User reviews

It was an impossible task to update a classic that was embedded in its time and as such could travel the waves of time intact because we could adapt to its historical context. Now this 2008 version seems the one that's dated. I used to love Meg Ryan, reminded me of Carol Lombard now she's more like Joan Rivers, in appearance if not in spirit. There is nothing funny about her. Strangely enough she looks better in the second part of the film. In any case, the modernity of Norma Shearer's performance is unbeatable. Annette Bening is better but couldn't cancel the memory of Rosalind Russell, who could? If one can divorce oneself from the George Cukor original, and one must to be able to sit through it, there are a few pleasures to be had, mostly thanks to Cloris Leachman, Candice Bergen (playing Meg Ryan's mom for the second time, remember "Rich and Famous"?) and Bette Midler in a much to brief stint playing the part once played by Mary Boland. The most unforgivable blunder is Eva Mendes's Crystal. She couldn't fill Joan Crawford's shoes not even by mistake. Her performance is vulgar, jarring and ugly. How strange that someone as smart as Diane English could give us such a confusing picture of women. Oh well, I had to see it, I saw it and I'm very disappointed but hardly surprised.

Insane really. Even if you haven't seen the original George Cukor movie with Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford, Rosalind Russell, Paulette Goddard, Joan Fontaine and a cast of a thousand other stars you may dismiss this forced, politically correct, depressing comedy. Depressing for many different reasons. Meg Ryan for one. What has she done to herself? Her face can hardly move. That alone puts her miles away from Norma Shearer. Annette Bening should be suing the DP and Debra Messing, what the hell was she doing here? Actresses with no connection in the public's subconscious trying to pass for friends, totally unconvincingly. Eva Mendes in the Joan Crawford part is an outrageous piece of miscasting. What a terrible idea! Her character is like a trans-gender performer without any taste or subtlety. Bizarre to think that a woman adapted and directed this women.The only positive things I can mention are a short but very funny appearance by Bette Midler and Cloris Leachman as the housekeeper.

I believe an entire book can be written about the odyssey to remake the classic film on which this film is loosely based. When Hollywood first started talking about such enterprise, the reaction was always negative because there were just too many aspects that could have gone wrong, starting with the solid ensemble that made the original unforgettable, and that's exactly where things begin souring here, with the selection of actresses that otherwise can do remarkable work, but that are not suited to the parts, and sadly enough, have been directed with the heavy hand of a director that doesn't understand or appreciate the source material.

It seems as if there is no focus or direction, or as if the direction that has been taken is to obliterate anything that was good about the original film. This is called an updating, as in let's drain the story out of humor, snappy dialogue, and any interesting premise. Most of all, let's prove that women have come a long way, except that the problem is that we don't really get (at least by watching this film) where the women are truly going.

For starters, casting Meg Ryan in the central role proves almost fatal to the movie because somehow she seems to have locked herself into some sort of limbo where women don't really change appearances, even after 20 years of working in the movies. Her Mary which proved to be a difficult role in the 30's, somehow grew from her interaction with the other stereotypes, like Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz" by learning, observing, and realizing that she had a choice in the matter. It might not have been a choice that women would celebrate nowadays, but it was fun ride, and part of the fun, was the catty, silly, sometimes slapstick routines that elevated that movie into the realm of the sublime. In here, we are down to earth with a thud. By changing the nature of Sylvia, the film has lost a lot of its spark, and it isn't in anyway Annette Bening's fault. I couldn't help but admiring how she tried to save this sinking ship and got a sinking feeling as she struggled with the horrible lines she was handled. Thankfully I entertained myself by looking at some of her terrific outfits and kept reminding myself how talented this lady really was. Her Sylvia is wise but flawed, and she could have been a great creation. Unfortunately Ms. English wasn't paying attention to her own work and loses control of the one character that could have turned the film into a fresh direction.

Yet that wasn't the biggest blasphemy of them all. In the original, we have Joan Crawford doing probably one of the best performances by a woman. Her Crystal is legendary, with conniving lines, incendiary moves, duplicitous maneuvers, and some very sexy poses. She was the link between the male and the female, and through her we knew what the whole catastrophe was about. She provided the tension between men and women. She was dangerous, sexy, the ultimate femme fatale. A woman of intelligence that we feared and admired, and most importantly, we wanted to destroy to save our heroine. Eva Mendes, as gorgeous as she is, is two dimensional in this outing because of weak writing, and once again, some bad casting.

There are more atrocities in the film, such as the addition of a terrible role for Mensing as the dedicated mother who lives for having babies, and the rather annoying lesbian turn by Pinkett. Then comes the biggest waste of talent in the movie, as Bette Middler, who is a little unrecognizable in her make up, shows the spark of what could have been. Her acidic delivery reminds us of the contemporary angle the film could have taken. Her words revive and put a big of much needed naughtiness in the film, and it is exciting to see that it could really fly, then she is gone. She is in the film all of six minutes, and she fades away in the middle of the muddle.

Here is a movie that raised our anticipation level and truly disappointed us, a film that could have joined the successful "Sex in the City" who made an amazing transition to the big screen because it respected its source material and didn't compromise. It gave us more, bigger and better adaptation. It truly updated what had made it successful before. "The Women" in its present reincarnation needs to go back and rework itself, much like "The Hulk" did it this year, find more suitable performers, a really good writer, and most of all, someone who truly treasures what good movies are about.

As a Spanish tourist in Los Angeles and a fanatic movie lover I committed a terrible mistake. I went to see "The Women" The remake of one of my all time favorites. I've seen the original many many times, in fact I own it. My rushing to see the remake was based on Diane English, the woman responsible for "Murphy Brown" My though was: how bad can it be? She must know what she's doing. Well, I don't know what to say. I don't understand what happened. The Botoxed women is a rather depressing affair. Meg Ryan or whoever played Mary - she looked a bit like a grotesque version of Meg Ryan...another actress perhaps wearing a Meg Ryan mask - she doesn't bring to the character nothing of what Norma Shearer did in 1939. The new one is a tired, unconvincing prototype of what has become a farce within a farce. The "friends" Annette Bening, Debra Messing, Jada Pinket Smith are as disconnected as anything I've ever seen and if this wasn't enough: Eva Mendes as Crystal, the character created by Joan Crawford in one of her best and funniest performances. Eva Mendes's casting is really the poster sign for how wrong, how ill conceived this commercial attempt turned up. I didn't give it a 1 out respect for Candice Bergen and Cloris Leachman

To say I was disappointed is an understatement. An amateur film made by professionals. I was about to leave the theater in two or three occasions (something I've never done)I was stopped by Cloris Leachman really. She rings true, the only one I should say. This new women are less modern than the George Cukor women of the 30's. This ones are "acting" for us trying to be with it but their "conflict" is exactly the same as it has always been, in movies anyway. The fun of the original was based on a crisp, vitriolic and very funny script. A masterful direction and an unrepeatable cast. All the elements that are missing here. TV actresses mingling with models and Oscar nominees/winners. There wasn't anything organic about it. The whole thing felt like a put on, improvised in the moment without a clear objective. 2/10

I was flabbergasted by the negative critics starting this long list of reviews. I think their mistake was to compare this movie with the old original.

They have nothing to do with each other.

The original one is a classic, I love it fondly. This movie is based on the same novel, but it's absolutely contemporary. Another time, another way of thinking, another set of rules to move in society with.

The old elegance in clothes, the distinguished looks, the excellent manners, all gone..., gone with the wind. But let's face it, our concept of contemporary elegance is what it is, nothing will make us go back to the 1930s idea of elegance, or manners, and if somebody resents that fact..., MMMmmmm, I'm afraid they are out of sync. with the present.

Meg Ryan looks lovely; somebody complained that she cannot move her face... come on! what do you want her to do with it, a Cheeta number?? Her figure, and her legs! are first-class (so are Anne Benning's!!).

The cast is excellent and as everybody complains about Eva Mendez, the original character is exactly like her. Joan Crawford in the old movie couldn't --at the time-- play it so coarse, because of censorship and simply because at that time they didn't portrayed reality as harsh as we use to do it today. Period.

The movie is extremely entertaining, have some good laughs, the timing is excellent..., the photography flawless, the lighting impeccable, the sound perfect... anything else, El Exigente?

I don't think these crew made this film pretending to surpass Antonioni, Visconti or Bergman. I enjoyed very much the 'women alone' dialogs, since they never act like that when even just one man is present. And the speed, spontaneity and sincerity of these dialogs indicate that only a woman could have directed this film.

These group of women --with fantastic openness (something you will never find among men) when talking their hearts out, is so believable and attractive (at least to me), that I wanted this movie to go on forever!!

They made a light --very light-- piece of entertainment, that's all. What really bothered me reading the critics written by men, was their necessity to clarify before hand that "This isn't the kind of picture I would go to see by myself... ME, such a macho man..., I saw it because..." (some excuse or other). Wow! are we tied up in knots, guys!! What is happening out there with those old fashioned ideas about what a man is about!!

Wake up men, or we'll end up missing the boat irremediably!!

I rented this because I know the 1939 movie well and wanted to see how it was updated. I sat through the whole thing, but it's really a bad movie.

Let me start by staying that I don't think the 1939 movie is a masterpiece. It has some wonderful scenes, brilliantly directed by George Cukor and brilliantly brought off by a remarkable cast who knew how to deliver bitingly clever dialogue. But there are also maudlin scenes that kill the pacing. An uneven work.

The remake isn't uneven, I'll grant it that. It's uniformly awful all the way through.

To begin with, the characters have no internal coherence, which they most certainly do in the 1939 version. In the remake, it seems that the director did a survey of what would appeal to modern women and then randomly distributed those qualities to the various women in the movie. The modern Chrystal Allen isn't really nasty; unlike in the original, she never betrays Steven Haines. Sylvia Fowler starts off being repulsively self-centered, but then varies back and forth between caring and superficial without ever really being nasty. In fact, NO ONE is really nasty, and that deprives the remake of a lot of the bite of the original.

The modern script is also sadly lacking in humor, unlike the 1939 version. It just isn't that funny. And when it does repeat lines from the original, it is painful to hear how poorly they are delivered.

In short, this movie has nothing to recommend itself. It plays like a mediocre TV show - it was directed by a TV director, so I guess that shouldn't come as a surprise. The 1939 version, though not a masterpiece, remains miles ahead of this sad excuse for a feature film.

I really enjoyed this movie so it upset me to see so many negative reviews. I thought this movie was a great reflection of what women are truly like, as it is so frustrating to me to constantly see women portrayed as "strong" by acting exactly like men. These characters actually acted like women, which was a nice change of pace.

The story itself was a nice balance of humour and heart, with unique characters and an important development of Meg Ryan's character that was subtle and real.

I would understand why men wouldn't like this movie, but I urge women to give it a chance. I really liked it, and although it is not the deepest, most life-changing film out there, it is an enjoyable and relatable cinematic experience.

I have never seen the original 1930s version of the film, but this remake is one of the worst I have seen from a major production studio in years. Seeing actors such as Meg Ryan and Annette Bening, once near A level talents, sleepwalk their way through poorly scripted roles is painful. There appeared to be no desire to be in front of the camera for anyone in this film.

Jada Pinkett Smith and Debra Messing play worthless roles that have no bearing on the plot and add no entertainment value. Jada Pinkett Smith's character is used as nothing more than a ploy to appear modern, having an African American lesbian character, but in actuality she is there to just look cool. There is no actual reason why Messing in this film other than to fill out the amount of women in the original I take.

The side characters played by Eva Mendes and Debi Mazar are stereotypical female characters, with Mendes portraying the vixen looking to steal the wealthy but bored and mildly neglected husband and Mazar covering the gossip roles.

The movie is boring, lacking charm, humor, or sympathy for any characters. It almost felt like the movie was a punishment for everyone involved, whether in front of or behind the camera.

There is one glimmering hope in the film, however little it is allowed to shine surrounded by the dim and dying stars around it is Cloris Leachman. Leachman is still an amazing talent that brings her remarkable charm and humor to the film, in the small role that she has.

I absolutely love this movie. Not sure why such low reviews

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.

I really wish I had read everyone's review before going to see the movie... it was one of the most excruciating films that I've ever seen. I was ready to leave the theater 5 minutes into the movie; I should have followed my instinct. The movie offered nothing new or clever, it was boring and very cliché. I was surprised to find that it was directed by a woman! The characters did not represent any women that I know, they were boring, bitter and melodramatic. The movie was unrealistic and depressing and a waste of time and money. And the actors looked tired, poor make-up and hair styling. It was recently compared to the Sex and in the City movie; it was not even half as good. My suggestion, do not see this movie!

No! no - No - NO! My entire being is revolting against this dreadful remake of a classic movie. I knew we were heading for trouble from the moment Meg Ryan appeared on screen with her ridiculous hair and clothing - literally looking like a scarecrow in that garden she was digging. Meg Ryan playing Meg Ryan - how tiresome is that?! And it got worse ... so much worse. The horribly cliché lines, the stock characters, the increasing sense I was watching a spin-off of "The First Wives Club" and the ultimate hackneyed schtick in the delivery room. How many times have I seen this movie? Only once, but it feel like a dozen times - nothing original or fresh about it. For shame!

I was very disappointed by this movie. Ms English who says that she is a fan of the original movie seemed to have taken a great piece of artistic work, and transformed it into a flat-lined "ho-hum" you've come a long way baby production. I tried to like Meg Ryan's Mary Haines, but she was just boring. She didn't seem to feel anything about her husband's affair. There was no emotional struggle, no deep hurt. In the original 1939 movie Norma Shearer's Mary Haines felt betrayed, shocked, vulnerable, confused and angry. The 2008 production was more about some fake sisterhood theme, (Actually my wife's words)and didn't make you shed a tear or even chuckle. The only performances that were note worthy we're of Debra Messing, and Bette Midler. (I wanted more of Bette.) There was really no protagonist in this movie. The Sylvia Fowler character had too many sub themes to it. And Crystal Allen had no fire. The remake of the department store encounter with Annette Benning, and Miss Mendez was Luke warm. Also the pacing was slow as well. Obviously the 1939 version needed to be updated, but this one wasn't it. The reason that the original version worked so well was that the characters were dealing with "man" problems. A subject by the way which isn't out-dated. The magic of the original movie was that the movie was about both sexes, while you never saw the men.

This movie is not a comedy. It is not even funny in the "this movie is so bad it's funny" department. Rather, it is just plain bad. Other reviewers mention the bad lighting, but beyond that is the abundance of bad plastic surgery.

Meanwhile, a lot of great acting talent was wasted on a poor screenplay and uninspired direction. The main characters are one-dimensional and boring. (It is hard to feel sympathy for any of them). It is also hard to see the four characters as close friends. It seems like just a bunch of women thrown together, pretending to be close.

I won't list all of the problems with this movie, as it doesn't merit that much of anyone's attention. (Nor is it worth the time it takes to watch it).

It 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.

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.

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).

"The Women" uses the same character names and the plot skeleton of the 1939 George Cukor classic with the same title, but it is really more an alternate "Sex and the City" than an updated version the original. I found it neither as bad as its many detractors claim nor as good as its somewhat more limited number of fans make it out to be, but it's probably best if you are not terribly familiar with (or not a big fan of) the classic version. While that film has always been polarizing, even its critics recognize it has some of the snappiest, wittiest zingers in Hollywood history. Sadly, that sharpness is missing from the script of this film.

And then there's the cast. I don't envy any group of actresses setting themselves up for comparison with the sensational ensemble of the original. This cast sounds impressive on paper, but they never really gel. It took the "SATC" women several seasons of hard work to develop as individual characters that come together so smoothly. Ryan, Bening, Messing, and Pinkett Smith can't manage the same feat in two hours, especially not when saddled playing cardboard stereotypes representing different aspects of whatever the filmmakers think "the modern woman" is. Not one of these characters, for all the talents of the actresses playing them, ever actually felt like a real person.

That said, there's some life here, scattered scenes that are amusing or touching. The four leads are ably assisted, especially by Cloris Leachman and Candice Bergen, in beautifully played roles that ring true. And Bette Midler steals the too-brief chunk of the movie she gets, giving us a hint of how brass and sassy a genuine attempt at updating "The Women" might have been. Unfortunately, Eva Mendes then comes back on screen, reminding us of how beneath Joan Crawford's Crystal Allen her version is, and how much this movie pales in comparison. (Not that it's all Mendes's fault -- true, she's no Joan Crawford, but her role here is a shadow of what Crawford got to sink her teeth into.) If you like chick flicks (I'm a guy, but I tend to) and you're not hoping for anything close to the original, then give it a go. Just don't expect too much. Everyone else, don't waste your time.

'The Women', originally a play by Clare Boothe Luce, was filmed in 1939 (with Norma Shearer as Mary Haines and Joan Crawford as Crystal Allen), in 1956 (as a musical, 'The Opposite Sex', with June Allyson as Kay Hilliard and Joan Collins as Crystal Allen), and now with Meg Ryan and Eva Mendes as Mary and Crystal.

The story has been slightly updated - Stephen regularly phones Mary's mobile, Sylvie (Annette Bening) is the editor of a fashion magazine, one of the circle of friends is a lesbian - but the basic premise (and that is the plus) is still there, complete with some scenes verbatim from earlier versions (especially the changing room confrontation).

There's also the mother giving words of wisdom (Candice Bergen, who is only slightly less plastic looking than Meg Ryan herself), but with some irony, while Bette Midler plays the much-married rich lady (once a Countess, played with aplomb by Mary Boland, now an actor's agent) who pursues the mysterious Buck Winston. There's also nice support from Cloris Leachman as the Haines' housekeeper.

Like the 1939 version, no men appear in this film other than one baby boy. Even the dogs are bitches. It however suffers from colourless playing of the leads, in particular Eva Mendes, and from a lack of humour. So it is a reasonable remake, but ultimately a bit pointless.