The Women (2008) Poster

(I) (2008)

User Reviews

Add a Review
131 Reviews
Sort by:
1/10
a comedy? shocked and saddened-appalling
phyllisknox17 February 2018
To see women actors of such talent and achievement in such a truly awful film was such a heartbreaker. That these women agreed to do some misogynistic amateurish no-brain sitcom was appalling. I hope the were all paid well. As far as seeing it, here is what showed up for me, a silly, trite, sexist, elitist, shallow and downright stupid film. Oh gawd, The Women puts back women to a time that has never even existed! eeeeyikes!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Some of my Favorite Stars Have Decided to Fall Together
Will Fernandes13 February 2018
It´s like as someone said: "I will prove that all these talented, gorgeous, established actress can make a clown of them selves in a movie that makes "Clueless" looks like an Ingmar Bergman movie." So sad. Why Bette? Why Annette?
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
I'm not a female, but even i felt bad for all the women
This is just purely bad film. With an incredible bad message to all woman. I think this could've been a great film. An all female cast was brilliant and acting was great. But the story and the message?...

This film literally tells women that if their husbands cheat and lie to them, then turn the other way as it won't last and everything will work out, live in denial.

I was hoping to see a inspiring film about how women can live happy and successful lifes without their lying and cheating husbands. Or at least how if one truly loves someone they fight for him and make the partner see what truly loves is. But no this film, the cheating husband got of a women who he was cheating with as they were now living together, and wanted something that he couldn't have. But he didn't dump the her and then show sadness or loneliness, he was still with her until the end when he asked the ex wife for another chance.

So ask yourself, what did the husband learn? or what did audience learn? that if he cheats and then get bored of the affair because she isn't as smart or ambitious as the wife, and asks for another chance then its fine? even if he is still sleeping with her when he is asking you for that second chance?
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Watchable remake, not to be compared with the original
dierregi24 November 2017
This 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).
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Loved it!
gidgetice27 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Amazing strong female cast! Funny and emotional. It made me laugh, angry and emotional. There was nothing I really didn't like about it, great cast, great story and great messages. I am surprised at other reviews, I highly recommend it! The delivery scene alone was hilarious! The cast just worked together so well. I also enjoyed the soundtrack.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
This Movie Is Awful - Don't Watch If You Respect Yourself as a Female
lpgal90005 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
So many female stereotypes! Ugh. Please don't even bother watching this movie. Just because it has an all female cast does NOT mean it's a female empowering film... it's far from it. It gave me a headache.

There are a few scenes I just hate. The whole film is full of gossip of each other.. I get when people gossip about strangers, but friends gossiping about friends? Not cool...

Going to the perfume store ugh.. to confront the woman "stealing" their friend's husband... uhm hello? You confront your good for nothing cheating husband, not girl number 2! That's like saying it's not your husband's fault because it's always the woman's fault... STOP with that... it takes two to tango... (i know she gets divorced later but still).

I don't know... maybe this is how high society females are... no wonder we love making fun of these air heads... but it's not enjoyable like Legally Blonde.. in fact it's not even a comedy... or is it? It did NOT feel like one otherwise I could let this all go...
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Nobody Doesn't Like Saks!
susan-31714 September 2017
This 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.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
The vision of this film is a total loss of time
Nicola Principato31 March 2017
This is one of the worst movies I've ever watched. The plot is flimsy, many lines are vulgar and sexually explicit, and women are portrayted as dull, insensitive beings. I can't understand why in the year 2008 such a notorious cast and so important resources were employed in a so poor effort. I really wish that in the future no other film will claim to talk about women in such a dumb way,
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Terrible waste of a great cast
The original film made in the 30s is funny and entertaining. This film appears to have been directed/edited by someone who had not read the script. Why bother with Bette Midler without expanding on the link with the cowboy who also falls for Crystal? Why call a character Dorothy Parker with no witty lines? I admire most of the actresses involved and they should have stuck to the original storyline and they could have made a good remake of the original script, but it was perfect as it was. This film will only put people off viewing the much better original version. Shame on you, director, producer, script editors whoever you are.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
This movie is offensive to women
mrkfolio17 December 2014
This movie is an absolute disgrace and so horribly reductive and misogynistic which makes it so unbelievable that it was directed by a woman and women agreed to act in it. These women couldn't be more 90s Cosmo/sex and the city stereotypes who also look like they're in the 90s, only the movie was made in 2008! If it wasn't for all the plastic surgery faces I would definitely think this was a 90s movie, I mean even the colour grade was 90s! I haven't seen the original but I'm sure even in the late 30s they would have been more progressive than this. The dialogue is painful and clichéd at best and it contains many many cringing moments. Cringing not as funny haha but cringing as in the script is absolutely offensive. Ever heard of the Bechdel test? It asks if a work of fiction features at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man. (Wikipedia) Well this movie fails the test and it's a movie with an all female cast. This movie has successfully become my worst movie of all time followed by Adam Sandler's Click.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
The Women
Jackson Booth-Millard9 August 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I saw the trailer for this film and remembered many big female stars in the cast, it is based on an original 1939 film directed by George Cukor, I knew it was rated two out of five stars by critics, but I was still intrigued by what it would involve. Basically clothing designer Mary Haines (Razzie nominated Meg Ryan) appears to be the perfect woman, living in beautiful suburban Connecticut with wealthy Wall Street financier husband Steven and eleven year old daughter Molly (India Ennenga), she is kind, and she can balance her work, including voluntary, and family. Mary's best friend since college is New York City fashion magazine editor Sylvie Fowler (Razzie nominated Annette Bening), who is unsure what to do when she finds out, from chatty manicurist Tanya (Batman Forever's Debi Mazar), that Mary's husband is involved with perfume salesgirl Crystal Allen (Razzie nominated Eva Mendes). Sylvie confides in heavily pregnant Edie Cohen (Razzie nominated Debra Messing) what to do as she still cannot bring herself to tell Mary, but Mary finds out for herself getting a manicure from chatty Tanya, her mother Catherine (Miss Congeniality's Candice Bergen) urges her to keep quiet for a while, but Mary ignores her and confronts Crystal first, then Steven and asks for a divorce. Sylvie, Edie and lesbian writer Alex Fisher (Razzie nominated Jada Pinkett Smith) come together to support Mary, but Sylvie faces losing her job, and after conspiring with local gossip columnist Bailey Smith (Carrie Fisher) the friendship between her and Mary is ended because of her betrayal, but Sylvie is the one who daughter Molly confides in while ditching school and her distracted mother distances herself. With the financial assistance of Catherine, after being fired by her father, Mary gets a makeover and decides to open her own clothing design firm, getting her life back in order she is also able to reconnect with her daughter, who talks about what she knew about her father's relationship with Crystal, and Mary reunites with Slvie who has quit her job. Mary sets out to repair her marriage and unveils her new line of womenswear in a fashion show, with Annie Lennox's "Money Can't Buy It" playing, attended by boutique owners and a buyer from Saks Fifth Avenue, Sylvie reveals she has met the right man and plans to give him her phone number, and Edie has her waters break and goes into labour. During the labour Mary gets a call from Steven and arranges with him to go on a date, Edie gives birth to a baby boy, and in the end the four friends Mary, Sylvie, Edie and Alex are on the cover of a new magazine started by Sylvie, called "Sylvie", Alex publishes her book, there is a hint Crystal is dating Alex's ex-girlfriend Natasha (Natasha Alam), and the women all talk about the joys, heartaches and uniquely special triumphs of being a woman. Also starring Bette Midler as Leah Miller, Young Frankenstein's Cloris Leachman as Maggie, Boogie Nights' Joanna Gleason as Barbara, Lynn Whitfield as Glenda Hill and Ana Gasteyer as Pat. It is nice to see all the big name female stars on screen together, but it is the same old chestnut, the star power ultimately rules this picture, there is hardly any effort to make laughs, and the rest is either trying engage with silly womens' problems (no pun intended) and bitchiness, and even sillier sentimentality, I will definitely have to see the 1939 original version, a bland and rather forgettable comedy drama. Adequate!
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
A group of friends support each other when the husband of Mary Haines has an affair.
wiseangel999 July 2014
It was a great movie, one that I was able to watch multiple times because the storyline is intriguing, though it answered the questions that needed to be answered, and left some details about "What happened to..." to the imagination. The dynamics of Mary and Sylvie's friendship was real, and the 4 friends bond was genuine as well. The characters all had an identity which seemed to go beyond the screen. The Women is a drama-- comedy, one which had enough drama to keep me interested, but not too much comedy that the substance of the film was lost, a balance not always achieved in movies today. Definitely a movie you could watch more than once without being bored or losing interest, and the all female cast was an idea that could easily make or break a movie, but casting was not at all an issue, in my opinion.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
So very fake
SnoopyStyle13 February 2014
Mary Haines (Meg Ryan) has a big luncheon for all the high society women and her friends. Her husband cheats on her with Saks salesgirl Crystal Allen (Eva Mendes), and her friend Sylvie Fowler (Annette Bening) knows it. Her world falls into chaos when she finds out, and the affair continues.

This is a remake of the 1939 movie made from a play. There are only female actors and female characters in the movie. I guess it's suppose to make a statement, but whatever statement it made in 1939, it no longer makes today. The dialog has a lot of superficiality in it, and the characters are stereotypes. It's all very 'Sex in the City', and it does not start off well. The problem is that when something actually happens, the seriousness is lost.

Haines finding out about the affair could have been a very compelling story. It's nothing ground breaking, but going through it without a male character in sight is interesting. Her teen girl could be a great avenue for an emotional story. But it is all very fake. It's all very weak. It's not daring enough. Director Diane English has made a big screen unfunny sitcom with some pretty good actresses.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Invisible Men
Dan Evans27 January 2013
Much Woody Allen style soul-searching and social satire surrounds this fairly simple story about an upscale she-pack who discover that one of their members has a cheating husband. And, of course, they need to provide her with emotional, if not moral, support.

The surreal gimmick in this film is that, with one exception, the entire cast of The Women is female, not just the major players but the extras. All the waiters and diners in a crowded restaurant are women. We are not, however, talking about a female version of The Hunt for Red October because there are men central to the story even if they are talked about like Niles Crane's Maris, never seen or heard. And that's just as well because they are the bastards who cheated. When Mary (Meg Ryan) finally throws out her philandering husband, the confrontation is relayed second-hand to us via the maid. The daughter watches sadly as dad's possessions are tossed out on the lawn.

A more accurate title would have been The New York City Women because of the sad plight of that particular demographic who find that men and love are getting to be a scarce commodity. The invisible men in this film are a metaphor for real-life statistics. In NYC men are only 47 percent of the population. In college 40 percent are men. Even fewer of them want to get married. And of the ones who will marry, half will stray. Is it any wonder that women might have the feeling that men are disappearing? Mothers in fly-over land laugh at these big-city broads agonizing over the balance of career and family because even though they may have never been to Saks, at least their daughters aren't smoking cigarettes to keep their weight down, getting tattoos or studying to be hookers. Mary barely gives her daughter the time of day but kids need pretty much full-time adult supervision. With absent fathers and mothers who divide their time between boutiques, career and lunch with friends, the supervision is getting pretty spotty.

It isn't really the women who are at fault, it's the men. Back around 1968 women knew what they wanted, they wanted to get married and have children. How tedious and boring. The guys have always known what they want -- boys just want to have fun. They bought the message of their leader, Hugh Hefner, and suckered women with a Three-Card Monte game of "feminism". Women thought they were picking the Queen of Diamonds but got the Joker instead.

Some people might think this obsession women have with love, relationships and marriage is somehow trivial but it really is the most important thing in the world. The birth rate in the Western world is declining and has fallen below the replacement rate in several countries. We worry about declining populations of Spotted Owls or White Whales but what about the White Human? The final minute of this film makes it clear, if we don't get this business right, not only will the men disappear but all of us will.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Sad and shallow
Shannon O'Malley26 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Another 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."
13 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
I Anticipated the Worst; but Was Pleasantly Surprised!
Tahhh29 July 2012
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.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Smart and well-updated, though maybe only for women
zjfrendt6 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Since the release of this film I have seen only negative reviews. In fact, even the summary given on this website is a summary of the 1930's version, as if nobody could be bothered to watch a modern film only about women. I would like to point out that the 1930's version was such a hit that it was remade in the 1950's with June Allyson as a musical. Obviously, some have found universal themes about the nature of female friendship, competition and betrayal to be worth watching. I watched this remake shortly after the film was released and I remember being surprised by how terrible the reviews were. I have recently watched it again, and find myself wondering the same thing. When Meg Ryan confides her husband's affair to her mother, Candice Bergan, and is advised to turn a blind eye, Ryan makes the comment, "What is this, a 1930's movie?!?" This is a clever bit of dialogue and reminds us of the movie's origin. Yes, it is a different time now, but I think this remake, while clearly not a perfect film and at times a bit awkward, does an admirable job of holding true to the themes that made the original a classic and for me it was a perfectly enjoyable film.

After 13 years of a loving marriage and a beautiful daughter, a woman finds out that her husband is having an affair. The knowledge comes about through the gossip of high-society New York, in this instance the manicurist at Sak's. Her friends soon find out the news as well and act to intervene. I think one problem that people had with this beginning is that in the "modern" world this woman should have thrown her husband out immediately. She is counseled, however, by her mother, not to throw away everything over her husband's "mistake" which clearly has nothing to do with the love of his wife. Several years ago, I may also have found this idea offensive. I think, however, the film does a good job of justifying why a woman wouldn't want to give up everything her life has been about immediately. Obviously, once she is forced to confront the sexy mistress in a dressing room, the abstract idea of an affair becomes real and she throws her husband out.

From here the film shows Ryan's struggle to move on; as her relationship with her friends, her job and her daughter all impose challenges. At the heart, however, remains the fundamental intricacies of all the different kinds of female relations, from her reticent housekeeper to the "other woman" and everyone in between (including a fabulous turn from Midler as a random acquaintance who passes on some vital wisdom). And here, at the heart, the movie shows it's modern grip on the female species: Ryan learns the ultimate lesson that a woman will never be the best daughter, mother, worker, lover or friend that she can be until she asks the real question: What does she want for herself?

Again, I enjoy these kinds of themes, and though I wouldn't make my husband sit through it with me, I would definitely watch it again some rainy day. One more thing, the ultimate revenge scene is delicious! Lots of fun.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Must have thought they were making "The Group"
misctidsandbits8 October 2011
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.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
This movie was fantastic, despite the bad reviews
Tia Peterson28 July 2011
I have seen this movie probably 45 times. At one point, it held a permanent residency in my DVD player.

First, the plot as described by IMDb is totally incorrect. Mary Haines didn't bond with any "society women" in the remake, unless you consider the pot-smoking modeling/acting agent played by Bett Middler a society woman! So that right off the bat is misleading and inaccurate.

This is a story about a woman who, like many, has completely lost touch of who she is in the busyness of life as a mother and a wife who doesn't really work outside the home (she gets fired by her dad - it's apparent that it wasn't a real job to begin with). She's ambitious and driven, unlike her other married w/children friend who is perfectly happy at home with the kids running around everywhere.

When she discovers that her husband is cheating on her with a Saks perfume spritzer, she goes on a quest to figure out who she is again. She discovers that she is unwilling to let it slide, as her society mother suggests. Finding herself at a crossroad, she decides to go down the path of starting her own business.

I found this movie hilarious, touching, and strangely familiar. I could relate to every one of the characters, especially Sylvie - the busy magazine editor whose career is passing her by. Sylvie plays a huge role in this movie and her character fits in nicely. Not to mention, it's brilliantly played by Annette Betting.

The other characters were just as important. And they were also well- acted. I personally felt that even minor roles, such as the one played by Jada Pinkett, was a fantastic addition. That character, along with the house manager and nanny, added much-needed comedic relief to a plot that is deceptively unfunny.

I liked the movie beginning to end.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Clare Booth Luce was better than this
mrtraska1 November 2010
Normally, I'm more supportive of women directors, but this really doesn't deserve it. Good actors stuck in a bad script, and it's not even witty. The original was far more clever, if slightly vicious and dated. And what on earth did Meg Ryan do to make herself so unattractive and emotionally unappealing??! (Can you say bad plastic job? Uh-huh. Forget the fat lips, girl.)

Moreover, there's not one major character (or characterization) that I find remotely sympathetic or can care about -- I want to slap them all! Don't care for the wimpy, spineless Meg Ryan character or the superficial Annette Bening character. Really don't like the Bette Midler character (or is it what Midler does with it? It's a toss-up). Hate, hate, **HATE** the Debra Messing character!! Eva Mendes? Flat. Boring. Could do entirely without Cloris Leachman: she just irritates lately wherever she is. And Jada Pinkett Smith is practically invisible in this.

Skip this. Waste of time. Enough said.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Wonderful actresses in wonderful parts
disisdkat5 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Unfortunately all of the top reviews you see of this movie are from fans of the 1939 movie. I love black and white films as much as anyone but seriously you need to let it go. "The Truth About Charlie" had to suffer from this same myopia. "Charade" is probably my favorite film of that period but I don't try to compare it with a film of this period. It is a completely different art form. With that out of the way let me say why I liked this film so much. Every actress in it reminds me of someone I know or touches a part of me and it does it with humor. While the setting and the culture of the movie is Manhattan its topic is one that touches every woman at one point in their life. What happens when a husband is unfaithful? What if you are the friend that finds out? Do you tell or not tell - either way you are going to lose? Different advice flows from everyone but at the end only one person can live with and make the decisions. The film centers around Meg Ryan who has some great lines and delivery but I must confess that Annette Bening was my favorite in the movie. She had the more difficult part to play and did it perfectly. This is a film I recommend if you want to be entertained and feel good.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The worst 10 things in this awful movie !
ahmed elshikh1 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
10_It's unfunny.

09_No men ? That made things boring, forced, and a bit strange especially while a scene like the one in which the 2 maids were repeating all the wife and husband's argument, let alone the endless one-side phone calls, the "he said to me.." lines. Overall it's a dull move that mirrors a complex the movie's she-makers suffer where men for them are "very obnoxious so let's make them invisible", or "we can succeed totally without them". Did you notice how it has no character of a positive man, albeit as a remote intimation ?! Even (Debra Messing)'s husband wasn't there for her delivery !

08_An extremely monotonous pace. The director made nothing special.

07_ Concedences. (Annette Bening) knew about the affair from the shop's girl by coincidence. Then (Meg Ryan) knew about the same affair from the same shop's girl also by coincidence. Then (Bening) and (Ryan) met the affair itself, (Eva Mendes), at another shop by coincidence as well. And that was done in just the first half hour ?! Well, I got the pattern, this movie has a coincidence every 10 minutes !

06_ What's going on ? At first you think that this is a movie about 4 women. Then we have the main story of one of them. Then at the last 10 minutes we come back with them?? In any case, it couldn't be a comedy, or any enjoyable different movie about 4 women either!

05_(Candice Bergen) ??? What the hell she's doing here ?!!!

04_(Jada Pinkett-Smith) as lesbian ? OK, that was only for winning extra bucks from the box office, more than anything. And her acting ?? It looked exactly like a lousy parody of her real life husband Will Smith. Terribly lousy !

03_The long, very long, 3 screams of (Debra Messing) while the intolerable scene of giving birth. And they were stupid enough to put that in the trailer. What kind of a twisted mind that saw that as a good thing ?! This is drastically annoying and no fun. It deserves a Razzie award apart. God have mercy on the ones who had to watch it in the theaters!

02_(Meg Ryan) ?? OH MY GOD. She used to be a sweetheart…once. Now she looks unsightly and creepy. I thought this is an odd look-alike who has her same sweet spirit and cute reactions, or this is really her yet wearing a frightful mask that made her face as a nasty caricature! If they give me the choice to be a woman with wrinkles or to be The Women's (Ryan), I'll choose anything but the last. You can say that again about (Annette Bening). The thing isn't about the shock of the sight only, it's rather about features that stop acting anymore. I felt all the time as if I watch (Death Becomes Her 2), or a horrific documentary about the actresses above 40 in Hollywood ! It pushed me to keep thinking; that's more important issue to make a movie about than the one I'm watching, naming it "The Freaks" instead, with a tagline that says "Forget Dracula. Forget Frankenstein. Now we have Botox and Plastic Surgery. And they're BETTER", at least it would be an explicit Horror !

01_The heroine comes back to her husband through a phone call ??? Anyone agrees to shoot that is an idiot !

Now I have an opinion of a friend of mine. I always be aware of her viewpoints about movies, since she told me one time "Men in Black ?? This is so boring. I fell asleep in front of it after the first 5 minutes" (?????!!!!!!!!). She told me about The Women "what a great movie", so when I told her smiling "I didn't like it", she replayed so seriously disgusted "Men !". I believe she has 2 things in common with this movie's makers; they're the only creatures who actually love this movie, and they hate men !

It's a mix of soft colors and deformed women. Yet the worst part isn't its pedantry, it is its fact as a silly romantic tackiness, with nothing new except its ugly – once lovely – stars, and its viewpoint about what a great place the world is without men !. In brief, save (Eva Mendes) in that black underwear, this is awful. I can't think of anybody who may watch it again, even my crazy friend !
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Whining, Self-Absorbed Women
tex-4214 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The Women is a well intentioned remake gone wrong. The storyline remains similar to the original, with Mary Haines finding out her husband is cheating on her with a shop girl. The rest of the movie details how Mary copes with this knowledge and eventually tries to build a new life for herself with the help of her mother and friends, while trying to maintain a good relationship with her pre-teen daughter.

There are multiple problems with this movie, the biggest one being that the characters are all incredibly bland. Mary Haines isn't a particularly well developed character and her problems are lame. Even without her husband, Mary is gorgeous, maintains her beautiful Connecticut mansion and finds the time to start an entire clothing line. Her supposed rival for her husband, Crystal Allen (Eva Mendes) is beautiful, but never seems to be a real threat, nor has much of a personality.

Mary's friends are mostly one note as well. Sylvie is a completely self involved person who makes Mary's problems all about herself. Alex barely has a presence, and her distinguishing character traits are apparently that she is black and a lesbian. Edie is the free spirit who really enjoys having children. Little to nothing else is made known about her except for a "shocking" revelation at the end of the movie. It never is clear why Edie and Alex are even friends with Mary and Sylvie. None of them seem to have common interests, and each one seems designed mainly to appeal to a certain demographic.

All in all, this is one to perhaps see once and then forget. The original is much better and less obsessed with brands and trying to send out a positive message to women, while falling flat.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Enjoyable Film for Women
kristaselene5 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I really liked this movie. I am usually a tough critic & was surprised to see all the negative reviews for this film. I never saw the original. Perhaps this is why I wasn't holding the remake on a pedestal.

Annette Bening is fantastic as usual and the rest of the cast does a great job. I appreciated the choice to only have females in the movie- it made it memorable. The only male in the movie is the baby born at the very end. If I'm not mistaken, even the soundtrack includes female artists. I loved "Money Can't Buy It" by Annie Lennox which was featured during Mary's fashion show.

I think some women weren't pleased with the message this movie sent. I personally would not divorce a man if he cheated on me but made an effort to have me back. For those audiences who are hung up on this detail of the film, that's your loss. People give up on marriages too easily. If more women thought like the characters in this film, the female sex would have a lot more to be proud of. This movie was realistic and refreshing. I have seen it multiple times and never get sick of it.

For women who want a good laugh and a fun time, I'd suggest this movie to any of them.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Ugh.
andbrook17 March 2010
I am a guy, and this is exactly what I imagine periods are like. Acting was decent, considering the awful screenplay, but the whole experience was a miscarriage of cinema. If I had been instructed to write a farce movie about menopause, it would have exactly like this. I will update to let you know how long it takes for my testicles to come back out of my body. If there are any girls who think this captures their experience with womanhood, I am very sorry for your wasted existence. If aliens saw this movie, they would report that there was no intelligent life on Earth. If Cosmopolitan magazine had a love child with Gilmore Girls, and it was premature and retarded, it would tutor this movie in school. I hate everything right now.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews