Les envoûtées de Stepford

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

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.

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!

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.

"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.