To understand where the film is coming from all you have to do is note that it features cameo guest appearances by both Ivana Trump and Gloria Steinem. The former, of course, is known for having gained all her wealth, power and fame from exploiting the wealth, power and fame of her husband/ex-husband and the latter is noted for gaining all her wealth, power and fame from her male-bashing bigotry. The film embraces both of these icons with equal self-righteousness.
THE FIRST WIVES CLUB film expects us to accept the notion that divorce in America is decidedly pro-male, designed to cheat women. This, it seems, is especially true if the women are white, well-educated, upper-class and socially prominent. While most people would be hard pressed to see such women as society's victims, the film takes it for granted that they are and expects us to never question that notion. If you don't, you will likely enjoy the film greatly. If you have even one working brain cell in your head, you should be rightly amazed at the gall the filmmakers have to so blatantly insult your intelligence.
The film deals with three former college chums, now middle-aged wives, who, coincidentally, are facing divorce all at the same time. The three are Goldie Hawn, Diane Keaton and Bette Midler -- three absolutely wonderful actresses. Because the system is so anti-female, the three have to resort to blackmail, kidnapping, extortion and racketeering in order to wrestle the family wealth out of the hands of their dimwitted husbands. It is notable that in the cases of Keaton and Midler's characters, they claim to deserve their husbands' money because they helped and supported them early in their careers. Meanwhile, in Hawn's case, her husband worked as her business manager and helped her become a leading film star, but she claims that she is the bread winner in the family and therefore he is entitled to nothing. The film is so dull-witted that it presents these conflicting plotlines and is totally oblivious to their obvious irony. The film's logic is clear: What's his is hers; what's hers is hers and what's theirs is hers.
Battle of the sexes comedies can be great fun, but only if both sides are evenly matched and equally clever -- think Kate and Spencer, Doris and Rock, or even Lucy and Desi. This lame film tries to stack the deck by pandering to feminist stereotypes: Women are better, but victimized; men are evil, but stupid. The irony is that by the end of the film the men are the sympathetic victims and the three leading actresses come off as smug monsters (thus the tacked on ending wherein they donate their ill-gotten loot to open a shelter for abused women -- apparently you can buy off guilt).
The really sad thing about this sorrowful little mess of a movie is that it wastes the talents of the three terrific leading ladies. They are victimized, not in the movie, but by the movie.
THE FIRST WIVES CLUB film expects us to accept the notion that divorce in America is decidedly pro-male, designed to cheat women. This, it seems, is especially true if the women are white, well-educated, upper-class and socially prominent. While most people would be hard pressed to see such women as society's victims, the film takes it for granted that they are and expects us to never question that notion. If you don't, you will likely enjoy the film greatly. If you have even one working brain cell in your head, you should be rightly amazed at the gall the filmmakers have to so blatantly insult your intelligence.
The film deals with three former college chums, now middle-aged wives, who, coincidentally, are facing divorce all at the same time. The three are Goldie Hawn, Diane Keaton and Bette Midler -- three absolutely wonderful actresses. Because the system is so anti-female, the three have to resort to blackmail, kidnapping, extortion and racketeering in order to wrestle the family wealth out of the hands of their dimwitted husbands. It is notable that in the cases of Keaton and Midler's characters, they claim to deserve their husbands' money because they helped and supported them early in their careers. Meanwhile, in Hawn's case, her husband worked as her business manager and helped her become a leading film star, but she claims that she is the bread winner in the family and therefore he is entitled to nothing. The film is so dull-witted that it presents these conflicting plotlines and is totally oblivious to their obvious irony. The film's logic is clear: What's his is hers; what's hers is hers and what's theirs is hers.
Battle of the sexes comedies can be great fun, but only if both sides are evenly matched and equally clever -- think Kate and Spencer, Doris and Rock, or even Lucy and Desi. This lame film tries to stack the deck by pandering to feminist stereotypes: Women are better, but victimized; men are evil, but stupid. The irony is that by the end of the film the men are the sympathetic victims and the three leading actresses come off as smug monsters (thus the tacked on ending wherein they donate their ill-gotten loot to open a shelter for abused women -- apparently you can buy off guilt).
The really sad thing about this sorrowful little mess of a movie is that it wastes the talents of the three terrific leading ladies. They are victimized, not in the movie, but by the movie.