Good concept, poorly executed.

good back-story, and good acting

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

Imagine a film called "The Men", dealing with heterosexual love and romance but with an all-male cast. The wives, girlfriends and mistresses of the men are often referred to but never actually seen on screen. What, I wonder, would be the reaction of the critics? I suspect that they would simply dismiss this as a ridiculous idea. As if you could make a film about the relationship between the sexes without showing the female half of the equation! Yet when the gender-roles are reversed, the result is a marvellous classic of the cinema. That isn't, admittedly, my opinion of "The Women", but it seems to be the opinion of most reviewers on this board who regard George Cukor's 1939 comedy with such reverence that any attempt to remake it is almost blasphemous. Hence a lot of the bile directed at "The Opposite Sex" on here. It also seems to have been the opinion of some reviewers in 1956 and also of cinema-goers; it made a loss at the box-office. Unlike some so-called "remakes", this one follows the original plot fairly closely. The main character, here called Kay Hilliard, appears to be happily married, but her husband Steven is actually having an affair with a young woman named Crystal Allen. They say that in such situations the wife is always the last to know, and so it proves, but as Kay has the sort of friends who (in the words of the song) "just can't wait to bring all of that bad news to her door", the interval between the rest of the world knowing and her finding out herself is only a short one. Kay travels to Reno (then the divorce capital of America) to obtain a divorce, but soon starts to regret her decision. The film is mentioned in Esther Williams' autobiography, "The Million Dollar Mermaid". Apparently Dore Schary, studio head of MGM, wanted to cast Williams as Kay, but she refused, leading to her suspension from the studio. The film is hardly a masterpiece, but it does not fall so far below the artistic standards of the average Esther Williams movie (and most of them were pretty cheesy) to make worthwhile the loss of the $3 million in deferred contract payments which (according to her) she forfeited through her obstinacy. I wonder, however, how the film might have turned out had Esther ("Wet she's a star, dry she ain't!") accepted the role? Would it have been an extravagant water ballet with Kay a former Olympic swimming champion and her scandal-mongering friends all members of the same swimming club, ending with a massive cat- fight between Kay and Crystal in the deep end of the pool? (That might have been worth seeing!) As things were, however, June Allyson ("Dry she's a star, wet she ain't!") obviously lacked Esther's aquatic talents, so the film was made as the sort of semi-musical in which the characters sing, but only in situations where people sing in real life, so Kay becomes a retired singer who makes a comeback after her divorce, Steven a Broadway producer and Crystal a showgirl in one of his productions. So is this film better or worse than "The Women"? Well, in some areas the original is definitely superior. Norma Shearer was quite good as the Kay character (called Mary in the original), but Allyson is just dull and stodgy, making it all too easy for the audience to understand why Steven wanted to be rid of her. (Less easy to understand why he wanted her back). The child-star Virginia Weidler was enchanting as Little Mary, but Sandy Descher as the equivalent character, Debbie, is less so. In other respects, however, "The Opposite Sex" is better. It dispenses with the gimmick (dating back to Clare Boothe Luce's 1936 play) of an all-female cast in a story which is as much about men as it is about women, and it includes male actors who portray the husbands and boyfriends, notably Steven and Buck Winston, the handsome young cowboy who plays an important role in developments subsequent to Kay's divorce. It tones down the rather bitchy, misogynistic tone of the original, a film devoted to the proposition that every woman's worst enemy is another woman, often her so-called best friend. It also dispenses with the figure of Kay/Mary's cynical, worldly-wise old mother and replaces her with the more sympathetic Amanda, Kay's one true friend. Joan Collins is a lot better as the seductive Crystal than was that other Joan C, Crawford, who was too old for the role by about a decade and looked horribly miscast. Some have complained that Crystal is not as archly scheming as later Collins creations such as Alexis in "Dynasty", but she is not really a character of that sort. If you like she is what Alexis was before she became Alexis, a stunning young woman who does not need to scheme very hard to get what she wants because she can just rely on her looks. Dolores Gray is also better as the spiteful Sylvia Fowler than was the annoying motormouth Rosalind Russell, who played Sylvia as though she were a contestant in the World Speed-Talking Championships. On the debit side, there seems little point in remaking a non-musical film as a musical if the songs are as dull and forgettable as they are here. Nor is there much point in introducing male characters if the actors who play them are as dull and forgettable as the songs. In my view "The Women" was no classic but a mediocre film which left plenty of room for improvement when it was remade. Unfortunately, the makers of "The Opposite Sex" failed to capitalise on that room. 5/10 (the same mark as I gave to "The Women").

This is a very good remake of The Women by MGM. There is as much to like in it, if not more, than the original. For a few good reasons:First, this version works because of the musical numbers. June Allyson has inherited the Norma Shearer role. She proves, with the exception of Janet Leigh, that she is the studio's perfect type for this sort of part. She gives it an added flair, due to her abilities as a dancer.Second, the film works because it has Joan Collins, on loan from 20th Century Fox, in the old Joan Crawford role. Miss Collins definitely resembles Miss Crawford, and she is a logical successor here. But third, and most of all, this version works because it includes the men. Besides the music and the talented female leads, it gives us Leslie Nielsen as Stephen, the guy who finds himself caught between Allyson and Collins. What an enviable position that is to be in.

. . . and pass him around, and we'll all be happy again. THE OPPOSITE SEX is sort of like a husband-swapping club, circa 1956, complete with a Reno Dudette ranch where rich soon-to-be ex-wives have 42 days to try out the latest in Boy Toys if they are caught between Sugar Daddies. High Society is so exclusive that social climbing is virtually impossible, as the "Crystal" character finds out here. Even though Crystal spends most of THE OPPOSITE SEX in various bath tubs, she cannot clean the dirt of her humble origins from her soul. At least that seems to be the main message of this so-called "women's film," in which the Rich Bi*Ches run an exclusive guild which quickly isolates and destroys any would-be gate-crashers, such as Crystal. The Ladies Powder Room is run more like a Texas slaughterhouse. Take it from me (and I toured one in Abilene): THE OPPOSITE SEX is NOT for weak stomachs; you may not like seeing how they make sausage. But for the braver gals, it's loads of fun!

not only doesn't this version come close, but it just is not a good film. Poor casting, poor use of the cast they did choose. Beginning with June Allyson, who is so badly miscast that nothing else matters. She is way too old for the role, and if not, she looks it, which is almost worse. She looks about 50. The hairstyle could not be less flattering if that were the point. And making this into a musical is just comical and not in a good way.Some of the sets and costumes are worth seeing. But oh, the 50's were hard on women, as far as hair and make-up went. Very difficult for beauty to shine through. Even Joan Collins looks older than she was at the time, due to the styling. Maybe I am old-fashioned, but the longer, soft hairstyles of the 30's and early 40's were so much prettier and sexier. In the 50's, they all looked so priggish and stiff, but I guess that represents the entire decade.