The Women Poster

The Women (2008)

Comedy  
Rayting:   4.9/10 20.6K votes
Country: USA
Language: English
Release date: 27 November 2008

A wealthy New Yorker wrestles with the decision to leave her cheating husband, as she and her friends discover that women really can have it all.

Movie Trailer

Where to Watch

User Reviews

davidtraversa-1 21 June 2009

I was flabbergasted by the negative critics starting this long list of reviews. I think their mistake was to compare this movie with the old original.

They have nothing to do with each other.

The original one is a classic, I love it fondly. This movie is based on the same novel, but it's absolutely contemporary. Another time, another way of thinking, another set of rules to move in society with.

The old elegance in clothes, the distinguished looks, the excellent manners, all gone..., gone with the wind. But let's face it, our concept of contemporary elegance is what it is, nothing will make us go back to the 1930s idea of elegance, or manners, and if somebody resents that fact..., MMMmmmm, I'm afraid they are out of sync. with the present.

Meg Ryan looks lovely; somebody complained that she cannot move her face... come on! what do you want her to do with it, a Cheeta number?? Her figure, and her legs! are first-class (so are Anne Benning's!!).

The cast is excellent and as everybody complains about Eva Mendez, the original character is exactly like her. Joan Crawford in the old movie couldn't --at the time-- play it so coarse, because of censorship and simply because at that time they didn't portrayed reality as harsh as we use to do it today. Period.

The movie is extremely entertaining, have some good laughs, the timing is excellent..., the photography flawless, the lighting impeccable, the sound perfect... anything else, El Exigente?

I don't think these crew made this film pretending to surpass Antonioni, Visconti or Bergman. I enjoyed very much the 'women alone' dialogs, since they never act like that when even just one man is present. And the speed, spontaneity and sincerity of these dialogs indicate that only a woman could have directed this film.

These group of women --with fantastic openness (something you will never find among men) when talking their hearts out, is so believable and attractive (at least to me), that I wanted this movie to go on forever!!

They made a light --very light-- piece of entertainment, that's all. What really bothered me reading the critics written by men, was their necessity to clarify before hand that "This isn't the kind of picture I would go to see by myself... ME, such a macho man..., I saw it because..." (some excuse or other). Wow! are we tied up in knots, guys!! What is happening out there with those old fashioned ideas about what a man is about!!

Wake up men, or we'll end up missing the boat irremediably!!

pastorkevin52 4 January 2009

Fmovies: I was very disappointed by this movie. Ms English who says that she is a fan of the original movie seemed to have taken a great piece of artistic work, and transformed it into a flat-lined "ho-hum" you've come a long way baby production. I tried to like Meg Ryan's Mary Haines, but she was just boring. She didn't seem to feel anything about her husband's affair. There was no emotional struggle, no deep hurt. In the original 1939 movie Norma Shearer's Mary Haines felt betrayed, shocked, vulnerable, confused and angry. The 2008 production was more about some fake sisterhood theme, (Actually my wife's words)and didn't make you shed a tear or even chuckle. The only performances that were note worthy we're of Debra Messing, and Bette Midler. (I wanted more of Bette.) There was really no protagonist in this movie. The Sylvia Fowler character had too many sub themes to it. And Crystal Allen had no fire. The remake of the department store encounter with Annette Benning, and Miss Mendez was Luke warm. Also the pacing was slow as well. Obviously the 1939 version needed to be updated, but this one wasn't it. The reason that the original version worked so well was that the characters were dealing with "man" problems. A subject by the way which isn't out-dated. The magic of the original movie was that the movie was about both sexes, while you never saw the men.

ipanema-girl 30 July 2009

No! no - No - NO! My entire being is revolting against this dreadful remake of a classic movie. I knew we were heading for trouble from the moment Meg Ryan appeared on screen with her ridiculous hair and clothing - literally looking like a scarecrow in that garden she was digging. Meg Ryan playing Meg Ryan - how tiresome is that?! And it got worse ... so much worse. The horribly cliché lines, the stock characters, the increasing sense I was watching a spin-off of "The First Wives Club" and the ultimate hackneyed schtick in the delivery room. How many times have I seen this movie? Only once, but it feel like a dozen times - nothing original or fresh about it. For shame!

choua_lo 21 September 2008

The Women fmovies. I really wish I had read everyone's review before going to see the movie... it was one of the most excruciating films that I've ever seen. I was ready to leave the theater 5 minutes into the movie; I should have followed my instinct. The movie offered nothing new or clever, it was boring and very cliché. I was surprised to find that it was directed by a woman! The characters did not represent any women that I know, they were boring, bitter and melodramatic. The movie was unrealistic and depressing and a waste of time and money. And the actors looked tired, poor make-up and hair styling. It was recently compared to the Sex and in the City movie; it was not even half as good. My suggestion, do not see this movie!

mike-seaman 20 April 2009

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.

aharmas 13 September 2008

I believe an entire book can be written about the odyssey to remake the classic film on which this film is loosely based. When Hollywood first started talking about such enterprise, the reaction was always negative because there were just too many aspects that could have gone wrong, starting with the solid ensemble that made the original unforgettable, and that's exactly where things begin souring here, with the selection of actresses that otherwise can do remarkable work, but that are not suited to the parts, and sadly enough, have been directed with the heavy hand of a director that doesn't understand or appreciate the source material.

It seems as if there is no focus or direction, or as if the direction that has been taken is to obliterate anything that was good about the original film. This is called an updating, as in let's drain the story out of humor, snappy dialogue, and any interesting premise. Most of all, let's prove that women have come a long way, except that the problem is that we don't really get (at least by watching this film) where the women are truly going.

For starters, casting Meg Ryan in the central role proves almost fatal to the movie because somehow she seems to have locked herself into some sort of limbo where women don't really change appearances, even after 20 years of working in the movies. Her Mary which proved to be a difficult role in the 30's, somehow grew from her interaction with the other stereotypes, like Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz" by learning, observing, and realizing that she had a choice in the matter. It might not have been a choice that women would celebrate nowadays, but it was fun ride, and part of the fun, was the catty, silly, sometimes slapstick routines that elevated that movie into the realm of the sublime. In here, we are down to earth with a thud. By changing the nature of Sylvia, the film has lost a lot of its spark, and it isn't in anyway Annette Bening's fault. I couldn't help but admiring how she tried to save this sinking ship and got a sinking feeling as she struggled with the horrible lines she was handled. Thankfully I entertained myself by looking at some of her terrific outfits and kept reminding myself how talented this lady really was. Her Sylvia is wise but flawed, and she could have been a great creation. Unfortunately Ms. English wasn't paying attention to her own work and loses control of the one character that could have turned the film into a fresh direction.

Yet that wasn't the biggest blasphemy of them all. In the original, we have Joan Crawford doing probably one of the best performances by a woman. Her Crystal is legendary, with conniving lines, incendiary moves, duplicitous maneuvers, and some very sexy poses. She was the link between the male and the female, and through her we knew what the whole catastrophe was about. She provided the tension between men and women. She was dangerous, sexy, the ultimate femme fatale. A woman of intelligence that we feared and admired, and most importantly, we wanted to destroy to save our heroine. Eva Mendes, as gorgeous as she is, is two dimensional in this outing because of weak writing, and once again, some bad casting.

There are more atrocities in the film, such as the addition of a terrible role for Mensing as the dedicated mother who lives for having babies, and the rather annoying lesbian turn by Pinkett. Then comes the biggest waste of talent in the movie, as Bette Middler, who is a little unrecognizable in her make up, show

Similar Movies

5.3
Bachchhan Paandey

Bachchhan Paandey 2022

6.2
Jug Jugg Jeeyo

Jug Jugg Jeeyo 2022

5.5
Senior Year

Senior Year 2022

7.0
Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers

Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers 2022

5.8
The Man from Toronto

The Man from Toronto 2022

6.0
Jayeshbhai Jordaar

Jayeshbhai Jordaar 2022

6.7
Minions: The Rise of Gru

Minions: The Rise of Gru 2022

6.7
Fresh

Fresh 2022


Share Post

Direct Link

Markdown Link (reddit comments)

HTML (website / blogs)

BBCode (message boards & forums)

Watch Movies Online | Privacy Policy
Fmovies.guru provides links to other sites on the internet and doesn't host any files itself.