El sexo opuesto

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.

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.

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).

Remakes are usually a bad idea. Musical remakes are usually a VERY bad idea. Case in point: "The Women," in its original 1939 form, is a certified classic of brittle bitchiness and acidic wit. Moreover, it also happens to be very, very funny. "The Opposite Sex," its 1956 Technicolor incarnation, is witless and brainless, and also happens to be very, very funny--unintentionally. Mistake number one was remaking such a lauded film in the first place; mistake number two was adding men to the cast (the original was entirely female--down to the authors of the books in library scenes); and mistake number three was including ludicrous song and dance numbers. Mistakes number four and five, respectively, are June Allyson and Joan Collins, subbing for Norma Shearer and Joan Crawford. Allyson's wholesome persona actually isn't too bad for the role, but she can't act her way out of a paper bag. Collins, on the other hand, is glorious to look at, but has none of the bite and venom that Crawford brought to the table (obviously, by the time "Dynasty" came along, Collins had learned her lessons well). Ann Miller pinch hits for Paulette Goddard, and is her usual sassy self; but why is she not dancing in this so-called musical? The divine Dolores Gray comes off best as the catty Sylvia; where Rosalind Russell played her as a shrieking harpy, Dolores prefers a silkier approach. If she doesn't approach the virtuosity of Russell's performance, Gray at least injects some sorely-needed sophisticated bitchery to the proceedings. Finally, there's the ever-dependable Joan Blondell (although the fact that post-menopausal Blondell is supposed to be constantly pregnant tests one's suspension of disbelief) and an incredibly butch-looking Ann Sheridan, several years past her "Tobacco Road" prime. Really, there are two prime reasons to watch this mess: the insanely phallic calypso musical extravaganza, and the gloriously gaudy fashion show that the ladies put on for nearly 2 dizzying hours. Those looking for Clare Booth Luce's marvelous wit, look elsewhere. For those looking for glamorous, campy entertainment with no thought required--pop this baby in.

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.