This past weekend I went to see the remake of 'The Women' starring Meg Ryan (who even through soft-lenses has had some SCARY plastic surgery). I wanted to like this movie SO MUCH. I've been looking forward to it all summer. The original movie from 1939 is one of my favorites.
the original
the ladies at Saks
and AGAIN at Saks....see a pattern?
yes, Meg Ryan, I'm as confused as you are! why is this movie so bad after 14 yrs in the making?
the originalHowever, I'm sad to report they ruined it. *OH NO THEY DINT!* Poorly written and not cohesive,they took the entire point and reasoning out of the movie instead making it a pseudo carbon-copy of SATC. Now, you know I love me some SATC, but THIS IS NOT SATC. The reason the original movie is so brilliant is that it is the antithesis of SATC. That is the entire REASON and story of the movie -why copy parts of the original, keep the plot, but ignore the thing that makes the plot INTERESTING. Yes, this remake is boring. As they say on Project Runway, 'Don't bore Nina'.
the ladies at SaksAlso, this movie had the most BLATANT product placement I've ever seen in my life. It reads as one big commercial for Dove beauty products (including a 5 minute sequence that could possibly be a dove commercial) and Saks 5th (how many times can you say Saks in once sentence?) Did I just pay $10.50 to see one big, long commercial?
and AGAIN at Saks....see a pattern?If you've never seen the original, stop reading now. You may actually enjoy the new movie. It is well filmed, very pretty and fashiony with a great cast. If you liked SATC, you MIGHT like this movie and the relationships between these women. It won't be mind blowing or make you cry, but it will be enjoyable for you.
The original movie is brilliant, because it explores the lives of 9 women and their bitchy fake friendships together and how the main character deals with a major plot twist. Nothing is touchy feely or read as true friendships except for the relationship between the main character and her mother. The opposite is true in this new version. They took out the fun bitchiness, the great comic writing and turned the same basic plot into a bland carbon copy. Interspersed throughout the movie were lame and pointless references to the original as if to say 'see, we're a remake of a brilliant movie!'. If so, why didn't they remake the things that made the original so wonderful?
One of the most annoying bits I'll mention here was to have the role of the 'countess' from the original played by the fabulous Bette Midler. The annoying part? Instead of an insane but lovingly optimistic REAL Countess always in search of 'la'mour' - Bette plays an annoyingly pessimistic hollywood agent who mentions briefly that she has the nickname 'countess' ( is that really neccesary?) who coos 'lamour' once......and is the ONLY bitchy character in the entire movie.
yes, Meg Ryan, I'm as confused as you are! why is this movie so bad after 14 yrs in the making?Even the villain, Eva Mendes - comes off as un-bitchy and really dumb. REALLY? Did the people who directed this movie even SEE the original? Joan Crawford was amazing as the bitchiest femme fatale who also was a smart cookie. 
Eva Mendes, sorry - but NOT a Joan Crawford remake of the roleThats my review: save your $10 to buy a dvd copy of the original movie. Yes, it's in black and white from 1939, but the writing and story are 10 times more amazingly modern and entertaining than this new version. Save it for netflix.
*disclaimer* For the record, I'm not just saying bad things because the original was so wonderful -there is room in the industry for GREAT remakes. Some of my favorite movies are Great Expectations with Ethan Hawk and Gwenyth Paltrow and Hamlet (also with Ethan Hawk) are 2 of my favorite movies and both are brilliant interpretations of classics.
