The Women

It appears I am alone on this site in seeing this film having never seen the 1939 original on which it was based and I watched mainly out of interest of what Meg Ryan has been up to and not out of a curiosity over how it stands up by comparison. In a way I guess this would have helped me because I was free from shadows of "classic" films but then at the same time the film still needed to be good to engage me. In this regard the film is "reasonably good" but nothing that is particularly special. It is worth noting that the reviews for this film in the UK press were mostly dismissive (or at least they were in the papers etc that I read) so my expectations were low so perhaps this is why I found the film to be reasonably good in spite of how simple it essentially is.

You see this really is a very target audience affair that is meant to appeal to groups of female friends or mother/daughter combos looking to have a laugh and cry in a bonding fashion. In aiming for this group the film throws in all the genre standards and doesn't worry too much about the detail, how applicable it is and how well it all gels together. What this means is that the film has a broad sweep to it that is good enough to distract in a basic sort of way. Add to this the professional Hollywood sheen that money brings most films and a cast that is starry. The downside is that it does feel very episodic and superficial because it doesn't manage to have a lot of depth or realism within the characters. This was to be expected perhaps with this type of cuddly, daytime TV type product but it is hard not to have hoped for slightly more given the volume of famous actresses involved. Sadly the material hands them chunks of character rather than really letting them build them across the whole film – so it does feel like we have had "that" scene and now we are moving onto "this" scene rather than watching a story.

The cast do so-so work, mainly because they are matching the light "now we laugh now we cry" approach to the material and they mostly come across like they are acting the scenario rather than acting the people. Ryan is unsurprisingly bland – it is something I had hoped she would break out I guess if you can't hit it in In The Cut then you're not going to lift your game for something like this. Bening is better and makes more of her character – hardly a great turn but she does what she can. Messing is comic relief on paper but not in reality while Smith turns in a clichéd sexy lesbian character with all the invention and effort of someone ironing t-shirts (and also, is it healthy to be that thin?). Midler, Fisher, Leachman, Whitfield and a few others turn out without a lot of reason or impact while Mendez is left a thankless role of being sexy– a role she can do effortlessly but not often does she have to be the "baddie" while doing it. She doesn't convince because she is more of a fun flirty sexy and the evil man-eater just doesn't sit well on her.

I didn't know The Woman was a remake until afterwards but whether it is directly taken from one source or many, the effect is the same because this is a film that is happy to cover its bases and not play dangerously. It ticks the genre boxes and turns out a polished enough "chick flick" (sorry – hate that phrase) but it doesn't have much in the way of character, realism or depth to engage the viewer. For those who see this as a product that they will love then you probably will, but it is just too superficial to play to an audience that comes to it without minds already made up.

As a Spanish tourist in Los Angeles and a fanatic movie lover I committed a terrible mistake. I went to see "The Women" The remake of one of my all time favorites. I've seen the original many many times, in fact I own it. My rushing to see the remake was based on Diane English, the woman responsible for "Murphy Brown" My though was: how bad can it be? She must know what she's doing. Well, I don't know what to say. I don't understand what happened. The Botoxed women is a rather depressing affair. Meg Ryan or whoever played Mary - she looked a bit like a grotesque version of Meg Ryan...another actress perhaps wearing a Meg Ryan mask - she doesn't bring to the character nothing of what Norma Shearer did in 1939. The new one is a tired, unconvincing prototype of what has become a farce within a farce. The "friends" Annette Bening, Debra Messing, Jada Pinket Smith are as disconnected as anything I've ever seen and if this wasn't enough: Eva Mendes as Crystal, the character created by Joan Crawford in one of her best and funniest performances. Eva Mendes's casting is really the poster sign for how wrong, how ill conceived this commercial attempt turned up. I didn't give it a 1 out respect for Candice Bergen and Cloris Leachman

To say I was disappointed is an understatement. An amateur film made by professionals. I was about to leave the theater in two or three occasions (something I've never done)I was stopped by Cloris Leachman really. She rings true, the only one I should say. This new women are less modern than the George Cukor women of the 30's. This ones are "acting" for us trying to be with it but their "conflict" is exactly the same as it has always been, in movies anyway. The fun of the original was based on a crisp, vitriolic and very funny script. A masterful direction and an unrepeatable cast. All the elements that are missing here. TV actresses mingling with models and Oscar nominees/winners. There wasn't anything organic about it. The whole thing felt like a put on, improvised in the moment without a clear objective. 2/10

Insane really. Even if you haven't seen the original George Cukor movie with Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford, Rosalind Russell, Paulette Goddard, Joan Fontaine and a cast of a thousand other stars you may dismiss this forced, politically correct, depressing comedy. Depressing for many different reasons. Meg Ryan for one. What has she done to herself? Her face can hardly move. That alone puts her miles away from Norma Shearer. Annette Bening should be suing the DP and Debra Messing, what the hell was she doing here? Actresses with no connection in the public's subconscious trying to pass for friends, totally unconvincingly. Eva Mendes in the Joan Crawford part is an outrageous piece of miscasting. What a terrible idea! Her character is like a trans-gender performer without any taste or subtlety. Bizarre to think that a woman adapted and directed this women.The only positive things I can mention are a short but very funny appearance by Bette Midler and Cloris Leachman as the housekeeper.

The original 1939 "The Women" garnered some really die hard followers. There are message boards still going on it. "I have two questions; first, what did she say about _______; and, second _________." Someone comes along a few posts later and says she can answer the first part of the question, and does, but not sure yet about the second. It's that embedded. Most of the fan-atics of the original warned against any attempt to remake something so perfect. They jumped on "The Opposite Sex," and trounced that rather thoroughly. It was a bad movie. But, their full fury is earned here. It turns out their dire prediction of failure is vindicated in both cases. At least "The Opposite Sex" changed the name before they changed it all around. Here, it's not only a change-around, but an even further deterioration in flow, timing, direction, authenticity with added errors in casting and performance. Don't directors know how to say "cut" anymore? This should be followed by a firm instruction as to what's really going on here, how the characters feel in this scene, and, let's start again from – whatever point. They used to say at the end of filming that it's in the can, meaning the finished reel is in its metal case and ready to be distributed. Sadly, this weak effort with its canned performances was finished before production ended, and quite unready for distribution.