When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Have you seen one of those stories on the news about apes that have learned to communicate with sign language? Well, one of those apes must be named Michael Davis because that's the only way I can explain the bizarrely bad storytelling on display here. If 100 Women was the work of a non-human primate with a vocabulary of a few hundred words and phrases, it would almost be mediocre even though I suspect your average gibbon could come up with something better than this while picking lice off its mate's fur. As the product of a non-brain damaged human being, this film is flabbergasting in its awfulness.I have seen worse movies than this in terms of logical plotting or intelligent dialog, but this thing might just take the cake in terms of slapping the viewer in the face with utterly unrealistic characters. These roles are so awkwardly constructed with beyond stupid motivations and borderline pathological interpersonal skills that the best performers in the cast actually end up looking the worst. Jennifer Morrison and Erinn Barlett try to make their parts as close to believable as possible, but the result of their efforts is only to emphasize how their characters are almost surrealistically contrived. The cruder acting from the rest of the cast more easily blends into the background of how much 100 Women sucks.On what he claims to be the worst day of his life, failed art student Sam (Chad E. Conella) winds up having this beautiful woman named Hope (Erinn Bartlett) throw herself at him. The fact that it makes no sense for her to do so, given that the movie never gives her or the audience a single reason to give a damn if Sam lives or dies, clearly never occurred to writer/director/simian Michael Davis. After spending just a few ludicrously happy hours together, Hope leaves and Sam loses her phone number. He then comes up with the cunning plan of taking a job as a delivery boy to try and track Hope her. I'm sure you can come up, off the top of your head, with 5 better ways of finding someone other than just wandering around the city as a delivery boy, but that was apparently the best this writer/director/chimp could come up with.Sam eventually locates Hope in an all-female apartment complex, discovers she's sad for some unexplained reason and devotes himself to cheering her up and uncovering the source of her unhappiness. His efforts are hindered by a cartoonishly vulgar cousin (Steve Monroe) and an assortment of badgeringly kooky chicks and helped by Annie (Jennifer Morrison), another beautiful woman who inexplicably finds Sam to be something other than a waste of space. The film drags its butt across the carpet for a while before simpering away with two completely contradictory endings.Let me see if I can encapsulate the filmmaking ineptness of writer/director/bonobo Michael Davis. Sam breaks up with his unattractive and abusive girlfriend at the very start of the movie. Then, about halfway through she's arbitrarily thrown back into the story as through she and Sam continued to have a casual relationship after their break-up, which nothing else in the film supports. At this point, 100 Women momentarily digresses into a nature show parody with Sam's cousin popping up on screen to narrate the relationship between Sam and his ex-girlfriend like they were two jaguars in the wild. The cousin looks directly into the camera and makes supposedly humorous comments as Sam and his girlfriend degenerate into intentionally stupid and clichéd actions, which are only marginally stupider and more clichéd than they normally are. None of it is funny, but that's not the point. This short section is totally unlike the rest of the movie. The style and approach of the alleged humor is different and the way the scene tries to engage the audience is different. It's like you're watching another, yet equally terrible, motion picture for those couple of minutes. The whole of 100 Women is writer/director/siamang Davis throwing shtick against the wall like he was egging a house, and then there's this bit which is more like chucking a brick through the window.Now, Erinn Bartlett does get naked and looks good doing so. The scene where she does so, however, is so jaw-droppingly abrupt that your brain will barely be able to recover and enjoy it.If you've ever doubted that Judd Apatow and the Farrelly Brothers put a lot of real talent and skill into their raunchy comedies, watch this disaster and you'll never doubt that again. 100 Women is disgusting, but not at all in a good way.

OK seriously. It was 3am and i was insanely bored. Oh i should hit up my 3 months worth of free HBO and cinemax. I find this movie. wow. That's all i say. Wow. I couldn't' believe it existed. Every time my friends will try to claim they have seen the worst movie ever, i can tell them they are wrong. It can't be beat. I would like to have a nice chat with the writer. Just to see how on earth he managed to make something like this. Enough said. I need to cry myself to sleep. Note: "Very good movie to use as a joke for your friends. If ever asked, recommend this movie to your friends, then see how funny it is the next day when they demand their 5 dollars back they wasted on it at blockbuster. Laugh at them."

Let's face it, no one will rent '100 Women' with the high hope that it's going to be an unforgettable and revolutionary look at love and comedy. If you want that- go out and rent something like Love, Actually or Intolerable Cruelty.I saw '100 Women' before I saw its predecessor '100 Girls'. I seem to be in the minority when I say that I preferred this version. Whilst the storylines are similar, we're not forced to tolerate the smarmy overacting of of Jonathon Tucker. Whilst '100 Girls' does have a far better know cast, I find that it was more enjoyable to see a movie where you didn't associate the female cast with movies they'd previously done. Erin Bartlett is a relative unknown, and incredibly beautiful. Some of her scenes with Chad Donella are just plain sweet.The real highlights of the movie are the philosophical discussions on women and masculinity held by Sam (Donella) and his disgusting cousin Holden (Steve Monroe). Viewers of the first movie will have heard it all before, but I found Monroe's grossness far more amusing and far less disturbing than James DeBello's.That, and some of the downright sweet and romantic stuff that goes on, makes 100 Women a different, more intellectual look at an often overdone genre. Jennifer Morrison is wonderfully sweet, Donella delightfully screwed up, and every female characterisation provides a different view on the fairer sex. Maybe not a flattering one, but a view all the same.Worth a look if you feel like being cheered up about love and life- but don't rent or buy it expecting to be forever changed. It's just a fun movie.My Rank: 7 out of 10 stars

There's definitely something a little redeemable about it, but I'm not sure what. The storyline was awful. So maybe it was the acting? Not sure, I did laugh a few times, but I think those were mostly at the movie and not with it.I didn't find the individual characters' preachy comments on men, women, relationships very witty. The ending was way too forced.Perhaps the silliness of it all is enough to make it worth a viewing if you catch it on HBO.