IMDb RATING
5.7/10
20K
YOUR RATING
A surprisingly resourceful housewife vows revenge on her husband when he begins an affair with a wealthy romance novelist.A surprisingly resourceful housewife vows revenge on her husband when he begins an affair with a wealthy romance novelist.A surprisingly resourceful housewife vows revenge on her husband when he begins an affair with a wealthy romance novelist.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 1 nomination total
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
In a nutshell-this is another first wives club and fans of that movie will probebly appreciate this one which actually cam eout quite a bit before fwc. It's another woman scorned movie but I enjoyed it actually a bit more then wives club due to the fact it didn't drag. First wives club though it was the ultimate "watch in a group of women movie" had some moments where my attention wandered. This was very much a caricature movie but it was good dark comedy and boy was it funny to see Meryl in a role like this!
I always liked watching this movie on tv when I was growing up. Just rewatched it and I still find it to be a damn good time. If you're disgusted by Roseanne (like so many reviewers are) then don't watch a movie that stars Roseanne. It's funny, quirky, a bit dark, and bizarre. I also get flashback fashion love when I watch movies like this.
Meryl Streep sparkles in this critically-drubbed adaptation of Fay Weldon's book (previously filmed as a mini-series for British television). Streep plays a Barbara Cartland-like romance novelist who steals the accountant-husband of put-upon housewife Roseanne Barr, who methodically extracts revenge on her spouse and the coolly conniving authoress. Shapeless, rather bedraggled comedy, but Roseanne (to her credit) performs in a lower key here than on television and has a few affecting moments. Streep is a colorful villainess (no surprise), while Sylvia Miles and Linda Hunt do lively work in supporting roles before vanishing once the script no longer has use for them. The one casting mistake is Ed Begley Jr. As Roseanne's cheating husband; Begley gives a good performance, but he and Streep look too much alike (they could be siblings). The movie is episodic and tiresome, but is nearly worth-seeing for Streep's Golden Globe-nominated work; she's deliciously devilish. ** from ****
...a campy, soapy, over-the-top black comedy. This movie wasn't intended to win any awards, so I don't understand all the hate. It isn't a movie I seek out to watch, but if it happens to be on I don't change the channel, and always have a good time. I saw it when it first came out (as a young teenager) and have seen it several times over the years.
It was perfectly cast with one exception: Ed Begley, Jr as the desirable ladies' man/philandering husband. It's not that he is a *bad* looking guy, but the film may have been a bit more believable if there was someone with more sex appeal in the role. The movie explains the reason he married Ruth (Roseanne Barr) - he got her pregnant, and his parents insisted he marry her. I know plenty of very attractive guys who have hooked up with women far less attractive than they (the term "beer goggles" exists for a reason), so they could have made his character more physically attractive and maintained believability. No actors specifically come to mind, and I will say that Begley, Jr played his role very well in terms of his acting. He also has a decent bod, so there's that.
It was entertaining to see the metamorphisis of Ruth - the dowdy and frumpy housewife (with a horrific facial mole) becomes a well put together and successful business woman. While her agenda was clearly self-serving, she did improve the lives of a lot of women along the way (including her nemesis). I thought Barr played her role very well, and actually looked attractive and stylish after she changed her image (and lost the dreadful mole).
Now let's talk about the highlight of the movie (to me): MERYL STREEP! For those criticizing her acting - did we watch the same film? She was brilliant as the pompous, tacky, selfish, yet glamorous romance novelist. When you think about the lines her character was given in the script, it is dumbfounding what she did with that role. She can take the most basic line of dialogue and somehow turn it into something magical. She says it all without even having to speak. She was hilarious and perfect in this movie, and I think it's safe to say that it wouldn't be nearly as good without her.
So, if you are looking for same campy and over-the-top 80s fun, give it a try.
7.5/10.
It was perfectly cast with one exception: Ed Begley, Jr as the desirable ladies' man/philandering husband. It's not that he is a *bad* looking guy, but the film may have been a bit more believable if there was someone with more sex appeal in the role. The movie explains the reason he married Ruth (Roseanne Barr) - he got her pregnant, and his parents insisted he marry her. I know plenty of very attractive guys who have hooked up with women far less attractive than they (the term "beer goggles" exists for a reason), so they could have made his character more physically attractive and maintained believability. No actors specifically come to mind, and I will say that Begley, Jr played his role very well in terms of his acting. He also has a decent bod, so there's that.
It was entertaining to see the metamorphisis of Ruth - the dowdy and frumpy housewife (with a horrific facial mole) becomes a well put together and successful business woman. While her agenda was clearly self-serving, she did improve the lives of a lot of women along the way (including her nemesis). I thought Barr played her role very well, and actually looked attractive and stylish after she changed her image (and lost the dreadful mole).
Now let's talk about the highlight of the movie (to me): MERYL STREEP! For those criticizing her acting - did we watch the same film? She was brilliant as the pompous, tacky, selfish, yet glamorous romance novelist. When you think about the lines her character was given in the script, it is dumbfounding what she did with that role. She can take the most basic line of dialogue and somehow turn it into something magical. She says it all without even having to speak. She was hilarious and perfect in this movie, and I think it's safe to say that it wouldn't be nearly as good without her.
So, if you are looking for same campy and over-the-top 80s fun, give it a try.
7.5/10.
I will admit from the outset that I have a soft spot for the trio of Seidelman films made in the mid-80's and early 90's-- Desperately Seeking Susan, Making Mr. Right, and this film. There is something playful and quite outrageous about all three of the aforementioned movies with She Devil being the funniest due to great performances by the entire cast, even Roseanne Barr. Although this movie was disregarded by most critics and ignored at the box office, it is truly a funny film with its cartoon-like situations and over-the-top characters. Regardless of what everyone says, check out this film, especially when you find yourself in the mood for a cute and campy movie that is reminiscent of some of the great comedies of the 80's, such as Ruthless People.
Did you know
- TriviaActress Meryl Streep was considered for the "She-Devil" character. But due to some conceptual similarity with Streep's then previous picture Un cri dans la nuit (1988), Streep decided to portray romance novelist Mary Fisher instead.
- GoofsThe handwriting on the list that Ruth has made of Bob's assets changes several times throughout the movie.
- Quotes
Mary Fisher: You're still the butler--so get to work!
Garcia: I may be the butler, but I'm NOT the maid!
- Crazy creditsAs the film ends, The End appears being used from 2 angels.
- ConnectionsEdited into Safire: I Will Survive (1989)
- SoundtracksTied Up
Written by Dieter Meier and Boris Blank
Performed by Yello
Provided Courtesy of Mercury Records
- How long is She-Devil?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $16,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $15,351,421
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $3,509,647
- Dec 10, 1989
- Gross worldwide
- $15,351,421
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content