Les envoûtées de Stepford

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!

"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.

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.

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.

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.