Amazing strong female cast! Funny and emotional. It made me laugh, angry and emotional. There was nothing I really didn't like about it, great cast, great story and great messages. I am surprised at other reviews, I highly recommend it! The delivery scene alone was hilarious! The cast just worked together so well. I also enjoyed the soundtrack.

Since the release of this film I have seen only negative reviews. In fact, even the summary given on this website is a summary of the 1930's version, as if nobody could be bothered to watch a modern film only about women. I would like to point out that the 1930's version was such a hit that it was remade in the 1950's with June Allyson as a musical. Obviously, some have found universal themes about the nature of female friendship, competition and betrayal to be worth watching. I watched this remake shortly after the film was released and I remember being surprised by how terrible the reviews were. I have recently watched it again, and find myself wondering the same thing. When Meg Ryan confides her husband's affair to her mother, Candice Bergan, and is advised to turn a blind eye, Ryan makes the comment, "What is this, a 1930's movie?!?" This is a clever bit of dialogue and reminds us of the movie's origin. Yes, it is a different time now, but I think this remake, while clearly not a perfect film and at times a bit awkward, does an admirable job of holding true to the themes that made the original a classic and for me it was a perfectly enjoyable film. After 13 years of a loving marriage and a beautiful daughter, a woman finds out that her husband is having an affair. The knowledge comes about through the gossip of high-society New York, in this instance the manicurist at Sak's. Her friends soon find out the news as well and act to intervene. I think one problem that people had with this beginning is that in the "modern" world this woman should have thrown her husband out immediately. She is counseled, however, by her mother, not to throw away everything over her husband's "mistake" which clearly has nothing to do with the love of his wife. Several years ago, I may also have found this idea offensive. I think, however, the film does a good job of justifying why a woman wouldn't want to give up everything her life has been about immediately. Obviously, once she is forced to confront the sexy mistress in a dressing room, the abstract idea of an affair becomes real and she throws her husband out. From here the film shows Ryan's struggle to move on; as her relationship with her friends, her job and her daughter all impose challenges. At the heart, however, remains the fundamental intricacies of all the different kinds of female relations, from her reticent housekeeper to the "other woman" and everyone in between (including a fabulous turn from Midler as a random acquaintance who passes on some vital wisdom). And here, at the heart, the movie shows it's modern grip on the female species: Ryan learns the ultimate lesson that a woman will never be the best daughter, mother, worker, lover or friend that she can be until she asks the real question: What does she want for herself? Again, I enjoy these kinds of themes, and though I wouldn't make my husband sit through it with me, I would definitely watch it again some rainy day. One more thing, the ultimate revenge scene is delicious! Lots of fun.

The original 1939 "The Women" garnered some really die hard followers. There are message boards still going on it. "I have two questions; first, what did she say about _______; and, second _________." Someone comes along a few posts later and says she can answer the first part of the question, and does, but not sure yet about the second. It's that embedded. Most of the fan-atics of the original warned against any attempt to remake something so perfect. They jumped on "The Opposite Sex," and trounced that rather thoroughly. It was a bad movie. But, their full fury is earned here. It turns out their dire prediction of failure is vindicated in both cases. At least "The Opposite Sex" changed the name before they changed it all around. Here, it's not only a change-around, but an even further deterioration in flow, timing, direction, authenticity with added errors in casting and performance. Don't directors know how to say "cut" anymore? This should be followed by a firm instruction as to what's really going on here, how the characters feel in this scene, and, let's start again from – whatever point. They used to say at the end of filming that it's in the can, meaning the finished reel is in its metal case and ready to be distributed. Sadly, this weak effort with its canned performances was finished before production ended, and quite unready for distribution.

Normally, I'm more supportive of women directors, but this really doesn't deserve it. Good actors stuck in a bad script, and it's not even witty. The original was far more clever, if slightly vicious and dated. And what on earth did Meg Ryan do to make herself so unattractive and emotionally unappealing??! (Can you say bad plastic job? Uh-huh. Forget the fat lips, girl.) Moreover, there's not one major character (or characterization) that I find remotely sympathetic or can care about -- I want to slap them all! Don't care for the wimpy, spineless Meg Ryan character or the superficial Annette Bening character. Really don't like the Bette Midler character (or is it what Midler does with it? It's a toss-up). Hate, hate, **HATE** the Debra Messing character!! Eva Mendes? Flat. Boring. Could do entirely without Cloris Leachman: she just irritates lately wherever she is. And Jada Pinkett Smith is practically invisible in this.Skip this. Waste of time. Enough said.