43
Metascore
9 reviews · Provided by Metacritic.com
- 75New York PostKyle SmithNew York PostKyle SmithDelivers plenty of smart dialogue and devises a number of excellent reasons to photograph his cast in situations that suggest the working title for the film might have been "Women in Underwear."
- 70The Hollywood ReporterThe Hollywood ReporterGutierrez's script can't supply female characters as believable as Almodovar's, but in the director's chair he gives his cast room to compensate with funny, self-aware performances.
- 70VarietyJoe LeydonVarietyJoe LeydonA wildly uneven but compulsively watchable mix of high camp and grand passions, soap opera and softcore sex. Very much in the deliriously lewd style of Pedro Almodovar.
- 70Los Angeles TimesKevin ThomasLos Angeles TimesKevin ThomasThe sexual humor is often bawdy, and Gutierrez goes right up to the edge of camp.
- 58The A.V. ClubScott TobiasThe A.V. ClubScott TobiasWhat does it all mean? Nothing much greater than the sum of its seriocomic vignettes. To that end, Women In Trouble tends to sputter to life whenever the stories get racy.
- 40Village VoiceMelissa AndersonVillage VoiceMelissa AndersonAwkwardly mixes blue material with sob stories.
- 30The New York TimesManohla DargisThe New York TimesManohla DargisThe amateurish production values might be pardonable if the clichés -- the hard-core porn star with the soft heart, the therapist who needs to heal herself -- inside the poorly lighted, badly shot images weren’t so absurd and often insulting.
- 20Time OutDavid FearTime OutDavid FearEven if Women in Trouble didn’t keep bringing to mind a superior artist, the film would still be badly written (DOA tangents about cunnilingus and kink don’t make dialogue edgy, only vulgar), not to mention unevenly paced and an embarrassment to all involved.
- 20New York Daily NewsJoe NeumaierNew York Daily NewsJoe NeumaierWriter-director Sebastian Gutierrez seems to think his characters are oh-so-edgy, and maybe they would be -- if it were 1982.