A remake of Clueless (1995) à la Whit Stillman but set in college rather than High School. No wonder that the movie after this one finds Stillman taking on a direct version of Jane Austen in Love & Friendship (2016) rather than a modern remake of Austen's Emma via Clueless. In this version of Emma we find the Cher role of Violet filled by Greta Gerwig in a similar almost panic mode at times, either over boys or fear of not being perfectly "good" enough. The Dionne role is filled by lookalike Megalyn Echikunwoke, who as in Clueless plays the more cynical and wiser sidekick to Violet. The Tai role who joins Violet's gaggle of gals whom like Cher is intent on educating her to their wise ways, is played by the more down to earth (like Tai) Analeigh Tipton who in no short order (as Brittany Murphy as Tai did in Clueless) causes boy problems for Violet as they become frenemies to some degree. The Paul Rudd character in Clueless is played by Adam Brody, and so on. An inside joke between the two movies is how both Greta and Adam Brody's characters are both exposed as using fake names for themselves. How does this stack up to Clueless? While Clueless is of course much better known as a classic modern comedy which made stars of a few of the actors, it is also more romantic than Damsels which is less focused on the romance of the lead characters. Damsels is of course first and foremost a Whit Stillman movie, which is like saying a Woody Allen movie since both have such unique comedic styles and voices. If you are unfamiliar with his oeuvre, well it is not really something you can understand through a description although my best attempt would be: imagine a Woody Allen movie made by a preppie WASP. Is it a good movie? I've seen some people disparage the film while calling themselves fans of Stillman's earlier work. I don't understand why they don't enjoy this one as well. It may be a slighter work in one sense, or maybe just less of a story or less convoluted, but it is also I think, funnier. It is I guess in that way like Stardust Memories, which to me is immensely funny, but not as well liked by many of Woody Allen's fans.

Fantastic little gem, and come back film from writer/director Whit Stillman. It's not as ambitious in scope as his previous films, but the writing is as sharp as ever, and all the actresses are phenomenal. For the uninitiated, this a dialogue driven film. The humor is all deadpan and dry, not to mention quirky as hell. As always Stillman tackles very human issues within the confines of a very specific environment, with very specific characters, most people will never encounter. That's part of what makes his movies so special, that they can be so offbeat yet be anyone can relate to them, if they are open to it.This is the kind of film that many people will either dismiss as boring, those in this camp I have no use for, or pretentious, those in this camp, I understand, but that's the appeal. Give it a shot and let the dialogue wash over your, just don't expect a typical plot.

This is one of the most pretentious and irritating films I've ever seen. There is no plot or story to speak of. It's about four conceited girls, all named after flowers, who want to prevent suicide attempts by such pretentious means as distributing doughnuts and trying to create a dance craze called The Sambola! (exclamation included in the dance title; I told you it was pretentious). Most of the film is taken up by the incessant talking of the characters, particularly the lead player played by Greta Gerwig, who is a poor man's Chloe Sevigny. The characters speak in an excessively eloquent and elaborate manner, and are ridiculously open about sharing their feelings. Gerwig's character actually thanks her roommate for chastising her, and she is sincere about this. The whole film is as dull and monotone as the speaking voice of the lead actress, Greta Gerwig. It is incredibly pointless and painfully irritating. The girls are all named after flowers, the men are either eloquently well spoken or painfully "doofi" (totally pretentious, I told you).

I'm 72. This was a nostalgia movie for me, bringing back memories of the smart and funny and arch women from various elite colleges in the NY-New England area. Yes, people used to talk like this. We preferred a variety of humorous styles, but the arch, self-ironic, pseudo- pretentious style of this movie was a favorite.The title of the university - Seven Oaks - suggests the Seven Sisters, seven intellectually and socially elite all women's colleges that were "sisters" to the Ivy League universities. The presentation of the men suggests Dartmouth. In a way this is an inversion of the "Taming of the Shrew." The women set out to tame, civilize and domesticate the crude men. Instead both humanize each other. The men's sensibilities and perceptions are refined. The women become less defensive and pretentious and less afraid of expressing their affectionate side.The men I knew, however, were equally intelligent and wryly ironic and self-mocking. But cruder forms of humor and behavior were also appreciated.Smart young people really did used to try to "rewrite" lives, their own and those they knew. These efforts were resisted and subverted in various ways but the effort went on. Smart people can be very wrong in their perceptions of themselves and others. But, as this movie, points out, they can learn.Part of the charm of this movie is that it pokes affectionate fun at the "improvers" but actually shows their efforts succeeding, in somewhat unexpected ways. People eventually get the quirky humanity of themselves and others right.P.S. You did not need to be from a privileged family in those days to fall into rarified world of the liberal arts college. Poor boys could go to college on partial and state scholarships and summer work was normally sufficient to cover the other expenses. It was normal to graduate debt free. That freedom from debt liberated the young to "waste time" on "useless" learning, bold adventures, and experiments with self-identity. the time to be pragmatic and career oriented could come later