CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
6.1/10
2.1 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
La ex cantante de discoteca Kay Hilliard, casada 10 años y madre de una hija pequeña, es informada de que su esposo Steven tiene una aventura con la corista Crystal Allen, por lo que se va a... Leer todoLa ex cantante de discoteca Kay Hilliard, casada 10 años y madre de una hija pequeña, es informada de que su esposo Steven tiene una aventura con la corista Crystal Allen, por lo que se va a Reno para divorciarse.La ex cantante de discoteca Kay Hilliard, casada 10 años y madre de una hija pequeña, es informada de que su esposo Steven tiene una aventura con la corista Crystal Allen, por lo que se va a Reno para divorciarse.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Premios
- 2 nominaciones en total
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
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.
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 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.
(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.
No need to compare this stand-alone with the original. MGM's wardrobe department must have worked overtime. The ladies-- and there are many-- get to model all the high fashion of 1956, and some outfits are real doozies. But then this is a tell-all musical remake about sophisticated Manhattan show people from influential author Luce who certainly should know. You may need a scorecard, however, to keep up with the rotating relationships among the high class types.
I expect the film sets feminist teeth on edge now with its depiction of women as either maliciously catty (Gray & Collins) or catty as a defensive measure (Allyson, Blondell, & Sheridan). And that's when they're not chasing after men on whom it appears they're emotionally dependent. I imagine that if the movie were made today, key changes would be made.
That's not to say this Technicolor candy box isn't entertaining. It is at least campy fun, although the musical numbers are mostly forgettable. Instead, it's the characters that are irresistible, particularly Gray as the queen of acid gossip; Collins as the ruthless husband stealer; and Richards as the dude ranch stud. It's also a well-honed supporting cast, down to a blondined henchwoman Carolyn Jones. Unfortunately, it's also a rather dour June Allyson, a long way from her usual verve and sparkle.
But the high-point may well be the biggest no-holds-barred brawl between two women (Miller and Gray) that I've seen. Stand aside John Wayne and the rest of the macho brawlers because this one is worthy of the best smoke-filled bar room. I don't know if stunt doubles filled in, but somebody deserved a fat paycheck. Anyway, if you don't mind seeing women behaving badly 1950's style, this well-upholstered confection deserves a look-see.
I expect the film sets feminist teeth on edge now with its depiction of women as either maliciously catty (Gray & Collins) or catty as a defensive measure (Allyson, Blondell, & Sheridan). And that's when they're not chasing after men on whom it appears they're emotionally dependent. I imagine that if the movie were made today, key changes would be made.
That's not to say this Technicolor candy box isn't entertaining. It is at least campy fun, although the musical numbers are mostly forgettable. Instead, it's the characters that are irresistible, particularly Gray as the queen of acid gossip; Collins as the ruthless husband stealer; and Richards as the dude ranch stud. It's also a well-honed supporting cast, down to a blondined henchwoman Carolyn Jones. Unfortunately, it's also a rather dour June Allyson, a long way from her usual verve and sparkle.
But the high-point may well be the biggest no-holds-barred brawl between two women (Miller and Gray) that I've seen. Stand aside John Wayne and the rest of the macho brawlers because this one is worthy of the best smoke-filled bar room. I don't know if stunt doubles filled in, but somebody deserved a fat paycheck. Anyway, if you don't mind seeing women behaving badly 1950's style, this well-upholstered confection deserves a look-see.
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.
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.
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.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaAlthough the second Mrs. Dick Powell (Joan Blondell) was no fan of the third Mrs. Powell (June Allyson), she asked her daughter (and Allyson's stepdaughter) Ellen Powell to speak to Allyson about a role in this movie. It was Blondell's return to movies after a five-year absence, and despite the rather difficult history involving the two Mrs. Powells, all went reasonably smoothly.
- ErroresAt the end of the "Yellow Gold" musical number, two chorus boys leap up onto the banana trees for their final pose. Just as the curtain is closing, the stage-left dancer slips from his position and slides down the tree.
- Citas
Crystal Allen: When Steven doesn't like what I wear, I take it off!
[Kay slaps Crystal. Crystal smiles]
- Créditos curiososOpening credits: Manhattan Island ... A body of land consisting of four million square males-completely surrounded by women.
- ConexionesFeatured in TCM Guest Programmer: Joan Collins (2015)
- Bandas sonorasThe Opposite Sex
(uncredited)
Music by Nicholas Brodszky
Lyrics by Sammy Cahn
Performed over the opening credits by Dolores Gray
Performed during "The Psychiatrist" musical sketch with Dick Shawn, Jim Backus, Joan Collins, Carolyn Jones, Barrie Chase and Ellen Ray
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is The Opposite Sex?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 2,834,000 (estimado)
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 57 minutos
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
What is the French language plot outline for El sexo opuesto (1956)?
Responda