[go: up one dir, main page]

    Kalender veröffentlichenDie Top 250 FilmeDie beliebtesten FilmeFilme nach Genre durchsuchenBeste KinokasseSpielzeiten und TicketsNachrichten aus dem FilmFilm im Rampenlicht Indiens
    Was läuft im Fernsehen und was kann ich streamen?Die Top 250 TV-SerienBeliebteste TV-SerienSerien nach Genre durchsuchenNachrichten im Fernsehen
    Was gibt es zu sehenAktuelle TrailerIMDb OriginalsIMDb-AuswahlIMDb SpotlightLeitfaden für FamilienunterhaltungIMDb-Podcasts
    OscarsEmmysSan Diego Comic-ConSummer Watch GuideToronto Int'l Film FestivalSTARmeter AwardsAwards CentralFestival CentralAlle Ereignisse
    Heute geborenDie beliebtesten PromisPromi-News
    HilfecenterBereich für BeitragendeUmfragen
Für Branchenprofis
  • Sprache
  • Vollständig unterstützt
  • English (United States)
    Teilweise unterstützt
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Watchlist
Anmelden
  • Vollständig unterstützt
  • English (United States)
    Teilweise unterstützt
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
App verwenden
Zurück
  • Besetzung und Crew-Mitglieder
  • Benutzerrezensionen
  • Wissenswertes
IMDbPro
Terror in New York (1980)

Benutzerrezensionen

Terror in New York

21 Bewertungen
5/10

The clueless wives are back...

"Revenge of the Stepford Wives" was in some countries unimaginably released & re-titled as "Terror in New York". What? Yes, this film doesn't even take place in New York. And the 'terror' part? Well,...

"Revenge of the Stepford Wives" is the first in a series of three '80s made-for-TV sequels to the terrific theatrical original, "The Stepford Wives", from 1975. While this is more or less a direct sequel - albeit a very inconsistent one - to the first film, parts 3 & 4 ("The Stepford Children" and "The Stepford Husbands") are more like spin-offs. Naturally, the great - and at times terrifying - concept from the original film gets a bit unintentionally sillier in "Revenge of the Stepford Wives". Since we know from the start what's going on in the town of Stepford, the mystery simply isn't there anymore. All scenes take place during the day and the made-for-TV look & feel doesn't exactly help things either. Meaning, things never get creepy or suspenseful. Even the involvement of cult genre director Robert Fuest (from the "Dr. Phibes" movies, starring Vincent Price, and everybody's favorite melt-movie "The Devil's Rain", featuring Ernest Borgnine as a cross-eyed devil goatman) didn't do anything to uplift the bland production values. But that doesn't mean the film doesn't manage to entertain.

Sharon Gless (as the investigating reporter Kaye Foster, arriving in Stepford with the intent of possibly making a TV program about the town's way of life) is a capable leading lady and it's applaudable she managed to walk through this movie with a straight face, seeing how she often found herself in rather ridiculous situations (like Julie Kavner 'short-circuiting' in her kitchen, then picking up a knife trying to kill Gless). A pre-"Miami Vice" Don Johnson is also walking around in it as the fresh cop in town, eventually agreeing with the Men's Association for his wife to become Stepfordized. You'll also have to wait until the very end of the film for the Stepford wives to actually take revenge (in a laughably appropriate manner). Things might have been dumbed down a lot in this implausible script which takes the original concept of the first film and runs the wrong way with it. But perhaps just because of all this, "Revenge of the Stepford Wives" turns out a rather amusing watch.
  • Vomitron_G
  • 6. Okt. 2011
  • Permalink
4/10

Oh CMON!

  • triple8
  • 21. Nov. 2003
  • Permalink
6/10

Revenge Of THE STEPFORD WIVES {TV} (Robert Fuest, 1980) **1/2

A lady TV reporter (Sharon Gless) arrives in Stepford to hold a survey on its standing as the perfect American community. The concept of the 'makeover' is curiously (and implausibly) reworked here, events play out more like a straight thriller this time around and the look, as befits its small-screen origins, is even blander than before – if still somewhat surprising given the involvement of such a visual stylist as British director Fuest! Nevertheless, the end result proves reasonably effective, with the climactic uprising – against the returning Patrick O'Neal character from the original (here played by Arthur Hill) – agreeably riffing on "The Island of Dr. Moreau". The oddly battered print (for such a relatively recent movie) I watched not only bore hardcoded Dutch subtitles but also the abysmal and misleading video-generated re-titling of TERROR IN NEW YORK – a remnant of the VHS days that also deceitfully highlights the presence within of Don Johnson (then riding high on the success of TV's Miami VICE) in the role of an initially compliant but eventually rebellious cop on its videotape sleeve!
  • Bunuel1976
  • 11. Okt. 2013
  • Permalink

Silly, but fun tv sequel

I enjoyed this movie for two reasons. One: I am a huge fan of the original 1974 film to which this is a sequel, and Two: I love 70's- 80's tv horror movies. The original Stepford Wives is often criticized for being an inferior adaptation of the Ira Levin story. Since I've never read the book I can only say that the movie is ominously moody, spooky and effectively suspenseful. It really manages to create a feeling of uneasiness and Katharine Ross and Paula Prentiss are fantastic as the female leads (played by Nicole Kidman and Bette Midler in the 2004 remake). This sequel does a really bold, unexplained thing and foregoes the premise

revealed in the surprise ending of the original, giving a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT reason for why the women of Stepford are always so "perfect."

Sharon Gless (Cagney from "Cagney and Lacey" and Debbie from "Queer as Folk") is a tv reporter who travels to Stepford to do a report on the ideal community. She quickly befriends another outsider, played by Julie Kavner (the voice of Marge on "The Simpsons"), who is the wife of a cop (Don Johnson from "Miami Vice" and "Nash Bridges"). From there the story pretty much follows that of the original, with Gless in the Ross role and Kavner very much in the Prentiss role. The exception is that Gless's character actually attempts to save her friend and free the women of Stepford, as would not have been possible in the original for obvious reasons. If you're like me and you love 70's and 80's horror tv movies, this is a must. The basic tenets of the horror genre seem to contrast completely with the medium of television during this time, since anything remotely gory or intense would have been censored, most tv horror movies aren't scary at all. In fact, often they come across as cheesy and unintentionally funny. This can be a whole separate, even addicting, genre in itself (see Wes Craven's "Invitation to Hell"). Spielberg's "Duel" and Dan Curtis's "Trilogy of Terror" are real exceptions to this rule, however. So don't go into "Revenge of the Stepford Wives" expecting a masterpiece. Although Gless is very good, the material is just... cheesy. Still, if you're a fan of the original or cheesy tv horror, you should definitely check this one out. I've seen it way too many times. Now I have to go take my pill.
  • DGlen1979
  • 11. Juni 2004
  • Permalink
1/10

Ridiculous Follow Up to Good Movie

This very silly sequel basically rewrites the original premise of the original Stepford Wives, and now has it so the wives are simply taking pills to keep them in an obedient state, while telling anyone who asks that they have a mild thyroid condition. What makes it even sillier is that a whistle blows across the entire town every time they take a pill. The main question one asks is "How could any outsider not be suspicious with every woman having a thyroid and stopping in the middle of their actions to take a pill?" Unlike the first movie, the town basically puts up a sign that says something is wrong here. If you enjoyed the first movie avoid this one, the acting is marginal and the script is awful.
  • tex-42
  • 8. Apr. 2000
  • Permalink
3/10

No suspense or surprises

  • hollywoodshack
  • 2. Aug. 2017
  • Permalink
5/10

PG Rating ?

I'm sorry anytime I see a movie that's rated PG I just don't know about. Except for maybe Sherlock Holmes smarter brother, car wash and a few other movies.
  • james1-494-826857
  • 13. Mai 2020
  • Permalink
6/10

Terror in New York? Maybe.

  • BandSAboutMovies
  • 5. Apr. 2018
  • Permalink
4/10

Lacked the Suspense and Intensity of Its Predecessor

This film essentially begins 10 years after its predecessor left off with all of the women living in Stepford completely docile and totally committed to their husband's interests above all else. So much so that, after the manager of a particular television show reads about the low crime and divorce rates in that town, he decides to send an investigative journalist named "Kaye Foster" (Sharon Gless) to check it out. Sure enough, she is amazed at how incredibly dull and domesticated the women appear to be. Fortunately, there is one particular young woman by the name of "Megan Brady" (Julie Kavner) who doesn't quite fit that mold and she is quickly hired by Kaye to help with her research. What neither of them realize, however, is that there are people within the town who are extremely concerned about having their devious secrets exposed and will do anything necessary to prevent that from happening. Now, rather than reveal any more, I will just say that this made-for-television sequel deviates somewhat from the original film concerning the manner in which the Stepford wives were subjugated against their will. If anything, I found it to be a bit more plausible to a certain--albeit quite limited--degree. Be that as it may, I didn't find this movie to be nearly as good as its predecessor due in large part because it lacked the same level of intensity and suspense. No doubt its made-for-television format had something to do with that, but in any case, I didn't quite capture my interest all that much and for that reason I have rated it accordingly. Slightly below average.
  • Uriah43
  • 12. Nov. 2022
  • Permalink
6/10

This is a huge step down from the original but is still a fun viewing

Revenge of the Stepford Wives (1980) is a movie I recently watched on YouTube. The storyline follows a magazine that wants to write an article on the amazing town of Stepford that has no crime and once people move there no one wants to leave. Shortly after the newspaper reporter arrives she quickly finds her life at risk as she gets to see how people behave in the unique town.

This movie is directed by Robert Fuest (The Abominable Dr. Phibes) and stars Sharon Gless (Cagney & Lacey), Don Johnson (Miami Vice), Julie Kavner (Click), Audra Lindley (The Relic), Mason Adams (Son in Law) and Arthur Hill (The Andromeda Strain).

The reporter angle was a good plot for a sequel. I will say this does have a lower budget feel and cinematography. You can tell this was a made for television movie. The men in this are more apparent on how they execute their plans and use the community for help than the previous picture since the cat is out of the bag. The costar, Meg, has a annoying voice that drove me crazy all movie. 😂 The Stepford women are well depicted and the kills and action are more fun than good.

Overall this is a huge step down from the original but is still a fun viewing. Don Johnson was entertaining in this role. I would score this a 5.5/10 and recommend seeing it once.
  • kevin_robbins
  • 23. Feb. 2022
  • Permalink
3/10

Dispensable!

How ridicilous! Especially when you watch this movie under the German title "Terro in New York". There is neither terror nor New York. It's just Stepford. And we all know the better movie with Nicole Kidman, Glenn Close... Dispensable!
  • stefaniehartmann
  • 10. März 2018
  • Permalink
10/10

Another great movie with Don Johnson :)

  • mistymountain
  • 10. Sept. 2020
  • Permalink

An undiscovered TV classic!

So here I am changing the channels on my expanded all digital channel line-up late one night, and I find the lovely Sharon Gless trying to escape being knifed by Julie "Marge Simpson" Kavner in total late 70's fashion, AND I LOVE IT! Just when it couldn't get any better, in walks Don Johnson and Audra "Mrs. Roper" Lindley (who deserved that Oscar nomination for "Desert Hearts" years back) and I am on the floor!! This movie has got to be the latest undiscovered "gem" in the last 25 years! Who cares how bad the story is. This is CLASSIC!!!
  • superstar49
  • 10. Sept. 2000
  • Permalink

Lame plot but great fun!

OK, so the plot is far-fetched, lame and offensive - the movie is a hoot! Keep in mind that I would watch anything with Sharon Gless - but she and Julie Kavner are a good team. A young Don Johnson appears as bland and clued-out Kavner's cop husband. Sharon, the reporter, arrives to do a story on the perfect town of Stepford. She hires Julie as an assistant who promptly gets nabbed by the Stepford gang. Her husband is in on it, of course. Sharon sets out to save Julie - Don and the whole town set out to stop her. Lots of chases, peril and the bad guys get what they deserve. Save it for a rainy day when you want a taste of some familiar TV faces in their early years.
  • siderius
  • 27. Juli 2001
  • Permalink

Entertaining

I just saw this film today and thought it was entertaining. I've seen the original Stepford Wives and read the book- and I'm a big fan, but I don't really take this film seriously. Some of the acting is bad- the Stepford Wives are nowhere near as great in this one than in the original- in this one the robotic acting isn't that good. But I still like the plot- and it's very entertaining, and unintenionally funny. I knew I recognised Julie Kavners voice- i checked IMDB and she sounds excatly like Selma from the simpsons in real life! Anyway- I wouldn't say it was a really bad film- and the ending was great!
  • Moonlighting
  • 9. Okt. 2003
  • Permalink

Nothing good about it

Maybe if I had never seen the original or read the book, I might have been mildly amused, but I doubt it. The fact is the husbands were killing their wives and replacing them with robots. An idea scarier today than it may have been then because it seems more possible that it could happen in the near future. But this movie's premise that the wives are servants because once a day when a big horn sounds, they all drop everything and take a pill is pretty stupid. If I were Ira Levin, I would've sued.
  • toddy-3
  • 31. Okt. 1998
  • Permalink

Definitely Worth Checking Out

With the recent remake of the original Stepford Wives, this time as a comedy with Nicole Kidman, Bette Midler, Christopher Walken, Glenn Close and Matthew Broderick, there may be interest in in the original with Katherine Ross and Paula Prentiss, as well as this 1980 sequel with Sharon Gless, Don Johnson and Julie Kavner, yes, she who does the voice of Marge Simpson.

I would see this version first before I would see the original 1975 movie.

Normally I do not care for women vs. men programs done in such a moralistic light, but I am aware of sexism in society and that there is beliefs and opinions that women "should be more supportive, obedient and submissive" to their men, with the men not having to reciprocate.

Having since seen the original, which seemed more like a spoof on tv commercials to me than anything else, this one did seem to delve more into women being doting housewives.

Gless was a single woman who came to town. That alone upsets this whole cart. I wonder how Stepford handled that? Does someone get a concubine in the process?

We did glimpse an unnamed couple attempting to flee at the very beginning. They don't make it. I was misled to think this was a couple shown in the original, which they weren't.

Also, this one did take the approach that the women aren't replaced with robots, they are drugged.

The first Stepford was more of a Twilight Zone movie as well. This one sought to give the wives their revenge. Granted, had the robots of the first one rebelled, it might have been interesting, but then it could also have simply been "Westworld, the Women."

Nevertheless, nothing failed in this sequel. The siren going off for the women to take the medication could have been absurd, but it was kept low-key, as was the women in the lacy outfits and aprons.

I only truly grasped there was something impractical about the dresses when Kavner commented to Gless about it in the car.

Yes, Revenge was nearly a totally different movie from Stepford Wives, different motives, different outcome, but there has been sequels that pretty much follow the same path as the original and those are no fun.

Want to see the women lose? See the 1975 movie.

Want to see the men lose? See the 1980 sequel.

There is a third, horrendous movie, called Stepford Children, with Barbara Eden, Don Murray and Tammy Lauren. Avoid this one at all costs. It doesn't add anything further to this concept.
  • richard.fuller1
  • 27. Mai 2004
  • Permalink

I got a kick out of this version!

It's so darn-tootin' silly it will make you larf. Esp. Julie K.'s part! Very campy -- I would recommend it to all who enjoy simple mindless entertainment! Sometimes you gotta watch movies that arn't so dark and stressful. After saying that, I have to admit that Monster is one of my favs and you can't get any darker than that! So, I guess moderation is the key.==I liked the original Stepford Wives, however, she seemed too helpless and I think they should have developed more about her relationship with her kids so you could feel how much she loved them. There seemed to be an empty space left in their absence. I loved the drawings one of the men would sketch right before each woman's "transformation" -- they were haunting and be
  • leahbbk
  • 11. Apr. 2004
  • Permalink

What the hell?!

  • Stepfordlife
  • 18. Dez. 2007
  • Permalink

Invasion of the women snatchers.

  • ulicknormanowen
  • 31. Jan. 2022
  • Permalink

"She's Not Programmed For Flexibility!"...

In REVENGE OF THE STEPFORD WIVES, it's been ten years since the events of the first film.

A resistant resident of the oddly idyllic suburb meets with an unfortunate fate.

Enter TV reporter, Kaye Foster (Sharon Gless), who's in town to investigate Stepford's unusually low rates of crime, divorce, etc.

Meanwhile, the secret, male cabal, led by the sinister Dale "Diz" Corbett (now played by Arthur Hill), uses their army of mindless fembots to keep a watchful eye on Kaye.

For her part, Kaye catches Stepford's crazy vibe right away, as she observes the creepy, somnambulistic wives going through their daily routines. Not surprisingly, the deeper Kaye digs into this bizarre mystery, the more danger she finds herself in, and anyone who attempts to help her doesn't fare very well.

While never approaching the sublime, satirical terror of the original film, REVENGE does have its moments, some of which are quite suspenseful. The wives are convincing, especially Barbara Parkinson, played brilliantly by Audra Lindley. Her "remote control" scene is a classic!

One of the better made-for-TV movies of the period. Watch for the magnificent grrrl power finale!

Co-stars Don Johnson as a police officer with a particularly rebellious wife...
  • Dethcharm
  • 2. Juli 2021
  • Permalink

Mehr von diesem Titel

Mehr entdecken

Zuletzt angesehen

Bitte aktiviere Browser-Cookies, um diese Funktion nutzen zu können. Weitere Informationen
Hol dir die IMDb-App
Melde dich an für Zugriff auf mehr InhalteMelde dich an für Zugriff auf mehr Inhalte
Folge IMDb in den sozialen Netzwerken
Hol dir die IMDb-App
Für Android und iOS
Hol dir die IMDb-App
  • Hilfe
  • Inhaltsverzeichnis
  • IMDbPro
  • Box Office Mojo
  • IMDb-Daten lizenzieren
  • Pressezimmer
  • Werbung
  • Jobs
  • Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen
  • Datenschutzrichtlinie
  • Your Ads Privacy Choices
IMDb, ein Amazon-Unternehmen

© 1990-2025 by IMDb.com, Inc.