El sexo opuesto

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.

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 film has been maligned for years, mainly for including men and music in this remake of the classic 1939 version. It's true that the men don't add much to this take on the story. The musical numbers range from good (Now, Baby Now) to not so good (Dick Shawn and Jim Backus in the title number and that campy banana number.) The cast is pretty good. Joan Collins (in her first bitchy role) is practicing for her role as Alexis on "Dynasty". Charlotte Greenwood (in her last role) manages to be even more butch than Marjorie Main was in the original. Agnes Moorehead (who I love) is fun as the countess, and Sandy Descher is far more likable as "Debbie" than Virgina Weidler was as "Little Mary". Dolores Gray nails it as Sylvia Fowler. She enhances any film she is in. The 1950s decor is appropriately garish (dig those crazy purple bass fiddles!) and the print shown on VUDU is a clean, widescreen treat. This may not be quite up to the original, but on it's own terms this is a by and large entertaining film.

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.

I have read carefully all of the reviews posted here and I agree very much with most of what has been said. It is problematic that some of these ladies were a little bit old for their parts. It is also clear that much talent has been wasted particularly in the cases of Ann Miller who does not get to dance and Dolores Gray who does not get to sing outside of the voiceover during the titles. Most people would not even notice that the great character actoress Celia Lovsky is given literally nothing to do except appear in one of the backstage scenes and speak one or two brief lines in the bedroom scene. Some of the tiniest details have been missmanaged such as the fact that when the character of Mary holds up her hand and declaims "Jungle Red !" her fingernails are not red at all. Of course the biggest problems are the script and the script and the script. The men and the musical numbers that have been inserted into the original storyline seem to be merely distract rather than enhance. If I try really hard and pretend that the original 1939 version does not exist then this movie can seems not so bad except that I have not really been able to convince even myself to stretch imagination that far. I also agree the one person who makes the most of of her part is Dolores Gray . Even the great Agnes Moorehead seems to be overacting dreadfully trying to make something out of nothing as the part of the Countess is woefully cut down. One thing that MGM really did manage to deliver is the look of this film. The set designers in general and the costume designer in particular really held up their end of the bargain.

But the point I really want to make is why I think this movie was even made at all. In my mind the only thing that makes any sense is that whatever deal they made with the author, Clare Booth Luce, allowed MGM to do so and they could get a few more bucks out of it which is really why most remakes are foisted upon us.

And another thing... If you compare The Opposite Sex to the latest remake- I think in 2008- it suddenly becomes brilliant! That abomination completely misses the point of the story that Miss Luce was trying to tell us. But that is another story entirely.