IMDb > The Women (2008/I) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Women
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Women More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 10 of 13: [Prev][5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 125 reviews in total 

4 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

This Movie About Women By Women Really Spoke To Me

Author: bergercm from United States
2 January 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I've read enough of the reviews here to see that few of these ladies appreciate The Women. They appear to miss the outrageous cattiness of the original, and craved the acting performances of old. Perhaps because I've not seen the original, I was more open. First of all, Meg Ryan looks fabulous! I simply don't get all the criticism of her appearance. I suspect there is some jealousy going on here. Eva Mendez is a knockout, and filled the bill quite aptly.

SPOILER WARNING: If I were confronted by an "other woman" with her looks, I would have to kill her, AND him. Even the lovely Meg Ryan would find that daunting competition, and feel quite demoralized. I could feel her pain.

In contrast to the fine performances of most of the cast, Bette Midler seemed out of place - almost "cartoonish" - and did not ring true as the other characters did, to me. However, even in real life, there are a few buffoons. I've known plenty of real women, and unfortunately a few catty ones, and I have no use whatsoever for their type. I appreciate that the manicurist is the only catty-type in this plot, and she is portrayed as a dim-wit. I cringed when I originally thought Sylvia was going to be the catty type, and in the original perhaps she was.

In the 30's, women, and in fact most people were stereotyped on film. If you enjoy that, then there is plenty of it already in the can. I would have found something else to watch if that was what The Women was about.

Mary Haines/Meg Ryan, like me, is a woman at a cross-roads in her life, dealing with endings, and not sure of how to start new beginnings. It is a frightening time, and we have to finish what we started, but plan for a new future. She needed to learn to be true to herself, and I totally get it. She also needed to get over the reality that the people in her life were going to fail and disappoint her. I have the same problem, and it is not easy to forgive much as you may want to do so. We women often fill so many roles, that we forget to even think about ourselves, and satisfy our own ambitions. If a little balance is not achieved, we can easily become a shell or automaton, and the joy of life is not truly experienced. It is what we real women deal with at some point in our lives.

I am sure Joan Crawford was entertaining in the original, and someday when I am in the mood for something outrageous, stereotypical, and probably only good for mere amusement, I will sit back and enjoy. However, I have found that when you watch the remake first, the originals sometimes seem inferior, so I will not be too disappointed if the original falls flat.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Far More Enjoyable Than SATC

Author: Movie-Jay from Toronto, Canada
15 September 2008

Okay, I'll start off right away by saying I'm a guy. I like good movies. I'm not one of those guys who won't go and see a "chick flick", because the thought of straight guys disliking the fact that a movie is about women and stars women is preposterous to me.

There are better and more challenging movies out there to see right now, but "The Women" is certainly more enjoyable than the "Sex and The City: The Movie" no matter how you slice it. I liked spending time with these "broads" because they were actually interesting while the SATC girls were flimsy and flighty, and their movie was filled with stupid dialogue and a good 40 minutes that we could have done without.

That "The Women" is scoring lower than SATC so far makes no sense to me, whatsoever. This is a pretty good movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

One of the worst movies I've ever seen

Author: cindi-21 from United States
21 September 2008

Please don't waste your money on this, for the simple fact that you'll be encouraging the filmmakers to make more movies this bad. What a waste of great talent. It's been a long time since I've seen writing this bad; a 10-year-old could write a screenplay with more believable dialogue. It was also offensive on so many levels that I don't know where to begin. It makes me sad that women are portrayed as this movie portrays them--as shallow creatures only interested in shopping and clothes. Even the directing was pedestrian, and don't get me started on the sound quality. I've seen a lot of independent films, and even the most low-budget had better technical quality.

Ugh, ugh, ugh.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:


Author: andbrook from United States
17 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

A group of women are close friends after leading very different lives

Author: pinkthirteen from Canada
7 July 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This 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!!

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Ho Hum

Author: plasticanimalz from United States
23 September 2008

Just 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Whining, Self-Absorbed Women

Author: tex-42
14 April 2010

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

This movie is good. No, really, it is.

Author: avamarkson from United States
17 January 2009

I went into this movie planning on being disappointed. Honestly, the only reason I watched it was because I am (still) a fan of Ryan's (Yes, I'm the one). I had read the reviews, heard the negative comments, and felt prepared for a let-down. I couldn't have been more wrong to think that. This movie is good. It might even be great. The entire cast each carried their characters very well, which wasn't a surprise. We're talking about Annette Benning, Meg Ryan, and Debra Messing, here. Three great women, three great characters. Candice Bergen and Cloris Leachman even left an impression. Yes, I am aware that Jada Pinkett Smith and Eva Mendes also appeared in the film, but I didn't find them to have that strong of an impact, even though they did well with their respective parts. But that's not the point. The point of this review is to tell you to see this movie. You won't regret it. Don't expect it to change your life (it probably won't), but you can expect to laugh, and to feel for the characters, and you might even find yourself having a good time. Give this movie a real chance. You'll like it. And even if you do happen to find the story doesn't sit with you, you can rest assure that Benning's performance will.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

I must have seen another movie. I liked this version.

Author: Jay Harris ( from United States
16 January 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have seen the 1939 ALL MGM stars version,it was about ultra spoiled rich women in the process of divorce.It was a typical overly glamorous film by George Cukor who made many of these so called womens's films. I liked that comedy & gave it the same rating as I am giving this.

This version is was directed by Diane English from her screenplay, which in turn was based on the 1936 play by Claire Booth Loos & film written by Anita Loos & Jane Murfin.. The people in this version are about as well-to-do as in the original but not as insufferably snippy & snotty. Here they are catty & much more likable & down-to-earth,

Our cast is also an all star female cast (as in 1939) from film & TV.

Its stars Meg Ryan,Annette Benning & Eve Mendes in the roles played by Norma Shearer,Rosiland Russell & Joan Crawford. Also cast are Debra Messing,Jada Pinkett Smith, Bette Midler,Carrie fisher & Cloris Leachman and Candace Bergen.

The production is first rate filmed in various parts of the North East USA. There is a fashion show like in the original & it pays tribute to the 1939 show very nicely,

I did not particularly care for Debra Messing's last scenes, chalk that up to the fact I am a man nearly 81 yrs old.

See this enjoyable comedy I am sure you will like it. The DVD has extras comparing scenes from both versions,.

Ratings *** (out of 4) 87points (out of 100) IMDb 8 (out of 10)

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

A Pleasant Two Hours; Nowhere Near As Bad As Critics Have Said

Author: Danusha_Goska Save Send Delete
21 September 2008

"The Women" has received terrible reviews, possibly because it dares to attempt to recreate a beloved Hollywood classic from the Golden Age. I went to see it mostly out of curiosity. I had a good enough time. I did laugh, and I did cry. I probably won't ever watch it again, but it really wasn't the poke in the eye with a sharp stick that reviewers have been making it out to be.

Annette Benning steals the film with a heartfelt, fully realized performance as an ambitious magazine editor. Meg Ryan is as cute as ever, and all the catty comments about age not being kind to her have been made by jealous people. Candice Bergen is not on screen long, but she is meltingly warm and lovely. Carrie Fisher was tragically uninteresting and almost unrecognizable in a cameo role. Time for an intervention? What I liked most about the movie was Diane English's script. It was really a script that was trying to do something, unlike most Hollywood scripts today. In spots, it was witty, intelligent, and worth listening for and to. There were misses, but more hits than misses.

Yes, yes, yes, all the women are beautiful and rich, and not representational of all the women on the planet. Yes, they all wear spike heels and get manicures. Cry me a river. This isn't Bertolt Brecht's "Mother Courage," and if that is what you expected, more fool you.

"The Women" could have used better direction and, no, it isn't as good as the classic on which it was based. But it's a pleasant two hours at the cinema.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 10 of 13: [Prev][5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history