MovieChat Forums > The Opposite Sex (1957) Discussion > Original version MUCH better

Original version MUCH better


I don't generally like re-makes, especially when the original is such a wonderful classic. And, thus my opinion of this particular version is that it was NOT a good picture.

The original was such a unique film - So well done and not a man in the whole film. To my knowledge it's the only one ever to do that (even the animals pictured are all female!).

Though the concept of the original may seem somewhat 'dated' nowadays, I like to think of the 'historic' value of the picture - As a hairstylist, I LOVED seeing all the salon sequences...From what I was told by my instructors at Hairstyling school, it was very accurate and offered a very interesting 'behind the scenes' look at a true 'beauty salon'. These days we take it for granted about hair colour, etc., but back then, as I was told, there was very much an 'air of mystery' in the beauty process.

Anyway, for a funny June Allyson vehicle, check out 'Woman's World'. It's great!

Christopher AKA Blondfashionisto (Toronto, Canada)

reply

I agree with you..."The Women" was amuch better done movie...Any remake of it is shallow...

"May You Live To See The Dawn"

reply

I agree totally. I heard it was up for an academy award but I think Gone with the Wind stole the statue. I loved Norma Shearer and all the girls. It originally was all about men but had not a man in any scene. I think they wanted to make one that had the men in it to make more of a fuller picture. It's hard to have conversations over the phone with no dialogue but it was done beautifully. The fifties still had the woman's dependence on the man and the traditional women's roles. Even Kay gave up her very lucrative career for the role of wife and mother. She did not rely on alimony alone once divorced. Which was the beginning of the transition of having women with careers and family. I loved the beauty salons in both films. It was truly an event to go that once a week and bring the little dog to have babysat. In the original, one even brought her own water, like today. Have you seen the remake of The Women with Meg Ryan? It went back to the original theme of no men. It was ok for me. But I can't get the original out of my head as the best. Without a man to play opposite her, Meg was a little one dimensional. She needs that quirky man to play off of. I loved Bette Midler as the Countess.

reply

What is interesting is the remake uses many of the same lines verbatim and yet these actors, even though they are a very talented bunch just cannot pull it off. Anyone who doubts Norma Shearer's talent needs to see THE OPPOSITE SEX and see how much she brought to the same role that the very likable but less gifted June Allyson could not pull off. Joan Collins is way too young to play the scheming Crystal for the razor-sharp hussy that she is while Joan Crawford (never one of my favorites) is brillant in the role. Ann Miller falls flat spouting the same sass that Paulette Goddard made so memorable in the original but what really shocked me was how the great Agnes Moorehead couldn't pull off the Countess, although no one could possibly ever touch Mary Boland in it, if one had never seen BEWITCHED one might think seeing this picture Agnes had no flair for comedy. The high points to me were Ann Sheridan in one of her best performances (and interestingly in a role that really didn't exist in the original), the Broadway star Dolores Gray doing very good filling Rosalind Russell's shoes as bitchy Sylvia, and character actress Barbara Jo Allen (aka Vera Vague) doing a terrific spoof of Hedda Hopper (who actually played this role in the original!). It was particularly nice to see Barbara Jo, a well-known but second-tier comedienne of radio and films, in a rare appearance in an A picture.

reply

"The Opposite Sex" was an improvement on "The Women". It had the advantages of not having Norma Shearer, and of not attempting to repeat the no-men gimmick. Having the men in the story, instead of just being talked about, made it more well-rounded and interesting.

reply