Customer Reviews

The Stepford Wives (Full Screen Collector's Edition)

5 star:		(26)
4 star:		(29)
3 star:		(31)
2 star:		(43)
1 star:		(67)

 

 

Thank God I got this from the library, Free of charge, didnt buy or rent or go to see this in a theatre. I loved the original Stepford wives, it was funny and creepy and mirrored that 70's fear of women becoming "robot" housewives instead of being liberated. This version made no sense, they werent supposed to be robots, or were they? they had chips implanted into thier own bodies? which one was it? They had boobs that inflated, money come out of thier mouths, they didnt burn. BUT at the end it was implied that it was just some microchips in the brain that made them act differently. Were there two scripts that just got combined and no one checked the continuity? Nicole Kidman, poorly cast, Matthew Broderick, poorly cast, well, the whole movie was poorly cast. It wasnt funny AT ALL. The "remote controls" for the women were a bit like the "toys" I have seen in X-rated stores. Even the 1987 Made for TV movie "the stepford children" was better written AND acted than this flop.

This is the first movie review I have ever done on here...im normally a music reviewer on here. But this time I just can't keep quiet. I have read 5 Ira Levin books, and he is one of my favorite writers. So when I discovered that THE STEPFORD WIVES was made into a movie, I had to go rent it. I LOVED IT, the simplicity of the filming and the acting just captured the essence of Levin's story. Just like Rosemary's Baby. I was equally excited when I discovered that it was being remade again with the modern cast...after all, I'm a young guy and I thought, cool, now people will be able to see this great flick that I have loved for years.

WHAT A DISAPPOINTMENT. The remake sucks. It has the main character, Joanna, as this feminist ultra career oriented freak and it really fails to capture the beauty of the original with Katherine Ross, and without a doubt, does not deserve to have Ira Levin's name anywhere in the credits...its a SHAM. Don't buy it. They ruined this great tale!!! Get the original, or ROSEMARY'S BABY which is available for a lot less on here...

First, I'm not in the habit of panning films. My worst criticism has always been "It's worth seeing, but I wouldn't buy it." This remake of the Stepford Wives has set a new standard. Don't even rent it.
I do not know what happened - whether they ran out of money for SFX or the stars demanded more of the budget than they'd counted on, but whatever it was, it cost the movie.
Basically, there are 2 ways to view this story Scary or Funny. They failed at both. The book and original movie were spooky and disturbing. Frank Oz set out to make the remake a comedy, but failed. There is no continuity or consistency. Are the Wives Robots, or brainwashed women? Either could be true. One of the deleted scenes shows Bette Midler turn into Inspector Gadget (interesting, since Mathew Broderick is in the film, too) sprouting a variety of kitchen utensils from her fingers, and finally dropping a lawn mower from her butt, which she then rides out into the yard to cut the grass. It was both disturbing and funny, and there was no doubt that she was a robot. So they cut the scene. I think they suddenly realized halfway through the production that they wanted a happy ending, and that wasn't possible if the human wives had been killed and replaced with automatons. So they cut the scenes where their mechanical nature showed, but not all of them - there's still enough enough glimpses of Faith Hill giving off sparks, and serving as an ATM machine. The possibilities of the robots had great comic potential, which was abandoned. Another cut scene had the husbands urging Mathew Broderick to get the cigarette lighter option - "You'll be glad you did..."
Bottom Line: The Remake of "The Stepford Wives" isn't funny, and it isn't scary, it's just sad.

Ira Levin's famous suburban Gothic THE STEPFORD WIVES already has so much black comic potential built into its premise that making this remake of the much loved 1975 film into an all-out comedy was a mistake from the get-go. So was assembling the creative team and the cast: director Frank Oz and screenwriter Paul Rudnick are hardly known for the light touch this approach would have required, and nor are Bette Midler and Jon Lovitz (in important supporting roles). Glenn Close and Christopher Walken also seem oddly chosen for a comedy, but the worst miscasting is Nicole Kidman as the heroine, Joanna Eberhart. With her wafer-thin arms and torso and flawless, highly polished skin, she hardly makes the ideal choice to be the mouthpiece for accepting human imperfection.

Ira Levin's cautionary novel, "The Stepford Wives", was a fascinating fable of the ultimate male backlash to feminism; in 1975, director Bryan Forbes turned the novel into a chilling variation of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", as innocent wives are substituted by zombie-like robots, their husbands bonding in a smugly evil male cult. Unsettling and ambiguous, the fate of the actual women is left to the viewer's imagination, making it far more frightening than a pat resolution would have been.

This concept was apparently lost on Paramount, DreamWorks, and Frank Oz, who wavered between camp and black comedy heavy-handedness, in this 2004 remake. Scripted by Paul Rudnick, the women are no longer normal, sympathetic wives, but high-powered execs, with apparent agendas against men, and husbands little more than doorstops. Their fate, to become blond-haired sex-slave bimbos locked in 'June Cleever' mode, while their idiot spouses adjust their breast sizes by remote control, and swap the wives for favors, demeans both men and women, and even offers an out-of-place jab at homosexuals, as a funny gay spouse is turned into a right-wing religious zealot politician (how an openly gay couple would ever be even allowed in this community is ignored).

While spoofing the earlier film isn't, in itself, a bad idea, no one involved in this project apparently had a clear vision of what they were aiming at, so continuity and logic are sadly missing. As other critics have rightly noted, the status of the wives waivers between being robots and being micro-chipped and brainwashed humans, making the Nicole Kidman 'template' body, and finale 'revelation' of community leader Christopher Walken's actual status as ridiculous as an ATM-spewing wife, and remote controls to adjust emotional responses and breast sizes, labeled, conveniently, with each wife's name. All the pretty, golden-hued settings, and Matthew Broderick's emergence as a 'good guy with a heart' who saves the day can't compensate for the quagmire of a plot.

The real shame of it all is that the potential for a good film hovers over the proceedings, just out of reach, and some really fine performances are all for naught. Glenn Close gives a strangely sympathetic twist to the film's villain, Walken is the most engaging (and youthful) he's been in years, Bette Midler and Roger Bart are both hilarious, Jon Lovitz is at his silly best, and Nicole Kidman again proves herself more than adept at comedy, and portraying American women. Matthew Broderick seems to be making a career of playing milquetoast males (Ferris Bueller, where are you?), and for 'eye and ear candy', nothing can quite match Country Music sex symbol Faith Hill's orgasmic moans, and cup-size changes. All this, lost in a truly misguided film.

What a waste!

This is an incredibly BAD movie!!

Other reviewers have discussed the plot and details, so I won't repeat them.

I just wondered who wrote the script: 100 monkeys randomly typing on computers?

This was one movie that I simply could NOT watch to completion. I hope that it did NOT make a profit - that would only encourage its producers and director.

The director couldn't make a decision on what to do with this movie so instead they made the movie non-commital and confusing. Pick a direction and go with it.

The question I was left with is, "Are the woman robots or are they real women that have chips inplanted to control their behaviors?" Apparently, the director also doesn't know the answer to this question because the movie waffles back and forth between both plots. I could elaborate more on how both plots are peppered throughout the movie, but to do so would give away scenes. Not that I think anybody should waste their time watching this swill, but if you do then I don't want to diminish the experience by giving away specific parts of the movie.

In summary, you would have to be brain dead to miss the huge holes this movie has in it. You can watch it, but do it realizing that you'll never get that 92 minutes of your life back.

I used to know a guy who put tons of bumper stickers on his car. On one side were left-wing ones like VISUALIZE WORLD PEACE and ARMS ARE FOR HUGGING. On the other side were conservative quips like ABORTION IS MURDER and I'M THE NRA AND I VOTE. He did this to confuse anyone trying to figure out what he believed.

This movie does the same thing. In reading the prior reviews it is interesting to see how some interpret it as a left-wing PC film and others dismiss it as anti-female. What it really is is incoherent. Kidman's character, for example....is she a virtuous heroine or a sleezeball "Jerry Springer with breasts" who ruins lives for ratings? Is Broderick a "real" man or a wimp? And if this community is an idealized 1950s clone then why is it so accepting of gay people?

The wives - they appear to be simultaneously robots and humans. If the nano-chips are the only physical modification then what is the deal with the robot bodies? And the ending - is Midler's opinion of men the real theme of the movie, or is it a parody poking fun at men-bashing ultra-feminists?

One more question: if this is a comedy where were the funny moments?

Maybe the producers were trying to be all things to all people. Maybe it was a case of too many cooks spoiling the soup. Or maybe the writers just suck at their jobs. In any event, except for the fine acting skills of Nicole Kidman this film was a pointless waste of time. My advice: skip it. That's the only thing about this movie I'm sure of.

I don't know about you...but I prefer my satire subtle. I would rather be zinged by one-liners than bored by predictability. And I certainly don't want to sit and roll my eyes in the dark at jokes that fall flat. Tongue-in-cheek? No way! Hammer-handed is more like it! Screenwriter Paul Rudnick...do we thank you for 92 minutes of sparkling repartee? Not! How about director Frank Oz? Where were you when it was decided to base an entire movie on these 2004 Stepford women, all dressed in retro pastel florals, with paste-on smiles and one line responses? "The Stepford Wives" plays more as a series of silly, stereotypical vignettes than as a motion picture. There was real comedic potential to be explored here - and the opportunity was totally squandered. What a waste!

Nicole Kidman! Matthew Broderik! Glenn Close, Christopher Walken and Bette Midler! The movie has a terrific cast - great actors all. So, who put the wooden words in their mouths? Someone wake-up! What's wrong with this picture? Where's the credible plot? I loved the 1975 horror-thriller and was looking forward to the remake and some good laughs. I should have stayed home.

Joanna Eberhart, (Nicole Kidman), a Type A, obsessively driven career woman, is fired from her job as cable network president because of a PR SNAFU. She has a nervous breakdown and hubby Walter, (Matthew Broderick), moves the family to the upscale, gated suburban community of Stepford, CT for R&R. The Eberhart family soon discovers that life in Stepford is a bit on the twisted side. Here the sun always shines, as do the children and the house. All the wives are carbon copies of June Cleaver crossbred with Marilyn Monroe - and all blondes too. The women-wives never have a hair out of place. Their nails are always manicured, dresses perfectly pressed - that's right - dresses! They even exercise in high heels and dresses - the same floral pastels. OK. We get it. Next joke! Meals are all on time, Dad's time, of course, and all meals are made from scratch. A feminist's nightmare landscape - on the money - repeatedly! How and why do these women, er, sex kitten bimbos, do this?? Ask their hubbies. Ooops. We can't. The guys, excuse me, the shlubby hubbies, are all hanging out at the Men's Club, back-slapping over what a cushy life they lead.

Why don't any of the Stepford newcomer couples notice the strange doings? My question would presume there is something remotely believable in the screenplay which would merit a question. A five year-old would pick up on the "Stepfordish" ambiance a few minutes into the film, (the reference is to the 1975 film with the credible automaton wives). Don't the kids see what's happening to Mommy? So, why don't Nicole and Matt, to say nothing of the extremely sly and witty Ms. Midler, see the weirdness taking place right under their collective noses? I guess it's called Bigtime Bucks!!

Mr. Rudnick's remade updates just don't jive. The women of Stepford are no longer anonymous housewives but high power professionals who attended Ivy League schools. Women who work at home aren't good enough for Hollywood? They have to be surgeons and judges before they decide to stay at home? Wives are not turned into robots but instead have microchips imbedded in their brains to control them. So, if she's not a robot, how come when you put an ATM card in her mouth dollar bills come out? And why, when you push a remote, does her [...] size increases? Duh! The ending is gratuitous, convoluted and just plain sloppy. Ok. I'll tell it like it is, no holds barred. This was the single worst ending to a film that I have ever seen - especially a remake where someone should have known better. It deserves an award!! And I will be happy to give one - 1 Star. Your fired!!
JANA

Bryan Forbes 1975 film of Ira Levin's novel is not one of the great science fiction movies but it's a fun little movie that, compared to this dreadful remake, looks like a towering masterpiece. In Forbes' film our heroine moves to the sleepy town of Stepford where everything seems just wonderful at first, only for a sense of mystery and dread to build up slowly as it gradually becomes clear that something is not quite right about the town's women. Oz throws that away by having the weirdness of the womenfolk grotesquely in our faces from the very start. Then in the Forbes original, once Joanna has figured out what is afoot, the film becomes a thriller as she tries desperately to escape sharing the fate of the town's other women. This too Oz throws away. There is no desperate pursuit. Kidman basically just quietly goes and places herself in the hands of the baddies. Having amputated all the mystery and suspense from the movie, Oz then tries to compensate by inserting some very lame humour with feeble comic turns from Bette Midler and Roger Bart as the other "wives" new to town. None of the other performances are much good either. Kidman is far from her best. Walken does his familiar sinister routine on autopilot and Glen Close delivers what must be one of the worst performances in the history of the cinema. By the time I got to the reprise of the supermarket sequence that was the end of the original movie I was hugely relieved as I was desperate for this dismal and tedious movie to end. No such luck, the movie didn't end there and there was another 20 minutes to go, comprising a truly asinine not to say incoherent new ending. At a time when there are a great many bad remakes of good movies getting made this has to be one of the very worst.