IMDb-BEWERTUNG
5,4/10
72.368
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Das Geheimnis einer Stepford-Frau liegt hinter den Türen der Men's Association, wie Frauen anders werden und immobilisierte Roboter.Das Geheimnis einer Stepford-Frau liegt hinter den Türen der Men's Association, wie Frauen anders werden und immobilisierte Roboter.Das Geheimnis einer Stepford-Frau liegt hinter den Türen der Men's Association, wie Frauen anders werden und immobilisierte Roboter.
- Auszeichnungen
- 3 wins total
Empfohlene Bewertungen
I wasn't expecting too much from this movie, given the reviews it got. But how bad could a movie be with this cast? As it turns out, VERY bad. But I have to think that some plot and character development was lost on the cutting room floor.
The opening credit sequence is absolutely brilliant, with witty use of vintage '50s clips of housewives in their "miracle kitchens of the future" and that sort of thing. Deliberately choppy editing and occasionally speeded up action lend the sequence a mechanical feel on top of its satirical air. Too bad nothing else in the movie measures up to it.
I did think there were a couple of decent laughs, mainly when Glenn Close was on screen. Roger Bart, playing a gay stereotype we've seen too many times in recent movies, milks it for all its worth and earns some chuckles, too. But Nicole Kidman and Matthew Broderick often seem lost. Christopher Walken, Bette Midler and Jon Lovitz are all mostly boring here, hard as it is to believe.
I haven't seen the '70s version in ages, but I remember thinking it was OK but campier than it was meant to be. Upping the camp level was not a bad idea for the remake, but I don't know what happened with the screenplay. Paul Rudnick is no genius, but he's done far better.
I get the feeling that major scenes must have been cut out for some reason, as the plot development felt awkward especially in the early scenes. It might be worth renting the DVD for the deleted scenes.
Also, as others have stated, the movie is totally inconsistent on the point of whether the women are robots or have simply had their brains altered. It's as if they figured we wouldn't really be playing close attention, so what difference did it make?
My bottom line advice -- if you get a chance to see it without paying, watch the opening credits and then change the channel.
The opening credit sequence is absolutely brilliant, with witty use of vintage '50s clips of housewives in their "miracle kitchens of the future" and that sort of thing. Deliberately choppy editing and occasionally speeded up action lend the sequence a mechanical feel on top of its satirical air. Too bad nothing else in the movie measures up to it.
I did think there were a couple of decent laughs, mainly when Glenn Close was on screen. Roger Bart, playing a gay stereotype we've seen too many times in recent movies, milks it for all its worth and earns some chuckles, too. But Nicole Kidman and Matthew Broderick often seem lost. Christopher Walken, Bette Midler and Jon Lovitz are all mostly boring here, hard as it is to believe.
I haven't seen the '70s version in ages, but I remember thinking it was OK but campier than it was meant to be. Upping the camp level was not a bad idea for the remake, but I don't know what happened with the screenplay. Paul Rudnick is no genius, but he's done far better.
I get the feeling that major scenes must have been cut out for some reason, as the plot development felt awkward especially in the early scenes. It might be worth renting the DVD for the deleted scenes.
Also, as others have stated, the movie is totally inconsistent on the point of whether the women are robots or have simply had their brains altered. It's as if they figured we wouldn't really be playing close attention, so what difference did it make?
My bottom line advice -- if you get a chance to see it without paying, watch the opening credits and then change the channel.
I went to see this movie for the sole reason of seeing Glenn Close, whom is a very great actress. Many people had also commented on how great the original was, so I was ready to see this supposedly great film. I was utterly disappointed. Obviously not sticking to the exact script of the original, the whole thing smelled of modern humor gone terribly bad.
Nicole Kidman's character was, at times, convincing. Bette Midler's character was an obvious replay of her previous roles. Glenn Close's character was absolutely unconvincing. But the worst ever was Matthew Broderick's character. I just wanted to cry after watching him flounder about in the depthless role of the weak-then-suddenly-brave and-bad husband. And I'm quite sure the original Stepford Wives didn't have a gay couple--intended, I guess to put a modern twist on it. The characters didn't have pasts; they didn't have reasons to act the way they did. This small detail drove me up a wall: Faith Hill's character has a "blow out" at the party and sparks fly out of her ears. Another wife spits out money like an ATM. It is later revealed that the wives aren't robots; they're merely brainwashed. So tell me how a normal person shoots sparks out of their ears and money out of their mouths? It doesn't make sense!
This movie could have been so much better if someone would have actually read the script and then threw it away and wrote something more meaningful. At the end of the movie, I was left there wondering what its point was.
But there is one redeeming quality in the movie: the 1950s styled costumes. They were bright, well fitted, and the only thing interesting on the show. So if you are really into the costume thing, just grit your teeth and sit through this hopelessly ridiculous movie.
Nicole Kidman's character was, at times, convincing. Bette Midler's character was an obvious replay of her previous roles. Glenn Close's character was absolutely unconvincing. But the worst ever was Matthew Broderick's character. I just wanted to cry after watching him flounder about in the depthless role of the weak-then-suddenly-brave and-bad husband. And I'm quite sure the original Stepford Wives didn't have a gay couple--intended, I guess to put a modern twist on it. The characters didn't have pasts; they didn't have reasons to act the way they did. This small detail drove me up a wall: Faith Hill's character has a "blow out" at the party and sparks fly out of her ears. Another wife spits out money like an ATM. It is later revealed that the wives aren't robots; they're merely brainwashed. So tell me how a normal person shoots sparks out of their ears and money out of their mouths? It doesn't make sense!
This movie could have been so much better if someone would have actually read the script and then threw it away and wrote something more meaningful. At the end of the movie, I was left there wondering what its point was.
But there is one redeeming quality in the movie: the 1950s styled costumes. They were bright, well fitted, and the only thing interesting on the show. So if you are really into the costume thing, just grit your teeth and sit through this hopelessly ridiculous movie.
I have read plenty of reviews where people are comparing this to 1975's, I don't think that's fair, as the interpretation of the novel is very different. The original film was very much a horror, this is a comedy with virtually no horror at all, but a definite vibe of political correctness.
It is obviously too sweet and syrupy for many, but it does have good points. It's loaded with irony, it's not laugh out loud humour, it's more tongue in cheek, with some good humour, mainly at the expense of little men. I liked the performances, Glenn Close and Bette Midler especially. It wasn't Kidman's finest hour, although she wasn't bad, just didn't get the best material to work with.
On the debit side, Matthew Broderick doesn't exactly shine, but worst of all is the lack of any horror vibe, it doesn't really have any suspenseful moments of any note.
It's a nice vanilla comedy, those looking for horror must avoid. The original movie is way better. 6/10
It is obviously too sweet and syrupy for many, but it does have good points. It's loaded with irony, it's not laugh out loud humour, it's more tongue in cheek, with some good humour, mainly at the expense of little men. I liked the performances, Glenn Close and Bette Midler especially. It wasn't Kidman's finest hour, although she wasn't bad, just didn't get the best material to work with.
On the debit side, Matthew Broderick doesn't exactly shine, but worst of all is the lack of any horror vibe, it doesn't really have any suspenseful moments of any note.
It's a nice vanilla comedy, those looking for horror must avoid. The original movie is way better. 6/10
First off if you are going in to see this based on the original movie or the book than you will definitely give this little to zero stars.
Thus I think is why the rating on it is so low. Everyone is basing it upon the edge-of-your-seat thriller that came out so many years before it.
But - if you come to see it with an open mind as a very silly science fiction movie and parody, definitely a comedy, then you're going to come away with a greater peace of mind and a chuckle in your chest.
It stars major characters such as Nicole Kidman, Matthew Broderick, Bette Midler, Glenn Close, Christopher Walken, Jon Lovitz, Faith Hill, and Larry King just to name a few. And it's fun and funny.
It is =NOT= a serious film like the first one was. The first one was epic, a real mystery, a real slow burn, a must watch film. And if you haven't seen it yet, don't spoil yourself by watching this first. No, go to see THAT one first, then this one as a very sweet after dinner dessert.
For this particular incarnation is like a sugar coated Easter egg with a bite already taken out of it, dripping with gooey sweetness to show you how silly and completely off the wall it is. It is not in the least bit scary.
Place this more along the lines of PLEASANTVILLE and you have a more accurate picture on the theme, plot, and general and overall feeling of the film. --dw817 (11-13-19)
Thus I think is why the rating on it is so low. Everyone is basing it upon the edge-of-your-seat thriller that came out so many years before it.
But - if you come to see it with an open mind as a very silly science fiction movie and parody, definitely a comedy, then you're going to come away with a greater peace of mind and a chuckle in your chest.
It stars major characters such as Nicole Kidman, Matthew Broderick, Bette Midler, Glenn Close, Christopher Walken, Jon Lovitz, Faith Hill, and Larry King just to name a few. And it's fun and funny.
It is =NOT= a serious film like the first one was. The first one was epic, a real mystery, a real slow burn, a must watch film. And if you haven't seen it yet, don't spoil yourself by watching this first. No, go to see THAT one first, then this one as a very sweet after dinner dessert.
For this particular incarnation is like a sugar coated Easter egg with a bite already taken out of it, dripping with gooey sweetness to show you how silly and completely off the wall it is. It is not in the least bit scary.
Place this more along the lines of PLEASANTVILLE and you have a more accurate picture on the theme, plot, and general and overall feeling of the film. --dw817 (11-13-19)
This movie is a perfect example of what is wrong with the state of movies today. The original was a gem, with excellent acting by Katharine Ross, Paula Prentiss, and Patrick O'Neal. It was part horror story, part feminist cautionary tale. Most of all, it was BELIEVABLE! You got the feeling these were real people, and that all this could really be happening--and with a minimum of "special effects". The dialogue was pretty intelligent, the plot twists weren't given away in the first 15 minutes, and the ending was a real shocker. You cared about the female characters in the movie--you cared about Joanna's plight, and rooted for her to escape her planned fate.
The current version could only--and was probably meant to--appeal to the lowest common denominator of movie-goer. In this film, the women are just as bad as the men--you don't give a damn what happens to them; that's how annoying the characters are. The laughs are cheap and lowbrow, vital plot elements of Ira Levin's novel are missing, and the acting is just plain bad.
You know what? I'm getting annoyed just writing about this dreck. If you have any taste, any sense, any feeling for good films, any aversion to wasting good money on bad movies--stay far away from this one!! See the original, and appreciate the stunning subtlety of a thinking person's movie, well-made and well-acted.
The current version could only--and was probably meant to--appeal to the lowest common denominator of movie-goer. In this film, the women are just as bad as the men--you don't give a damn what happens to them; that's how annoying the characters are. The laughs are cheap and lowbrow, vital plot elements of Ira Levin's novel are missing, and the acting is just plain bad.
You know what? I'm getting annoyed just writing about this dreck. If you have any taste, any sense, any feeling for good films, any aversion to wasting good money on bad movies--stay far away from this one!! See the original, and appreciate the stunning subtlety of a thinking person's movie, well-made and well-acted.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesThe location used for the rotunda of the Men's Club was the same one used in the original film.
- PatzerWhen the family is driving to Stepford, Pete says "But why are we moving?". Kimberly can be clearly seen mouthing his line before saying "to Conneticut?"
- Zitate
Claire Wellington: I asked myself, "Where would people never notice a town full of robots?"
[gasps]
Claire Wellington: Connecticut.
- Crazy CreditsThe opening titles are shown alongside various vintage clips from the 1950s of women operating high-tech (for the time) appliances.
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is The Stepford Wives?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Las Mujeres Perfectas
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Budget
- 90.000.000 $ (geschätzt)
- Bruttoertrag in den USA und Kanada
- 59.484.742 $
- Eröffnungswochenende in den USA und in Kanada
- 21.406.781 $
- 13. Juni 2004
- Weltweiter Bruttoertrag
- 103.370.281 $
- Laufzeit1 Stunde 33 Minuten
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 1.85 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen