really ever have a kick start it was pretty much just mellow the whole movie. The story was average but very cliché. It wasn't a bad story though. I think it just could've had more to it. In ways they should have told more about the other girls stories. Overall though not a bad movie at all. Go see it if you are a women.