
Philosophically, the very existence of The Women is something that makes me cheer. As its title suggests, it's a movie full of only women — and many of them "women of a certain age," at that. Director and screenwriter Diane English spent years trying to steer her remake of George Cukor's 1939 classic to the screen, and I respect and admire her determination. A powerful remake of The Women could have sent yet another signal that moviegoers want to see women on screen in all their beautiful, imperfect, daffy, lovable, clueless, fantastic glory.
On screen, though, The Women disappoints to an almost depressing degree. It's not an outright disaster; there are good moments from nearly everyone in the gigantic cast. But it's not screwball enough to honor its '30s movie heritage, not clever enough to make for a fun night out at the theater. And its own message on women is utterly conflicted, threatening to undermine the potential positive impact of bringing an all-female movie to the big screen.
Meg Ryan stars as Mary Haines, whose life comes complete with adorable daughter, fabulous luncheons, and blooming garden she planted herself. If there are cracks in that shiny veneer, she'd hardly notice; as a friend, Alex (Jada Pinkett Smith), points out, she's too busy filling them in. So it knocks her flat when she finds out — thanks to her gossipy manicurist (Debi Mazar) — that her husband is having an affair with the Saks perfume "spritzer girl" (Eva Mendes). That betrayal would be bad enough, but before long, there's another one, courtesy of her best friend Sylvie (Annette Bening), who sells out Mary to save her own floundering career. The Women does fine with that broad sketch of a plot. It's in the details that the movie loses its footing, so read more.
Some of the movie's issues lie in the direction, which isn't confident enough to pull off some of the more screwball elements. English also doesn't seem to know how to use Bette Midler, who has a brief cameo that is delightful to watch but doesn't contribute much to the story, and Debra Messing and Smith are hardly in the movie. The whole look of the film is flat — understandable given its relatively small budget, but far from engaging for a viewer.
What The Women gets right is Mary's devastation at Sylvie's betrayal; losing her husband wouldn't have been so bad if the whole mess hadn't taken her friend along with it. The few scenes with the friends together are a treat, especially when they're plotting their confrontation of (and revenge against) the spritzer girl. Mendes basically just has to act hot and stupid, and she does that well. And Candice Bergen is amusing as Mary's mother, who dispenses advice that seems to be from another era.
Or is it? The Women seems confused about its own thoughts on women's roles. And while I can live with the ultimate outcome of Mary's journey to find herself (though I thought it was far too easy and predictable), what I can't condone is the movie's treatment of Mary's daughter Molly, who is basically a living representation of Why Women Hate Themselves. In her first scene, she tells Mary she's on a diet because she's fat; Mary laughs it off . Over the course of the movie, she starts smoking to keep from eating, burns tampons because she hates being a girl, and laments that she doesn't understand why magazine editors like Sylvie send such mixed signals to women. Sylvie's ultimate response when confronted with all of Molly's baggage? "I'm a hypocrite. Life is complicated."
That's all?
Sadly, that empty, cop-out response is far too apt a metaphor for The Women as a whole.
Photos courtesy of Picturehouse



















G Star
Emilio Pucci
Juan Antonio Lopez
uhhh did anyone think it would do well? this movie looks horrible, pass.
1The 1937 version is way better.
2Give me the 1939 version anyday. I really wish Hollywood would stop with the remakes.
3not surprised by the reviews it's getting.
4On the plus side, Meg Ryan's hair looks really cute!
5I'm not surprised.
And what the heck happened to Meg Ryan's face...YIKES
6Thanks for the honest review, Buzz. Think I'll pass on this one.
7I just don't understand how the same woman responsible for Murphy Brown could put out such a shrill (judging by the preview ) and disappointing movie.
8Aaahhh! I'm supposed to see this on Monday with My mom and sisters!!! Hope it isn't TOO bad!!
9I'm more likely to check out the original.
10Meg Ryan ruined her face.
11Keep it real, Buzz, keep it real!
12This movie looks so lame...I can't even watch the previews without getting annoyed.
And I agree that Meg looks really weird.
13Yeah, I haven't been able to figure out what exactly Meg did to her face, but she looks strange.
14@LaDolceVita: hahaha. Same here. Well, tomorrow night with my mom and sister...maybe I should bring my ipod. ha!
15It looked stupid and sad. I just never got a real sense of anything good from this movie. Which is shame because women have so much more to offer. I don't even like the plot of this story.
16The original is so good. It's one of my favorites old movies. It's too bad this remake sounds so dissapointing
17I'm going with a group of women tomorrow night just for fun. I love the original and never had much hope for this remake but hopefully it will be a fun litte outing anyway. The great thing about the 1939 version was that it didn't seem to be pandering to anyone it was pretty real and straight forward and ahead of it's time. I don't thin a studio out there now would ever green light an appropriate remake that stands up to the older one. It's sad because it seems that the media is taking us farther back by trying to promote a plastic version of what women are really about
18pfffft i loved it!!! i have watched it 9 times nd i got it last thursdayxoxoxoxx
19Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.