Boring, long, and too preachy.

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

I really enjoyed this movie when we took it in film class, and saw it at least two more times at various film festivals. I was into French deconstruction at the time, and liked experimental films and found it humorous and smart at the same time.There is not a great deal of plot, and two actors play a misogynist male university prof, so you have to get used to that. The film is overtly dry and intellectual. There are a lot of "talking heads" and obviously it is not a film for everyone. If you haven't read any Foucault or Derrida or Kristeva, then you may well not enjoy this. However, why shouldn't intellectuals get their films like the rest of the poor and uninformed out there? Yvonne Rainer has a complex artistic background in dance and other mediums.

I had to sit through two viewings of this in a feminist film class. I've watched many experimental films in my time and this was by far the worst. Intentionally horrible acting, intentionally painful viewing experience... does anyone wonder why the feminist cinema died? Maybe it's because their mantra included removing pleasure from movies.The whole film is a collage of clips of artists, snobs, and feminists expounding French and feminist philosophy in conversations that are basically two ideologies reciting their lines back and forth. Throw in incoherent dialogue and sound quality, stuff that doesn't make sense, and nothing good, and you have The Man Who Envied Women.