The Stepford Wives (Widescreen Edition)

Rating:
Summary: Could have been better
Review: (Note: There are spoilers in this review)

Since seeing this movie, I have both seen the original movie and read the book, and the changes that were made for this movie were mostly gratuitous. For some reason, they felt the need to change the names of several characters (the character of Dale Coba in the original suddenly has the new name of Mike Wellington, for example). Also, in the name of modernizing, some characters were replaced completely (goodbye Charmaine Wimperis, hello Roger Barrister, a gay stereotype). And instead of murdering the wives and replacing them with robots like in the classic story, the wives have microchips implanted in their brains. It seems that they made this change so the wives could be transformed back at the end of the movie, so they could have a "happy Hollywood ending." And the absurd plot twist at the end (the whole Stepford Wife concept was created by one of the wives) just seemed wrong.

Also, with all of the great talent that was on the screen, it could have been a lot better, but the writing was somewhat lacking. Even the greatest acting talent can't always make up for lousy writing.

This movie is good for a couple of laughs (especially what Bette Midler says about pine cones), so I would recommend it for that. But if you really want the whole story, read the book.

Rating:
Summary: great potential marred by a lack of consistency
Review: A film by Frank Oz

Joanna (Nicole Kidman) is an executive who runs a television network. She seems to be responsible for some of the big reality shows that are being aired (we meet her as she is announcing several new shows that take "reality tv" to a ridiculous level). When one of the reality shows backfires in a public way, Joanna is fired from her job and suffers and emotional breakdown. It is to help Joanna and to begin a new life that her husband, Walter (Matthew Broderick) moves the family from the big city up to Connecticut to a town called Stepford.

Stepford seems like the perfect town. Everyone is pleasant, if a little too perky and perfect. Joanna and Walter are welcome to the community by Claire (Glenn Close). Claire seems to be the leader of the Stepford women's group and the town seems to be organized around the Men's Club and the Women's Day Spa. Walter is welcomed right into the Men's Club and he feels at home. Joanna, on the other hand, is very skeptical because all the women seem like they are exaggerations and someone else's idealizations. For example, the women all exercise wearing dresses because they wouldn't want their husbands to see them wearing black sweatsuits and have stringy hair (which was exactly what Joanna was wearing at the time). Joanna befriends Bobbie (Bette Midler) and Roger (Roger Bart), the only other two women who are not in the "Stepford" mold. A note about Roger: Roger is a gay man, but because he fits the stereotype so well of what a gay man is, he counts in Stepford as "one of the girls". Together, the three of them try to find out what is going on in Stepford and why the women are all so strange (and why one of them seemed to spark at the ears during a dance). Why are all the women such male fantasies and the men remain their geeky selves?

This 2004 adaptation of "The Stepford Wives" is more of a comedy than the horror leanings that the original is said to have had (I admit, I have not seen the original film, nor have I read the book). Since I cannot compare the film to either the novel or the original film, I can only work with what I am given on screen. The first half of the movie is fairly effective and interesting as the world of Stepford is being set up. The problem lies in the fact that the second half of the movie may or may not have contradicted information given in the first half. Something is going on with the women in Stepford, that is clear. The question is: What is going on with the women in Stepford. The term "Stepford Wives" is such a part of the Americal cultural lexicon that many people have an idea of what a Stepford Wife is, but the film never quite makes the connection. It sets up one idea, then gives us another idea, but in the end the film does not answer the question as to what exactly a Stepford Wife is. I am trying not to give away a spoiler, though the film's trailer gives away much of the twist of the movie, so the most I can say is that "The Stepford Wives" as a film does not seem to know exactly what a Stepford Wife is at the most technical level.

It is my confusion with what the premise of the film ultimately is (and thus what the ending means) that is leading to my growing dissatisfaction with "The Stepford Wives" as a movie. I enjoyed my time in the theatre watching this movie, and it is pleasant enough, but the inconsistency of the plot is enough to knock the film down a couple of notches.

-Joe Sherry

Rating:
Summary: The Stepford Wives as a Black Comedy
Review: Guess I'm easy to please! I'm going to rate this movie five stars, something few have yet done. Call me daring, call me odd, call me a non conformist but don't call me late for dinner. Stupid, I know. Stupid and silly but that is the mood this tongue in cheek horror movie has put me in. I really, really enjoyed this movie and I highly recommend it for you optimists out there.

Why the overall fairly low rating out there. I don't know. you'll have to ask them. I refuse to read their reviews and maybe kill my high.

I must have been in an excellent mood because right from the beginning and by the beginning I mean the beginning credits, this movie captured me, delighted me, enthralled me. All that was missing was a kiss from you know who. No, not Bette Midler, smart alec, Nicole Kidman, although she too looked pretty good when she was, how should I say this, altered.

The Story

Joanna Eberhard (Kidman), a driven, overachieving television executive takes the network programing too far over the top and is canned. After recovering from a nervous breakdown, her husband, Walter Kresby (Matthew Broderick, whom I shall always think of as the ultra cool Ferris Bueller) pack up Joanna, the kids and move to the beautiful exclusive upscale Connecticut community of Stepford where life is supposed to be simple and Joanna can continue to recover.

Stepford is more than simple though, it's sinister, it's creepy, it's unnatural. It's like dreading coming back from three hour lunch hour which included four margaritas and all your co-workers and your boss are standing at your desk with big smiles and warmly welcoming you back. SPOOKY!
Well that's how Joanna and her friends, author Bobbie Markowitz (Bette Midler) and gay partner, Roger Bannister (Roger Bart) viewed it, SPOOKY. And all the wives were gorgeous and fully made up and dressed to the hilt at all times. Contrast this with the men who were basically average to unattractive nerds. And why do they always hang out at the Men's Club?

The answer to that plus a few great laughs are at you local theater.

Writers: Ira Levin (book), Paul Rudnick (screenwriter)

Directed by: Frank Oz

Conclusion

My conclusion is this. Frank Oz's directing was masterful. The story was clever, the acting especially Kidman's was superb. Just watching her facial expressions evolve after she was fired was amazing. Even Faith Hill did a credible job with the few lines she had. Ron Bart, Jon Lovitz and Bette Midler were funny as heck and brought a breath of fresh air and the ending was a total surprise, at least to me. So what's not to like.

One word of warning, this is not a creepy thriller. If you are going to this movie expecting to see something akin to the original movie, which stared Katharine Ross, don't bother. This Stepford Wives movie has a veneer of the original, at least at first but as it progresses the more you see the new Stepford Wives for what it really is, a Black Comedy.

Rating:
Summary: Under-appreciated
Review: Honestly. This movie really is underappreciated. Aside from an all-star cast, the plot really isn't -that- bad. I will admit that there are a few holes, (Okay, so there are more than a few....) but it all made sense to me. The part about how the wives are Stepford-ized really should have been cleared up, but I didn't think it was that hard to understand.

The actors in this movie made it come to life. Nicole Kidman had my attention from the beginning, all the way through to the end. She is such an amazing actress, and deserves a lot more credit than she gets. Bette Midler, as always, does a bang-up job. She is incredibly hysterical, and has some of the best lines in the movie (The stuff about pine cones is a riot.) Christopher Walken is just as sinister as always, but he fits the role of Mike to a tee. Faith Hill was sorely under-used, but funny in the two words she did have. Glenn Close was wonderful, even if she didn't look her best, and Matthew Broderick...was in it. Don't get me wrong; I love him (especially in Ferris Bueller's Day Off), but he seemed slightly out of place in TSW.

There isn't exactly chemistry between Kidman and Broderick, but I think that's part of the whole point. I mean, they did have their moment after their fight on the stairs, and, of co urse, at the ending. Speaking of the ending, I thought it fit perfectly with the theme of the movie, even if it was extremely different from the ending of the first movie (which I haven't seen) and the book (which I have read). This new version of TSW isn't as dark and cynical as the original, or as the source novel, but it's message is more clear for today's MTV generation. All in all, I thought it was done very effectively, for all it's plot holes, and was just a generally entertaining movie. I didn't stop laughing from beginning to end, and I left the theater with a refreshed outlook on marriages today. Quite a feat from a two hour movie. Go see it. Soon. It's fun, and it's funny.

Rating:
Summary: Oz Misses the Mark
Review: I have enjoyed the original movie and Ira Levin's book so I was interested in seeing this remake. It was closer to the made-for-TV sequels than anything Levin wrote.

A network president is fired. She and her husband, who quit his network job in sympathy, move to the small town of Stepford where the unemployed couple buy a five-million-dollar house complete with a robot dog. But soon we ee that things are a little strange in Stepford (and I don't meant the Bette Midler-John Lovitz couple).

Some of the plot follows the original story (at least when the friends check up on a woman who seemed to have been injured) but most of the movie is new and unoriginal. I am not sure why there was square dancing. But as the plot develops we get a cross between the original novel (the wives are changes in some way) and the original movie (the wives have been replaced). The movie keeps going back and forth between the two explanations and both are shown as true.

In the end one wonders what really went on. If powerful spouses are being pacified, why is one replacement running for Senate? Many other such inconsistencies abound. But this is explained in part if you listen to the commentary. This is intended as a comedy (can you believe it?). The featurettes also provide a clue; no one has read the book or seen the first movie.

This is not one to watch. You would do better to stick with the original.

Rating:
Summary: Can We Rate This "No Stars?"
Review: I must preface this with a disclaimer. There are spoilers here in my commentary. But this film is so bad - that nothing could "spoil" it more than just plain watching it...

Have you ever seen that commercial for one of those fancy schmancy designer shower heads? A married couple run into each other on their street after a day at work. They are each so intent on being the first to enjoy the luxury of their new, elite plumbing, they start to race, each stripping off their clothes in a fury, so that one will beat the other for a rinse in that shower? How about the ad for a popular SUV? Another married couple each try to outdo each other in their morning wake up habits, that we see them either dressing for bed, waking up beside a decoy, or just plain sleeping in the car to out smart the other spouse so that the fastest and smartest partner can win the pleasure of driving the hot vehicle to work? If you know these ads, and love that "battle of the sexes" kind of conflict, let me say this: these advertisement are more witty, fast paced, more entertaining and profound than anything you'll find in "The Stepford Wives" remake.

This film just plain stinks. It's a great cast, re-doing a wonderful thriller, for no reason at all. There are so many continuity errors in the context of the story that it's an embarrassment. There are so many unfinished elements that enable so many questions: Were these women disposed of and had robots made in their image, with a June Cleaver makeover? Or did they just have a chips in their brain? If so, then why did Bette's hand burn? Why did that other wife spit out cash? Why did Faith Hill send off sparks when she went kablooie during the Square Dance? Why did Nicole Kidman's character see her own robotic image if these women weren't robots? Why did the straight laced gay man want to "Stepford-ize" his flamboyant gay partner so he can be part of the bible loving, right wing Republican party and run for office? Don't bible loving, right wing Republicans have a distain for the homosexual lifestyle altogether? So, Walken was a robot? I though we were working with computer chips here. Most importantly, why didn't robo-dog get de-robotized when the gigg was up and turn back into a real dog, like the women did? Poor thing.

Holy Moly - this film is a mess. It's definitely a punch in the stomach regarding the role of gender in today's society. It shows men in a very bad light, and doesn't help women either. It's so patronizing to the fair sex it's silly. It also satirizes Conservatism big time. I'm no conversative, but please...could this film have more Hollywood liberalism? I want entertainment, not political commentary. This movie is inconsistant, amaturish, insulting, pandering, and that's just the first few scenes! I could go on....give me a dictionary - I need more words! What is so disappointing is that this could have been better. The story, if written well, could have used Walken, Close, Midler, Kidman and Broderick's talents so much better. This film is highly recommended viewing for those film students who want to know how NOT to make a movie. Also recommended for those who wish to view and equivelent of a train wreck - just for morbid curiosity.

The best part was the dog.


Rating:
Summary: Funny movie but...
Review: I wasn't sure if I wanted to see updated version of "The Stepford Wives". As campy as the original film was, it certainly was engaging. I changed my find and finally saw the film last night. I thought it was funny and entertaining. As always Nicole Kidman looked great in this film as Joanna Eberhardt but for me I thought Glenn Close and Bette Midler were the real stars of the film. Glenn was really over the top as Claire Wellington. Bette was hilarious as the sarcastic Bobbie Markovitz. I especially cracked up during the book club scene where Bobbie was totally snide and sarcastic to Claire. For her acting debut, country singer Faith Hill was fairly decent but I didn't see enough to make a final judgement. She could have done a much worse job. Her role was small which is why I can't really say she did a good or a bad job. Unfortunately I couldn't really buy into the fact that Matthew Broderick played Nicole Kidman's husband Walter in the film. All I could think was Ferris Bueller during the parade on the float singing "Twist and Shout". Christopher Walken was wonderful as Claire's husband Mike. A very subtle performance from Christopher. It is good to see Christopher Walken explore comedy. Of course what is a movie without your token gay companion? I liked the actor who played the flamboyant Jerry but to be honest was his character that necessary to the film? The movie starts off really good as Joanna Eberhardt getting canned from the male-bashing network of EBS and she and her family moving to Stepford, Conneticut. Unfortunately the film goes beyond over the top and completely jumps the shark (and a giant squid) towards the end of the film. I think it would have been more interesting had this film stayed true to the satirical aspect of the book and film on feminism than having it wind up as a ridiculous comedy. The ending was pretty silly. For all its flaws, "The Stepford Wives" was a funny movie. I was entertained through out the film despite the silliness of the ending which I felt ruined the theme of the anti-feminism idealogy. Nevertheless it was good to see Bette Midler and Glenn Close on the big screen again. Their presence reassured me that actors of their age and stature still has a place in film and still can be funny.

Rating:
Summary: All copies should be destroyed
Review: I'd heard the bad reviews, so waited until I could find it cheap to rent. Stepford Wives is quite possibly one of the worst films ever made. The only way they could have got an impressive array of stars to sign up was big bucks and perhaps a different script to what was used in the end.

Stepford Wives cannot make up its mind whether it is a comedy, drama, suspense or whatever. Nicole Kidman is painfully awful to watch in this drivel, her attempt at American accent particularly noticeable and unconvincing in this film. Her best works to date is in "Dogville", "Bangkok Hilton" and "My Life". Did anyone else notice how extremely thin she looked in the film, almost waif like. This is not the Nicole I remember from earlier films.

The film says 89 minutes on the back of the DVD cover (PAL Format which is faster than NTSC) but it actually finished at 82 minutes. What a blessing. We've all heard the rumours that there were troubles during filming, and this could mean that the cast did not like what was evolving during filming. Apparently an uncut longer version exists which makes the film a bit better, it may get released oneday.

The best laugh on the DVD was the special features where the actors convincingly tell us how much they enjoyed doing it (eg. Nicole says "this was a welcome relief to make after filming BIRTH). Yeah, right. Still, if you were paid $15m for doing a crap film, you are going to say good things to promote it. It's part of your contract.

I would recommend all copies of this film be destroyed with one copy kept to show young film-makers how to make a bad film.

Rating:
Summary: A Great Movie!
Review: I've already seen "The Stepford Wives" and I think it is already one of the best films of the year. It has a perfect combination of comedy, drama, and horror, along with a great cast. A cast including Nicole Kidman, Christpher Walken, and Glenn Close. All of the actors played their roles perfectly, and with a great musical score, "The Stepford Wives" could be known as a good remake. The film is based on a book that was made into a movie, which was made into this movie. I have yet to see the first "Stepford Wives" but if I do, I hope that it is good, if not better, than this one.

The movie is about Joanna Eberhart, who is known as "the hardest working women in television." She is the president of EBS, a station focused on reality television. Her husband Walter Kresby, is the vice-president. Joanna is fired, though, after a crazy man from her new show "I Can Do Better" tries to kill her. Walter also quits, and they move to start a new life in Stepford Connecticut. Walter notices that everything is odd, with all the houses being so big, and all the wives to be. . . amazing. They are perfect in everyway, and they wait on the husbands on hand and foot. Joanna notices that something is wrong, and she then befriends Bobbie Markowitz, the writer of "I Love You But Please Die" the book about her relationship with her mother. Bobbie agrees that something is odd, and then they meet Roger, one half of a gay couple in Stepford. Things go wrong when Walter joins the mens association, and learns about the men's plot to perfect the wives, created by Mike Wellington. Joanna decides to find out what is going on, while also trying not to become a Stepford wife herself.

A reason why some people might not like "The Stepford Wives" is because they are comparing it to the first movie. Some people could believe that nothing can compare to the first movie, and they list the faults and differences of this one. They are two different movies, and it is nice when people don't compare the two.

A big plus of "The Stepford Wives" is the musical score. The music is perfect for the tone and mood of the film, a kind of dark, scary, foreshadowing mood that is apparant during the opening credits. I loved "The Stepford Wives." It is not the kind of movie that you expect to see at the Oscars next year, but it is worth a check out if you want and hour and a half of pure fun. There is so much humor in the movie, that it is possible to miss some of the subtile irony that the film produces.

ENJOY!

(...)

Rating:
Summary: Shame on you Frank Oz!
Review: One reviewer said the best thing about this film was the poster. I disagree. The best thing was the introductory credits. The film is beautifully done, the houses are gorgeous, the landscaping is incredible. I want to move to Stepford! But that's about all that's worthwhile about the film, sad to say. It is not sharp, not clever, not very funny. Just pretty. Turning a classic horror story into a comedy has been done very successfully, but this one just falls flat. Too much style and not anywhere near enough substance.