The Opposite Sex

I have to say I am baffled by the trashing of this film. Are we watching the same movie? I have watched both The Women and The Opposite Sex, all within the span of a week on Turner Classic and though the Women was cleverer, The Opposite Sex was not really in the "Chopped Liver" category either.

Yes, it's true. Given a choice, I would rather watch The Women too.

But the Opposite Sex has adequate acting, women in gorgeous gowns and sticks quite faithfully to the original story-line whereby the 1st Wife gets her revenge against the 2nd wife. Who doesn't love the lucked-out-housewife-wins-the-day-story-line? I know I do.

And I do enjoy looking at Jeff Richards as the hunky singing cowboy, Buck.

If you have the time, why not check it out yourself.

This remake of The Women (1939) misses the boat for two main reasons - 1. it's too nice. Joan Crawford's Crystal Allen was far more acidic than Joan Collins' sweet little version 2. it casts loads of talented musical performers - and doesn't use them! Ann Miller, Joan Blondell, Ann Sheridan, Doleres Gray - all wasted. June Allyson is miscast as Kay Hilliard, a little long in the tooth for all this.

(Incidentally interesting to see Blondell and Allyson in the same film, considering their shared marital history off-screen as successive wives to Dick Powell).

Pros - the musical numbers aren't bad, if a bit on the camp side; it features a fashion parade throughout to die for; it's colourful.

Otherwise it rips off the original, adds songs and men, and messes the whole thing up. It's watchable, but Norma, Joan, Paulette, and Rosalind will remain the standard for this particular story.

I don't know why so many people on here are trashing this film. Is it a classic movie, no. But is it so awful, no. It is a perfectly good, entertaining movie. I think Allyson, the perfect 50's movie wife, is cast well as Kay, who is a perfect wife who gets left. I thought it was a little inside 50s joke, here is the perfect wife being left. Anyway, she is good and yes she was not 20, but it is a wife role and her daughter is about 10. It is not a young woman's part, that is the whole point; the husband leaves her for a younger woman. Ann Miller, Agnes Moorehead, Ann Sheridan, Dolores Gray, Joan Collins are all great. Does Miller sing or dance, no. But maybe someone was thinking she was a good actress and funny with lines and could be in a movie and not tap dance. I am sure she was happy to be cast as an actress for once. She was always a very funny performer. So check the movie out for yourself, it is really pretty good (and nice to see Allyson in some pretty clothes after all those years of white blouses in movies).

I, as many others here, was excited to learn of, and anxious to see this "musical remake" of The Women. But as my summary states, I found it to be such an inexplicable disappointment! Others here have said it better, so I'll just echo the complete bafflement of having stars of the caliber of Joan Greenwood and Ann Miller DO NOTHING AT ALL in the film! Amazing and so disappointing.

I'm afraid the root cause of this bomb is the choice of June Alyson for the lead. Frankly, Norma Shearer grates on me; I do not worship at her altar; however, she certainly brought enough depth of character to the original wonderful 1930s film to justify all the shenanigans of that film, which all revolved around her. What she did, what she didn't do, how she reacted, etc. In this sorry remake, that character as played by June Alyson is so boringly uninteresting. We can't see at all that the character's friends would react with such concern. Who cares is more the response given. And lets get this over with.

The pacing was excruciatingly slow and flat. The "humor" was pathetic. The pathos was humorous. And as has been pointed out, why? Why even call this thing a musical? In the '30s and '40s, there was often one or two musical "entertainments" worked into the film as incidentals or backgrounds, but that didn't justify calling them musicals! Yes, I'm afraid that this piece definitely needed a different more dynamic lead, and it also needed a much better director and/or editor to pick up the pace.

So disappointing. I can't even recommend it for the "period" costumes....though I must comment they were so "stunning" as to all seem like stage costumes! Boo-hoo. I thought I had discovered a new treasure to enjoy.

This 1950's version of the 1930's "The Women" was updated quite a bit. The ideals of the 1950's show up, along with the new male characters (who were never seen in the original)and the fashion.

Actually, while "The Women" is dated, too, the dialog is sharper and the characters much more fun. Joan Crawford beats Joan Collins easily as the vamp, and Rosalind Russell eats up scenery. Of course, Leslie Nelson back in his hunky leading man days is plenty of fun. This version is a little more moralistic, with more hand wringing and melodramatic action. And the addition of the male characters really isn't that much of a plus. Sometimes the comic action is overboard.

All in all, not a bad movie, but if you really want to see action, catch "The Women" instead.