StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

ianlouisiana Originally titled "We're not weeping",the script for this movie was handed over to Gerald Kersh as Leslie Howard thought it too feminine as it stood.After Kersh's re-write Mr Howard then considered it to be too masculine so he returned it to the first writer,Miss M.Charles who restored it to her original vision which,hardly surprisingly was again too feminine for the director who re - engaged Kersh who,in turn changed it back to the way he had re - written it in the first place.Reading it,Howard decided to hand it back to Miss Charles to feminise some of the dialogue and at this stage Mr Kersh,serving in the Coldstream Guards at the time,lost interest in the whole thing.It is not to be wondered at that he did not have a particularly high opinion of Howard and steered clear of the British Film Industry for some years before Jules Dassin directed his great novel "Night and the city" with Richard Widmark. What eventually turned out to be "The Gentle sex" was a soporific propaganda movie with nothing to recommend it,directed,if that's not too strong a word,by Leslie Howard and aimed squarely at recruiting women for the A.T.S. Made at a time when when the liberation of women meant opening the gates of Holloway Prison it deals very mildly with potentially huge issues. The largely female cast all speak rather nicely - even the token cockney - and turn out to be dab hands at driving lorries and roadside repairs. The men are all knuckle - headed and quite frankly it's a surprise we ended up winning the war. There is an irritating and patronising voice - over by Mr Howard that adds absolutely nothing to the picture. I'm sorry to be so negative about a movie that was was probably made under all sorts of difficulties.Perhaps Mr Howard should have taken Baden - Powell's advice and whistled instead.

sol- Thinly disguised World War II propaganda, it nevertheless effectively gets it message across, however as a film for satisfying viewing, it does not quite work. The main problem is that there is too little drama driving the film, however the characters are also not developed very well as individuals, which makes it hard to keep track of who is who, and it makes it hard to care for any of them. The philosophies the film brings up are rather wishy-washy, but not all is bad here. The material is edited all quite well together, and Leslie Howard, who is seen from behind in early shots, narrates the movie quite well: he has such an easy-to-listen-to voice. So, this is not quite terrible viewing, but neither it is a good film by any stretch.

csrothwec My view is that this film has nothing to compare it with wartime productions like "Millions like us", let alone the Powell and Pressburger masterpiece, "A Canterbury Tale". While the production and acting standards are quite good, the whole thing simply lacks pace and sufficient development of either plot or characters to keep the viewer's interest. Rather than attempting to follow the fortunes of seven new recruits to the women's forces in the second world war, (and then dissipating the time covered by the film trying to keep up with all of them), Howard would have done better to focus, (as in the two afore-mentioned films), on a small number of characters and investigate the way in which the relationships between them develop and intensify and, in THESE ways, allow the message of "why we are fighting" to come through much more clearly than in the stiff upper lip, (except, of course, for Lilli Palmer playing "the excitable foreigner"!), rendering of patriotic platitudes which the film produces. A disappointment and, in my view, now mainly of interest only for what it conveys of "established" views of women's war time endeavours in 1943 rather than as visual entertainment which, while being revelatory of its own period, ALSO far transcends this and provides entertainment and reflection of a much deeper nature as well. Right, let's roll "A Canterbury Tale" again and see how it SHOULD have been done!

calvertfan The trick in this movie is keeping track of the seven girls - seven dual main characters. All are very different young ladies who, by chance, manage to travel in the same train compartment off to their base. What makes this extra fun is the commentary by Leslie Howard throughout - he spies on the bustling station and selects six candidates, so is it any coincidence that these six strangers end up together? (The seventh, Gwen, almost misses the train and is the last addition to the group)The easiest four to keep track of are the lorry drivers. Beautiful blonde Anne who loses a loved one in the war, foreigner Erna who is desperate for revenge on the Nazis that destroyed her family, chirpy Scots lass Maggie, who always has a sweet and a smile, and no-nonsense Joan, who comes across as bossy and stand-offish, hiding the fact that she's just as shy and lonely as the rest.Then we have the remaining three - good time girl Dot, Gwen who "won't be left behind any more" and the little half-pint, Miller, who "finally gets her gun". She's the baby of the group, and is the hardest to keep track of because she is practically Lilli Palmer's twin - it's only when they speak that one can tell the difference!If you enjoyed films like "Millions Like Us" and "2000 Women" then you'll love this one. An easy 10/10!