Women vs. Men

Coarse low-lifes throw accusations at their spouses' despicable behavior for a few hours - and then engage in the awful predictable ending.

The shame is that such fine actors are used for this unfunny trash - which feels as if it were produced by Jerry Springer - I am a fan of Christine Lahti (who looks fantastic), Glenn Headley, Paul Reiser, Jenifer Coolidge (who sadly doesn't), and Joe Mantegna - it's really sad when excellent actors have to play so dumb and low.

If this were even as funny as an episode of Married With Children, I wouldn't mind as much - but it's not as inventive.

Skip it. It's really bad.

I'm a bit thrown by the fact that the one person who truly hated this film (George) is the main review that shows up when you come to IMDb. The general consensus is that this wasn't a bad film and, in fact, it was the opposite. As a person who doesn't typically flock with the masses, I still have to admit they are right and George could not possibly be more wrong.

The movie played out like a stage production; it was dialogue driven and mostly played in a couple interior sets between the four main characters and two major supporting cast members. If you are adverse to dialogue driven movies or need a movie where one side is clearly superior to the other, this is not the film for you. The writer has an even hand and incisive dialogue evenly distributed to both the male and female side of the subject of this film- marriage. Through a series of well crafted discussions, film dissects the subject, studies it, picks at all of it's corners and (gasp) actually encourages self-examination. I challenge any married person not to see at least one fault from these characters in him- or herself. Do some of the situations and conversations come out as over-the-top? Sure. Are the characters, at times, TOO eloquent? I suppose that could be argued (one could also argue that they are not, however, given the fact that they all are highly educated and it's not hidden in the exposition). Is the movie banter-driven at times? Yep. It is often reliant on banter. None of this makes it any less fun and thought-provoking to someone who might enjoy laughing at the navel examination that relationships can become. There is a lot of- as someone put it- "psycho-babble", but it makes SENSE given the fact that one of the main characters IS A RELATIONSHIP THERAPIST and another character is her husband of over twenty years and the film's premise is a moment that may end all of the relationships involved. If there was no "psycho-babble", it would be unrealistic. Any marred person who has ever worked in any form of therapy or management has resorted to methods you use at work in heavy arguments at home. It just happens. These methods become part of you, tools you can count on. It would be ludicrous to expect otherwise and is equally ludicrous to criticize the movie on that basis. My wife and I truly enjoyed this movie, despite moments that came out as way over the top (there are some scoffable moments involving Nick for example). It was warm and funny and- for once- written for literate adults who enjoy theatre as much as they enjoy film. Ignore the criticism if you need these qualities once in a while. You'll be glad you did.

"Women vs Men" is an uninspired regurgitation of all the same old trite and tired battle of the sexes stuff with a few new buzz words pounded into the pathetically flat script to give it a contempo edge. With a svelte Lahti and a bearded Metegna as the lead couple in the war, you'd expect this tv fare to be a shoe-in. Instead it plays out like one long and incredibly boring drone of endless banter. Simply awful. PU! Yuck! (D)

The age-old enigmatic subtleties of woman/man relationships, which are the origins of the conflicts hilariously and passionately depicted,requires a non-self-centered viewpoint who has actually had conscious experience that there may actually BE viewpoints other than his/her own and actually cares about their coincidence or divergence. George very obviously has no such viewpoint; therefore his total non-comprehension of what is going on in this excellent movie. His mean-spirited revue is quite revealing about his own character.(Take note, ladies.)I am certain that he was trashing "Taming Of The Shrew", back when he was reviewing The Bard, with equal nastiness. He revealed himself by his mystification as to why the great cast would do such "trash" (cracked me up!). Their spot-on characterizations could not have been done so freely had they not all "been there" --- a place where George has never been. If you dig what I mean, watch the movie. REAL Women and REAL Men love it!

Okay, whoever the George was that trashed this movie is an idiot. It is a good movie, and Glenne Headly is amazing. Anyone should see it. It was well directed and has quality acting, unlike the trashy porn films George usually views. People, spread the love; watch the film.