Et l'homme créa la femme

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.

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)

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 original film, and the great novel that preceded it are worthy of a better treatment than this lighthearted, anti-suspenseful, Hollywood variety show. What's more, the excellent veteran cast, the catchy soundtrack and the expensive production values could have made this into the socially serious, poignant and yet funny contemporary masterwork it should have been. Instead, we are left with a film whose campiest moments are clichés and whose point seems to be love conquers all - even the sexism, genderism and masculocentrism still rampant in American Society today! I never expect comedies to do a particularly good job with continuity and logic, but some of the continuity problems in this film are really pretty amazing. Plot twists are, after all, supposed to change the COURSE of the plot, not its basic premises. I'm dying to tell you about it, but I won't write a spoiler.

Here are the basics: Nicole Kidman and Matthew Broderick are a successful couple whose marriage has been suffering a bit because of the stress of their work-lives. Nicole, a TV executive famous for post-feminist male-bashing shows gets fired for no particular reason and they couple decides to move away to Stepford, an exclusive community populated by people who seem to have no particular troubles of any kind, or even jobs for that matter. Some of the first things Matthew Broderick realizes about Stepford is that all of the women are beautiful, and everybody is marvelously happy with a few possible exceptions - his own wife, Bette Midler and a gay liberal whose partner has been sucked into republicanism. Predictably, these three conspire to resist the happiness all around them and investigate the mystery of the Stepford men's club.

I've described the first quarter of the film. Although the central plot is interesting and strong, the lack of even a shred of seriousness detracts very heavily from it - even from a comedic point of view. If this film hadn't made me disinterested, the feminist in me would have simply been angry over the missed opportunity this film represents. Moreover, it is possible to see this film as a justification of the 'blame the victim' mentality so often prevalent in contemporary culture.

Most of the cast seems equally unengaged. They sometimes seem to be playing roles in different films - interacting with each other poorly and playing their roles with no particular goal in mind. I can only fault the director here. Broderick and Kidman are, as usual, very watchable, but even Nicole seems to be unsure what her character is supposed to be portraying at times. Bette Midler is fine, as are Walken and Glenn Close. Close was actually, IMO, the show stealer - making the film tolerable with her excruciatingly irritating and very dominant presence.

While not a complete travesty, I can not recommend The Stepford Wives.

The original STEPFORD WIVES was a creepy movie with subtle touches of humor. That subtlety allowed the suspense and the sense of danger to build slowly, leading up to a rather disturbing finale. In this version, there is no subtlety or building up. Rather, the tone shifts are as jarring as jump cuts. It's a satire! It's a "campy" comedy! It's a suspense thriller! Look out! Here comes a happy ending! Not to mention the inconsistencies regarding the "Stepfordization" of the wives (discussed in other user comments). It's as if Frank Oz and company threw a bunch of unrelated scenes together and hoped no one would notice.

As for the cast, it's a disappointment to see such interesting actors and actresses assembled in such a weak film. Blame Paul Rudnick, whose campy-queeny- faggy humor is really wearing thin. (And I can write that because I'm gay!)

Didn't Bette Midler learn her lesson after ISN'T SHE GREAT????

I encourage everyone out there to run to the video store and rent the original.