The Women

It was an impossible task to update a classic that was embedded in its time and as such could travel the waves of time intact because we could adapt to its historical context. Now this 2008 version seems the one that's dated. I used to love Meg Ryan, reminded me of Carol Lombard now she's more like Joan Rivers, in appearance if not in spirit. There is nothing funny about her. Strangely enough she looks better in the second part of the film. In any case, the modernity of Norma Shearer's performance is unbeatable. Annette Bening is better but couldn't cancel the memory of Rosalind Russell, who could? If one can divorce oneself from the George Cukor original, and one must to be able to sit through it, there are a few pleasures to be had, mostly thanks to Cloris Leachman, Candice Bergen (playing Meg Ryan's mom for the second time, remember "Rich and Famous"?) and Bette Midler in a much to brief stint playing the part once played by Mary Boland. The most unforgivable blunder is Eva Mendes's Crystal. She couldn't fill Joan Crawford's shoes not even by mistake. Her performance is vulgar, jarring and ugly. How strange that someone as smart as Diane English could give us such a confusing picture of women. Oh well, I had to see it, I saw it and I'm very disappointed but hardly surprised.

This movie is a remake of and 1930s movie of the same title and which is a great film. This is not a great film, but it's a good film and holds up well since it's been out for quite awhile now.

Mary Haines has a husband who begins having an affair with a "spritzer girl" from Saks Fifth Avenue. This is the basic plot of both films. In addition, the film has NO male characters - this is also true of both films.

How Mary handles this is different in the 2008 version because women have different lives than they did in the 30s. Duh.

But I like the updated ideas and updated relationships. The 2008 version does not have some of the biting humor of the original but it also lacks some of the sappiness, too.

Bette Midler has a tiny part which mimics the original and which was cut for the 2008 version. I'd have loved to see more of her!

Don't expect a lot, but expect a few giggles.

"The Women" uses the same character names and the plot skeleton of the 1939 George Cukor classic with the same title, but it is really more an alternate "Sex and the City" than an updated version the original. I found it neither as bad as its many detractors claim nor as good as its somewhat more limited number of fans make it out to be, but it's probably best if you are not terribly familiar with (or not a big fan of) the classic version. While that film has always been polarizing, even its critics recognize it has some of the snappiest, wittiest zingers in Hollywood history. Sadly, that sharpness is missing from the script of this film.

And then there's the cast. I don't envy any group of actresses setting themselves up for comparison with the sensational ensemble of the original. This cast sounds impressive on paper, but they never really gel. It took the "SATC" women several seasons of hard work to develop as individual characters that come together so smoothly. Ryan, Bening, Messing, and Pinkett Smith can't manage the same feat in two hours, especially not when saddled playing cardboard stereotypes representing different aspects of whatever the filmmakers think "the modern woman" is. Not one of these characters, for all the talents of the actresses playing them, ever actually felt like a real person.

That said, there's some life here, scattered scenes that are amusing or touching. The four leads are ably assisted, especially by Cloris Leachman and Candice Bergen, in beautifully played roles that ring true. And Bette Midler steals the too-brief chunk of the movie she gets, giving us a hint of how brass and sassy a genuine attempt at updating "The Women" might have been. Unfortunately, Eva Mendes then comes back on screen, reminding us of how beneath Joan Crawford's Crystal Allen her version is, and how much this movie pales in comparison. (Not that it's all Mendes's fault -- true, she's no Joan Crawford, but her role here is a shadow of what Crawford got to sink her teeth into.) If you like chick flicks (I'm a guy, but I tend to) and you're not hoping for anything close to the original, then give it a go. Just don't expect too much. Everyone else, don't waste your time.

I have never seen the original 1930s version of the film, but this remake is one of the worst I have seen from a major production studio in years. Seeing actors such as Meg Ryan and Annette Bening, once near A level talents, sleepwalk their way through poorly scripted roles is painful. There appeared to be no desire to be in front of the camera for anyone in this film.

Jada Pinkett Smith and Debra Messing play worthless roles that have no bearing on the plot and add no entertainment value. Jada Pinkett Smith's character is used as nothing more than a ploy to appear modern, having an African American lesbian character, but in actuality she is there to just look cool. There is no actual reason why Messing in this film other than to fill out the amount of women in the original I take.

The side characters played by Eva Mendes and Debi Mazar are stereotypical female characters, with Mendes portraying the vixen looking to steal the wealthy but bored and mildly neglected husband and Mazar covering the gossip roles.

The movie is boring, lacking charm, humor, or sympathy for any characters. It almost felt like the movie was a punishment for everyone involved, whether in front of or behind the camera.

There is one glimmering hope in the film, however little it is allowed to shine surrounded by the dim and dying stars around it is Cloris Leachman. Leachman is still an amazing talent that brings her remarkable charm and humor to the film, in the small role that she has.

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.