A reviewer on Rottentomatoes made the same observation; had they been Kathy Bates and Barbara Streisand, would the (female) director have even made the movie?

I haven't seen it, but from the synopsis I'm sure I'd find it a depressing reminder of human nature. We're driven by urges (sex, power, and food). Everything, in its simplest form, boils down to that. In short, these women are middle-aged and wish to reassure themselves that they are sexually attractive. They find willing men, who happen to be each other's sons (ick!), and use them for fantasy fulfillment. It's equally depressing when men do the same, but I guarantee that no filmmaker would touch a movie where two middle-aged men seduce one another's 20-year-old daughters. (Well, Roman Polanski or Woody Allen might make it, but...)

Since they wrap up the story in golden-hued sunsets and roll it out as an arthouse picture, we're supposed to act as though it's somehow "challenging" or about "female empowerment," but in the end it's just ancient, animal nature.

I think you should check it out... it is shot and directed more from the point of view of the women than of the boys and is better than most independent movies...

It's a b-movie (sex fantasy novel) premise with arthouse execution, as you may have gathered from the reviews... But, because the women are so good looking it means something different as we're let off the hook somewhat because it doesn't look repulsive visually and can start to explore other issues... like when the women contemplate whether or not they're robbing their sons of youthful relationships with other girls, how these taboo relationships are contrasted with potential older suiters and their sub-par relationships with more age-appropriate men, etc...

The movie certainly raises more issues than the basic urges... although those are always hovering over every aspect of their relationships and the movie as a whole...

Had a good discussion about this movie with friends after watching it, a lot of different opinions, so it goes beyond just titillation/gross-out...

I wouldn't mind seeing a version with fat middle aged looking women, but it would need a horror/thriller twist, like if there was more creepy psychological manipulation involved from the women! Or maybe a horror/comedy where the older women are possessed by the spirit of younger she-demons! Scary stuff!

I don't think you could play it straight with women who actually look like most middle aged people do... you'd have to have uglier boys too and they'd look less manly and it would weird fast and would overwhelm anything else in the movie...

@tmdb65271336 said:

A reviewer on Rottentomatoes made the same observation; had they been Kathy Bates and Barbara Streisand, would the (female) director have even made the movie?

It's equally depressing when men do the same, but I guarantee that no filmmaker would touch a movie where two middle-aged men seduce one another's 20-year-old daughters. (Well, Roman Polanski or Woody Allen might make it, but...)

There is no shortage of movies with older men and younger women (Lolita, American Beauty, As Good As It Gets), which suggests that the tolerance is higher than we might think. It's well documented that "leading men" can keep on leading into their 70s, while leading women aren't allowed to age and keep working/earning at the same level. Although they are cast as equals, there's often 20 years between a leading man and "the girl" in a lot of movies.

The fascination with younger men dating older women is likely more driven by men than by women (The Graduate, or even in Breakfast at Tiffany's how Paul Varjak is being kept by Emily Failenson), given how the leads in these movies were the men, and the stories centered on them.

Either way, if the man is the protagonist, there's more tolerance for almost anything, since Hollywood has been a male-oriented environment for a long time. (It blows me away how quick people are to dismiss S.A.L.T. starring Angelina Jolie as "unrealistic" but have no compunction when cheering for the equally unrealistic typical action flick starring Arnie or Sly or Bruce - it seems men, in our insecurity, love to see men kicking ass and saving "the girl", but don't as much want to badass women kicking ass).

All that said, it seems audiences were not at all drawn by the "hotness" of Naomi Watts and Robyn Wright - this movie paid back an abysmal $0.10 in revenue on each budget $1 (in my movie ROI database with over 1,600 titles from 1926 to present, the average ROI is $4.01, "break even" on budget is $1 and profitability over additional marketing spend is approximately $2.00).

To compare,

• The Graduate paid an incredible $34.98 (80% of the movies in my database paid under $7!)
• American Beauty paid a surprising $23.75
• Breakast at Tiffany's paid $3.80 (below average but still solidly profitable)
• Lolita paid $4.63 (above average)

If I was looking to produce movies to make money, the age mechanics of the romantic interests is less important than the billing and storyline - it'd have to be led by a male character for higher chances of profitability; if I'm willing to lose money to produce a work of art or make some provocative statement, then, sure, roll the dice, be true to the story even with female leads, and let the chips fall where they may.