The title of the film, "Women Talking", definitely describes it perfectly. If that already scares you off, you might as well avoid the movie altogether. It's really all about how a group of women from a secluded commune discuss their future after a series of sexual assaults by male members of the group. The basic premise didn't bother me personally, but the film still didn't click. That's not because of the cast, which is peppered with numerous great (though exclusively white) actresses. Claire Foy and Jessie Buckley, in particular, impressed me. That wasn't enough, though.

There are several reasons why I didn't like the film. Among other things, I found it visually incredibly unpleasant. I'm sure that the creatives behind the film wanted to say something profound with the desaturated color scheme, but in the end, they only achieved that everything looks kind of "cheap". In addition, everything is way too dark. The camera work is also mediocre at best, so the images kept drawing me out.

What really bothered me, however, was the setting in a Mennonite commune, which can also be described as a cult or sect. Sure, it's all based on true events, but the context is never really established in a way that the viewer can comprehend. The main focus of the film is a group of women who are consistently oppressed and abused in the patriarchal system of the religious community. They are also denied access to education. However, all of the characters in the film express themselves so eloquently that you never really feel this premise.I also found the treatment of religion to be very squishy. It is never really made clear what a crucial role faith, or rather, indoctrination, plays in the oppression of the women.

Ultimately, despite some strong performances, the film failed to captivate me. Every single aspect that "Women Talking" tackles, I've seen much better in other films. And I ultimately didn't find the characters to be authentic—especially when you compare them to characters from other similar films like Elizabeth Olsen's role in "Martha Marcy May Marlene", for example.

“Women Talking” is a strange film. I can’t see why it was nominated for Best Picture unless it’s some kind of “token” all-woman movie to thrown into the mix. And while it’s a fine film, it left me wanting more — in fact, after the film, I sat in the parking lot at the theater and ordered the book behind the film.

And it’s about women talking — literally, that’s the entire movie. Some might find that tedious, but I found it interesting. These highly religious women, part of a colony, must decide on a group response to a series of horrific sexual assaults on the women of the community. Should they stay and suffer through more assaults, fight back, or leave the colony, striking out on their own? It makes for an interesting discussion. Rooney Mara is a wonder here as Ona, one of the younger women debating with seven others on how to respond. And because the women are illiterate, they invite a man, their colony schoolteacher, August (Ben Whishaw), into their company, but only to record the proceedings for future generations.

It’s difficult to be harsh with a movie that’s exploring such tragic subject matter, so I’ll just say that I wanted more information on their colony and it’s place in the outside world. In fact, it takes a while before the audience learns whether the film is set in modern times or two hundred years ago. An interesting film, certainly, but not Best Picture material. Although, hey, giving it a nomination got me to see it, so there’s that, right? There’s something to be said about raising a film’s profile. 6 out of 10.

*12 Angry Women*

***Women Talking*** is a highlight on the power of speech, a conversation about abuse (in all types) and women who are tired of the men who take from them. We are presented with the idea that not all men take (obviously) but all it takes is one bad one and they're not willing to take the risk anymore, something must be done. A group of women with absolutely no education and have never had any contact with the outside world sit and debate on themes of existentialism, patriarchy, faith and question the structure of their isolated world. The conversation is layered and thought provoking and I love that you never find out what year this is set in, as this is a topic that transcends time, unfortunately. The performances are excellent and each character had their moment to shine. The dialogue is sometimes excessive but well-written nonetheless. The color grading is ugly and it's overly dark. It started to feel a little repetitive towards the middle, just felt like they were going around in circles with the conversation. What took me out of it the most was the lack of logic when it comes to the events surrounding the conversation. For directionnal reasons I don't quite comprehend we don't see any of the men in the movie but it creates plot holes everywhere in the story and without any spoilers the ending is absolutely ridiculous because of it. That aside thought, ***Women Talking*** was an interesting and relevant conversation, it just demands people to actually listen.

I really really enjoyed this movie (if enjoy is the right word to use)

A late-December release with a murderer's row of actresses tackling a weighty, heavy topic that's essentially just characters talking to each other sounds like Oscar bait to the nth degree, but it manages to be eminently watchable with a sub-2-hour-runtime and without feeling _Very Important_

This could've sagged under its own sense of self-importance or come across as highfalutin preaching but it never does. It could've just boiled down to _men bad, religion bad, women good ra ra sisterhood_ and it doesn't, nor does it resort to triumphantlism in _women made a decision together and now they're united and unstoppable against the world_ (another would-be awards contender mining similar ground, _She Said_, also mostly side-stepped this, focusing on the nuts and bolts of tracking down a story and piecing it together bit by bit). One of my favorite things to watch is when a group of (usually marginalized) people seemingly all united in one goal are shown to be almost tearing apart at the seams, all agreeing on the goal but when talking about the means on achieving the goal are fractious, with the group almost threatened to be consumed by fighting each other rather than against their common enemy (see: French movie _BPM_ about ACT UP and who gets a say and how big a say in the group's activism; Germany's _And Tomorrow the Entire World_ where a group of anti-fascist activists squabble over how far to push their fight against fascism; and at least the early episodes of the miniseries _Mrs. America_ about the effort to pass the Equal Rights Amendment in America and the prioritization (or lack of) of women of color and LGBTQ in the movement). The women here very clearly do not all share the same feelings but argue and disagree and quote Biblical passages at each other and swing back and forth between wanting things to change, imagining life without the constant threat of violence, then withdrawing from that imagined life when it the cost is giving up the only life they've known for the unknown and the lack of security that entails vs the lack of security in their current situation.

It deals with its heavy topic, philosophizes, moralizes, but also manages to squeeze in a recurring joke about 2 horses named Ruth and Sheryl, a budding romance sub-plot, and 2 excellent jokes ("I'm sorry, I think I'm dying" & "Oh fuck it off!" "I think it's just fuck off")

I've seen a lot of criticisms about the dialogue and how the women talk to each other but I've also seen a very good rebuttal in that, while they are illiterate, they've been raised on Biblical passages and sermons and have memorized many of them by heart thereby informing how they speak

Excellent performances all around, no surprise there, both from the name actresses along with faces that may not be immediately recognizable to most. Claire Foy finally, _finally_ getting a part that lives up to her talents after _The Crown_. Frances McDormand basically just makes a cameo appearance, likely more involved in producing it and just popping in for an appearance to help sell the movie (though even that brief appearance has her marking an x on a sheet of paper in the most Frances McDormand-character way possible).

I've also seen a ton of complaints about the color-grading, about it being almost black-and-white, about it looking cheap made-for-television...did not bother me at all. Did not even realize it was an issue until looking up comments online. I was too entranced by the actresses (plus a lot of it takes place at night albeit people also complained it was too dimly-lit) to care.

Music was lovely (by Hildur Guðnadóttir of _Joker_ and _Chernobyl_ fame). Hair-braiding was lovely. Costuming was nice. Editing was wonderful and made what could've felt like a filmed stage play feel a bit livelier and cinematic. There was no need to show any violence or gore and there are just enough quick snippets of the immediate consequences to turn the audience's stomachs and drive home the repeated, regular violations these women endure

This is a tough one. Obviously, the subject itself is a heavy and important, sadly still very relevant, in many ways timeless. And the victims taking their fate into their own hands is always a great display of strength. Those are a given.

Having said that, I don't think as a movie it works. It starts very in medias res, indeed the very first sentence is about how the story ends before a child is born. It never really establishes a setting in any way, and when it does, it's still woefully inadequate. Perhaps it's a way to underline the timelessness of the subject, but I found it's more distracting than clever. We never know who these women are. We never know where they are. Indeed, we wait quite a bit before we even learn when they are - and when we do, it throws us for another loop, rewriting what we've probably already accepted as a setting in our mind. It never shows anything of the act, indeed the perpetrators are absent almost throughout the entire time (and when they aren't, things are still offscreen). It never tells us that it's a story based on true events, which would at least somewhat put our brains on standby, how it's told is not as important as what is being told. But then, even if it did, those real events having happened in an ultraconservative Mennonite colony? In Bolivia? For most of us, it's even further detachment still. As such, perhaps instead of all the omissions in an attempt to strip away most of the setting, just a direct dramatisation of those actual events would have worked better: just tell the story of what happened then and there, placing everything in its proper setting, instead of letting the audience try to piece those (non-existent) details together. And for all that, it ends up feeling rather long, too, that whole "going around in circles" impression is there: despite the supposed urgency to make a decision, they get bogged down on the way quite a lot.

I don't know. I feel like I would love to see a stage play version of this. Women talking. Just that. Nothing else. No flashbacks, no cuts to external scenes, no smart/tricky cinematography and digital filters. Just the women in a sparse hayloft set, discussing the events and what to do next. I feel like that would actually be phenomenal - that part, the acting itself, is pretty great here as well, after all, credit where it's due. As a movie, though, with all the artistic changes and probably directorial decisions... it's unfortunate. As significant and heavy as the larger general subject matter is, I don't think this movie does it any justice.