Genres

Visitors Review

johnnybloem 2012-05-22 17:14:29

The Women

Watching the trailer of "The Women"-with an all star cast, I thoughtthis film could be the next "Sex and the City". Boy, was I in for adisappointment.During the first half I got the impression, something is very wrong.The footage looks dull, there is very little camera movement and eventhe score was bad. The times where there was actually music. Thereshould have been more comedy, the story has a lot of potential. Certainshots and editing are distracting! The extras also helped to distractus. Everyone doing their own thing.Well, it's good to see great films and as a filmmaker the bad ones arethere for us to learn from! When the time comes for our RomCom to moveforward.Not all hope is lost. The second half is actually better and JadaPinkett Smith gives an outstanding performance as always!

2012-05-22 11:07:32

A GREAT film to get rid of your in laws during the up coming holiday season

What a waste of great talent to be in a movie like this,and what the hell happened to Meg Ryan? She was always so cute and pretty,now her face is so botox abused,it hardly moves.My Sister saw "The Women" at the theather when it came out last year,and half the audience was asleep,and the other half left before the film was over.If you want to get rid of your in laws this holiday season,put "THe Women" on your blue ray DVD player.

Sirus_the_Virus 2012-05-14 01:59:51

Awful.

The women is an incredibly stupid film. This main women(played by MegRyan, Annette Benning, Jada Pinkett Simth, and Debra Messing) areretarded. It's like they are blind too. There is nothing really specialabout The women. The damndest thing about this film. It's plot seems oh so familiar.It's about four women, all friends, and they talk about their lovelife. In a city. Hmm... that sounds a little like Sex in the city? Whatis the difference between both films, and show? Well, The women isactually a remake of a 30's film. They should've left it alone. Really,the film is just plain awful.I have already told you most of the story. Four friends, one is a housewife(played by Meg Ryan, who looks very bad for her age do to botox), abusiness women(played by Annette Benning), a lesbo(played by JadaPinkett Smith) and a woman trying to have even more kids(played byDebra Messing). They all live in the city. They are all friends. Now the movie has no men in it whatsoever. Not one. Not even in thebackground. That would've been nice. when the house wife's(MegRyan)husband is cheating on her for a perfume bitch(Eva Mendes, that'swhat they call her) it get's pretty stupid. As if it wasn't already.The really stupid thing about this movie is that her retarded friendsdidn't tell her about it and they try to convince her to stay with herhusband. The acting is pretty bad. As is the whole movie pretty much. The moviemakes women look like retards and men look like genius's. This movie isreally stupid. What good will The women do for you? The most they'llmake you do is once you finish the film, they'll make you take a bathto wash off all of the stink. It's just that horrible.The women:*/****

2012-05-13 08:29:43

Girl Power!

A movie made up of an all-female cast and i mean ALL-female, there was not a man in site even in the extras now that's genius. The cast is made up of the always convincing Meg Ryan, the brilliant Annette Bening, Debra Messing added some laughs and Jada Pinkett Smith like you have never seen her before. The story-line is not a particularly new one but to the movie's defense it has been relevant in the past, is relevant now and will be relevant in the future, perfect husband turns out to be NOT so perfect. The way this problem is tackled by the women and the different points of view of each of the women is definitely interesting. The loyalty and friendship of this cast is believable the chemistry is great.The movie is full of laughs and great lines. It is definitely refreshing to see an all-female cast, Hollywood should keep this up.

Travis 2012-05-05 01:48:41

Awful Writing, Bad Casting.

I'm a huge fan of the original version of "The Women." This versionshouldn't even be allowed to be called a remake as everything about itis bad, so bad it made me see Jungle Red. First, the writing, DianeEnglish should not be allowed to write movies as she is known for TVwriting (Murphy Brown)a better choice would have been Nora Ephron. 2ndMistake; Casting. Meg Ryan, Debra Messing, Jada Pinkett, AnnetteBening, a bunch of B-level actress trying to compete with the a-listactresses of the original. A Better Choice of casting would be this,Reese Witherspoon as Mary Hanes, Cher-Sylvia Fowler, AngelinaJolie-Crystal Allen, Bette Midler-Countess (with more scenes and lines)Jada Pinkett replaced with Halle Berry. Mary Hanes Mother(CandiceBergan)--Jane Russell, Debra Messing replace with Julia Roberts. Ifanyone wanted to remake this movie that would the ideal choice.

felizatee 2012-05-04 20:03:58

if you're not a film academic you'll like it

The people who don't like this movie seem to have some academicvendetta against it -- those of us who don't hold the original cantotally enjoy it.My husband who had never seen the original said "I don't want to see agirly movie." I assured him that "the women" is just a great movie, nota girl movie. He had a great time. He was very glad to have gone andenjoyed it more than the "boy" movie we saw the day before "burn afterreading." SPOILER: I even think the new ending is better. Maybe not quite as fun,but it was beautiful. At first I couldn't understand why they had madecertain changes to the plotbut when I got the end and Debra Messing gives birth and brings thefirst male into the movie, I cried. That's one thing to love about men– they are our sons.

2012-05-04 01:21:29

The Women

This review is from: The Women (DVD) The price was great! The service was excellent. The movie was very scratched but played well in my dvd player the first time I watched it. I prefer movies without scratches that is why I gave 3 stars.

2012-05-03 13:11:45

The Women

Very enjoyable. Great Cast. The story is excellent and easy to relate to. This is a movie that is great to own so you can watch it over and over.

Movie-Jay 2012-05-02 11:03:11

Far More Enjoyable Than SATC

Okay, I'll start off right away by saying I'm a guy. I like goodmovies. I'm not one of those guys who won't go and see a "chick flick",because the thought of straight guys disliking the fact that a movie isabout women and stars women is preposterous to me.There are better and more challenging movies out there to see rightnow, but "The Women" is certainly more enjoyable than the "Sex and TheCity: The Movie" no matter how you slice it. I liked spending time withthese "broads" because they were actually interesting while the SATCgirls were flimsy and flighty, and their movie was filled with stupiddialogue and a good 40 minutes that we could have done without.That "The Women" is scoring lower than SATC so far makes no sense tome, whatsoever. This is a pretty good movie.

2012-05-01 17:01:07

Chicks in the city

"Don't be bitter. It leads to Botox."Short Attention Span Summary (SASS):1.Count the stars - Meg Ryan (Mary), Annette Bening (Mary's best friend Sylvia), Debra Messing (Mary's permanently pregnant friend Edie), Jada Pinkett-Smith (Mary's gay writer pal Alex), Candice Bergen (Mary's Mom), Bette Midler, Carrie Fisher, Cloris Leachman, Debi Mazar, and (ta-dah) Eva Mendes as "the spritzer girl" Crystal.2.All star cast proves that too many chicks spoil the broth.3.Main characters Mary and Sylvia dominate a ho-hum girlfriend drama that could have been so much more with the addition of humor and some good old fashioned beyotchiness.4.All the other actresses are criminally underutilized5.Back to the story (what little there is) - birds of a feather flock together when a cuckoo moves in on Mary's nest. 6.That's one heckuva sexy cuckoo7.... and one heckuva messy nestThe problem here is believability. Quite simply, it's not. Recommended for a bonding afternoon with the girls over ice cream and chocolate cake, and better yet, ditch the movie after the Saks underwear scene and get your nails done instead.Amanda Richards, April 14, 2009

respitia1 2012-04-26 05:44:00

From a man's perspective, I thought it was a very good movie with lot's of laughs.

I had my son for the weekend and my parent's called me up and said thatthey wanted the two of us to meet them at the movies. When I got there,my mom said that she really wanted to see "The Women" and asked if myson and I minded due to it being labeled as a chick flick. Ireluctantly agreed thinking this was going to be another "First WivesClub" type movie. I gotta say that I was very surprised to find myselfreally enjoying the movie from the opening scene to the credits. It wasa great production and the cast was perfect in their roles. My son andI found ourselves laughing through entire movie and we are glad that wesaw it. It made for a great Saturday afternoon movie and I highlyrecommend it to anyone, man or woman.

pinkchinklet 2012-04-25 10:18:49

Disappointing to say the least.

The entire time I was watching this movie I was thinking.." This shouldbe a Nora/Deliah Ephron movie! Why isn't it?!". Seriously, if thismovie would have been written & directed by the Ephron powerhouses, MegRyan MIGHT have been better for the role. Maybe. She was AmericasSweetheart. The quintessential female romantic comedy star!! She couldhave played this movie in 2001, but seeing her on screen now is justhorrifying to me. In the DVD extras in the interviews about women, MegRyan says it's about "real authenticity". How can she say that with an,although surgically enhanced, straight face?! I agree with everyonethat the casting of this movie is completely absurd. I actually loveDeborah Messing. Love Will & Grace, love her comedic timing...in atelevision series. Seeing Annette Benning as the the first characterwas actually pretty scary. What's happened to her & why is she in thismovie? I was taking quadruple takes. It's like she was portraying aknock off Diane Keaton. The long coats, high collared necklines..saysDiane Keaton all over it. Seeing her would've been a God-send.Unfortunately, I did not crack a single laugh this entire movie. Noteven the Bette Midler part, which was a highlight considering the restof the off casting. Seeing Meg Ryan smoke up with Bette Midler wasn'teven funny. There are so many better matched women for this movie, thatat this point could pass for A) having an 11 year old & B) beingfriends with each other: Jennifer Garner, Renee Zellweger, JenniferAniston..this list could continue. This movie definitely could havebeen done so much better, with more thought & effort into not only thecast, but the script & the general direction.

2012-04-24 16:14:07

So Bad !!!

I actually rented this movie with an open mind, I've watched the orignal many times and thought that it was ahead of it's time. I was right, this remake is pretty awful! Even though it steals so many of the witty lines from the original, which was released in 1939, this movie is so boring and badly acted that I barely could keep myself focused on watching it. Do yourself a big favor, and rent the original and place this one in the "Forget" pile!!!!

rasvag53 2012-04-24 12:13:59

"Sleepless" a la Meg, this was a Nightmare!

An old friend and I go to the movies once a month and we gravitate tonon-violent stories about people. I wished I had read the reviews herebefore I went. The trailers and the cast and English were what sent usout to see the Women. We are both over 50...just. We are both fairlywell educated professionals. She is divorced I am married 32 years.When I am entertained, I just follow the movie. Last night all I wasdoing was finding faults...because that was all I saw. I had never evenheard of the original...but now I will definitely seek it out.**SPOILERS only to what cast members played in each character ** Thecasting (however marvelous each of these actresses are and I am a fanof each and everyone) was too big name heavy. I happened to feel sorryfor Candice Bergen. She was really very good, but at 62, she is toooyoung to portray Meg Ryan's mother...what were they thinking! OHyeah...wait, Ms Bergen had already played Ryan's mother in a film backin 1981 for George Cuckor's last film "Rich and Famous". You've come along way Candice, not so much Meg. This actress is like little Sallyone note (pun intended). Cloris Leachman is magnificent and I was all smiles when she appeared.Annette Benning was also very good but again, was not a good pairingwith Ryan. Debra Messing's character was a bit over the top, but thereare so few comedies I would think she would jump through rings to be inthis picture. Eva Mendez was stunningly and evilly cast. That was agood choice, and done well. Jada was cast for name only, I thought, notquite a part for her.Love Bette, but I would bet that a much of her contribution to thisfilm was left on editing floor. She was a stereotype of herself, whichwas probably intended, but the lady can act, and they should have hadher sing at least one of her songs in the soundtrack. Carrie Fisher?Now I know who she is, but I'm old. How did she get a part...(awful) India Ennenga played Meg Ryan's daughter. She was very good and I thinkwe'll see more of her. But I hope casting directors don't judge her onthe weight of this film or she is sunk. I read in some of these reviews about the absence of men. It was veryeffective. Also, the comment about the extras is also true...your mindwanders to them when you are bored with the action. There is one inpurple in a scene with the manicurist. No director was paying attentionto her at all :) Save your theater money and wait for this to come toTV...don't even bother to rent it. Or go or rent knowing you are payingfor the big money cast, not Meg Ryan. Time to grow up dear and act yourage.

2012-04-22 22:17:53

Great with wine or hot chocolate ...

This review is from: The Women (2008) (Amazon Instant Video) "The Women" for women. Though the movie is simple, the characters are interesting and unique. The movie is full of reminders that whoever we are and whatever we have that life is not perfect. It also reminds us that regardless of what life brings, we are responsible for our own peace and happiness by being true to ourselves. A movie that you can watch over and over, not because of the great story but because of how it makes you feel.

2012-04-22 12:23:10

"We can have it all. The question is, do we want it?"

When Hollywood remakes a classic, it does so with a vengeance, in this case 1939s "The Women", a tale of New York socialite Mary Haines (Norma Shearer in 1939, Meg Ryan in 2008) whose husband is stolen by an opportunistic hussy. In the original, a careless gossip reveals a scandalous affair, a girl from the wrong side of the tracks poaching the man of a beloved, gentle woman and faithful wife. Like the current remake, no one suffers financial distress in either film. Where such movies served to distract a country burdened by the long years of the Depression, the 2008 version is nothing but a paean to Sex and the City and its ilk.The crisp, acerbic dialog that fed the drama of a heartless housebreaker determined to secure her future in 1939 has been watered down to support vague cameo appearances, but the context is lost in a twisted mess of improbable solutions and sloppy writing. When Mary Haines gathers with ladies in similar situations getting "quickie" divorces in Reno 1939, the modern group goes to a health farm, where Ryan smokes a joint with Bette Midler and ruminates on where she's gone wrong. While the first film offered fresh faces destined for long term stardom, Eve Arden, Paulette Goddard, Rosalind Russell and Joan Crawford, the new one is a rogue's gallery of cosmetically altered actresses, some more gruesome than others.Meg Ryan- sporting a mouth that is part Meg, part Calista Flockhart and part Michelle Pheiffer- sullies Shearer's former role with braggadocio about her performance in the bedroom (something about nails and boards) and a hapless Annette Benning apologizes for exposing her friend to the rabid tabloid gossip. Bette Midler makes a bold, if shocking cameo, as though she stumbled onto the wrong set. And what could be more absurd than casting Crawford's iconic role with the sultry Eva Mendes (the extent of her role is a few lines delivered in sexy lingerie or in a bath tub)? Sadly, the coming to self of a married woman still in love with an unfaithful husband becomes Ryan's tongue-in-cheek parody of a new identity, complete with Annie Lennox anthem in the background.For all the wasted efforts of such greats as Candice Bergin and Cloris Leachman, there are a few stellar moments: 5 stars to Annette Benning for a performance that transcends the vapid material, a short, but punchy role by Debi Mazar, the gossipy nail lady who spreads the rumors and a terrific one-liner by natural comedic actress Ana Gasteyer. In contrast, Jada Pinkett-Smith is a brash lesbian, Debra Messing's considerable talent is wasted, and Carrie Fisher? Well, she's just... Carrie Fisher.An iconic comedy of manners and the danger of gossip is turned into a frivolous chick flick in an effort that does no justice to the sophistication of the original in this uncomfortable ensemble piece. It says something about the state of filmmaking for actresses over forty when all the public is offered is this warmed up hash with neither plot nor substance, a sad commentary when talented actresses are forced to alter their faces to remain relevant in a youth-obsessed society. Shame on Hollywood- and the screenwriter, producers and director- for presenting these actresses with such substandard fare. Luan Gaines/2009.

matthewtufariello 2012-04-19 17:14:56

Not as bad as they say it is.

My sisters and my cousin(female) forced me to see this chick movie. Itsnot the kind of movie I would prefer to see, but it really wasn't thatbad. I wouldn't want to see this movie, but after watching it Icouldn't say it was bad, just not my kind of film. It was very accuratein acting out what woman really talk about and do in certainsituations. As a guy, I wasn't TOO amused by the jokes, but man thewomen sure were. They related to the movie and yeah it was funny to seethemselves on the big screen. "OH EM GEE I DO THAT TO HAHA" I've neverseen the original, nor would I care to. If you are a girl, this is amust see, but maybe girls would say this movie sucked, probably. Idon't see a 13 year old going, "Wow I remember going threw that when Iwas 30."No man would have this in there collection, but I can't say it washorrible, so meh.

michael-3204 2012-04-19 10:20:44

Best if you don't think about the original

"The Women" uses the same character names and the plot skeleton of the1939 George Cukor classic with the same title, but it is really more analternate "Sex and the City" than an updated version the original. Ifound it neither as bad as its many detractors claim nor as good as itssomewhat more limited number of fans make it out to be, but it'sprobably best if you are not terribly familiar with (or not a big fanof) the classic version. While that film has always been polarizing,even its critics recognize it has some of the snappiest, wittiestzingers in Hollywood history. Sadly, that sharpness is missing from thescript of this film.And then there's the cast. I don't envy any group of actresses settingthemselves up for comparison with the sensational ensemble of theoriginal. This cast sounds impressive on paper, but they never reallygel. It took the "SATC" women several seasons of hard work to developas 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 representingdifferent aspects of whatever the filmmakers think "the modern woman"is. Not one of these characters, for all the talents of the actressesplaying them, ever actually felt like a real person.That said, there's some life here, scattered scenes that are amusing ortouching. The four leads are ably assisted, especially by ClorisLeachman and Candice Bergen, in beautifully played roles that ringtrue. And Bette Midler steals the too-brief chunk of the movie shegets, giving us a hint of how brass and sassy a genuine attempt atupdating "The Women" might have been. Unfortunately, Eva Mendes thencomes back on screen, reminding us of how beneath Joan Crawford'sCrystal Allen her version is, and how much this movie pales incomparison. (Not that it's all Mendes's fault -- true, she's no JoanCrawford, but her role here is a shadow of what Crawford got to sinkher 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 ita go. Just don't expect too much. Everyone else, don't waste your time.

katiemeyer1979 2012-04-15 03:33:02

Badly Lit Women And Other Problems

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

Robert W. 2012-04-14 10:34:17

A very bland attempt at making the perfect chick flick

I have never seen the original film and likely never will. In fact Ihad never even heard of the original 1939 "classic" that suddenlyeveryone seems so passionate about when describing how film makersbutchered this remake compared to the original. Kudos must be givenwhere it is due and there are some key points where the film achievesit's point in targeting it's demographic...women. And if the theater Iwas in was any indication (where I was literally the only guy in a fulltheater of women) they thought it was hilarious. They were certainlyenjoying it more than what most reviews would imply both professionallyand IMDb'ers. The cast is too big and the actresses perhaps too strongon screen that they don't clash with each other but the writers tonedown each character to near boredom essentially ruining any attempt atdepth that could have existed in the story and the characters.Considering the film exists literally entirely of women...not even inthe background will you see a man for even a second, it's quite anaccomplishment actually and a very interesting spin on the genre, andthen considering that the film is marketed towards women...the filmstill comes across to me as male dominated but that's a differentargument for a different forum.Meg Ryan changes very little over the years which can be a great thingif you're a huge Meg Ryan fan which we all have been at one time oranother. But same old does become...same old...and her performance asMary Haines, the scorned wife who is trying to take her life back isthe quasi-ditsy, blonde, cute, curly haired role we've seen her in adozen times or more. Her character gets some depth compared to othersand she has her moments but the script is weak and she doesn't add toit. Annette Bening gets second closest to actually having some sort ofdepth to her character but she sticks out amongst the friends as beinga little older and out of touch and never really takes off with anymajor improvements to the story. Debra Messing's character is funny andcute and could have really had a good storyline to go along with Mary'smarital woes but they give her next to nothing other than a few goodlines and funny moments. She gets to go into labor which helps give herthe edge over the other women. Jada Pinkett Smith, I have no doubt, isa great actress. I think she has fabulous potential and she totallyblew it on this film where she is literally completely useless. Meaningno offense to this at all...the film makers literally seemed to use heras the token black girl and on top of that the token lesbian/gayconnection. Her character has no depth, no good lines, and is justangry through the whole thing. Eva Mendes does the best she can do asthe tempestuous lover of Mary's husband. She is funny and quirky anddoes look very sexy but no depth just like everyone else. Add in somegood solid cameos from Hollywood elite like Bette Midler (does shealways do pot smoking advice cameos or is it just me?) Candice Bergen(love her), Carrie Fisher (unfortunately bland cameo), and the amazingCloris Leachman (who might be one of the best characters in the film.)The movie turns in a cast that is sorta fun for the first half hour andthen loses all credibility.I am just blown away that a woman director and writer like DianeEnglish who created one of the most profound female roles in thenineties with Murphy Brown could create a movie for women, about women,with nothing but women, called The Women could make all the women inthe film so neurotic and needy. I mean sure the moral of the film issupposed to be that you can survive without men but if that's the casewhy do they all seem to go insane? The movie is mildly entertaining andI don't mean to say that I didn't enjoy it I just thought it would beso much more and could have been a very powerful dramedy under theright circumstances but this wasn't it and my opinion seems to reflectthat of the general consensus so check this one out on DVD maybe orwait for the TV to show it...then it won't be so bad. 6.5/10