NOTE IMDb
5,4/10
72 k
MA NOTE
Le secret d'une femme au foyer modèle se trouve derrière les portes de ce club pour hommes.Le secret d'une femme au foyer modèle se trouve derrière les portes de ce club pour hommes.Le secret d'une femme au foyer modèle se trouve derrière les portes de ce club pour hommes.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 3 victoires au total
Avis à la une
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.
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.
Many of you seem to be missing the point. It's not a remake. It's a send-up, a parody of the original. It's a COMIC STRIP, OK?
We may disagree about how funny it is, but that's beside the point. I didn't think it was hilarious, but it was funny enough that I enjoyed myself. And, the cast were obviously enjoying themselves! Actually, it's as much a parody of our times as it is of the original movie.
There were enough plot twists and surprises to keep it interesting. Layer upon layer of uncertainty about who's what and what everybody's real motives were kept my attention.
And, yes, this version made the women as unlikeable as the men. To me, that's the film's best quality. Nobody is spared from the skewer!
We may disagree about how funny it is, but that's beside the point. I didn't think it was hilarious, but it was funny enough that I enjoyed myself. And, the cast were obviously enjoying themselves! Actually, it's as much a parody of our times as it is of the original movie.
There were enough plot twists and surprises to keep it interesting. Layer upon layer of uncertainty about who's what and what everybody's real motives were kept my attention.
And, yes, this version made the women as unlikeable as the men. To me, that's the film's best quality. Nobody is spared from the skewer!
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)
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe location used for the rotunda of the Men's Club was the same one used in the original film.
- GaffesWhen 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?"
- Citations
Claire Wellington: I asked myself, "Where would people never notice a town full of robots?"
[gasps]
Claire Wellington: Connecticut.
- Crédits fousThe opening titles are shown alongside various vintage clips from the 1950s of women operating high-tech (for the time) appliances.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is The Stepford Wives?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Las Mujeres Perfectas
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 90 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 59 484 742 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 21 406 781 $US
- 13 juin 2004
- Montant brut mondial
- 103 370 281 $US
- Durée
- 1h 33min(93 min)
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant