O Belo Sexo

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, 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 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).

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.

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.