Et l'homme créa la femme

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!

Charming Joanna (Nicole Kidman) is a successful and creative journalist of a TV channel , then she suffers a breakdown for a programme . She along with her hubby (Matthew Broderick) and children are moved from Manhattan towards the quaint little town of Stepford (Conneticut) , a very modern and upper class location . She didn't like the neighborhood with attractive and perfect but unintelligent housewives . She is concerned that many wives spend their lives in domestic slavery . Joanna early befriends a pair good friends (Bette Midler and John Lovitz). Meanwhile , her husband joins the mysterious Stepford Men's club (run by a powerful Christopher Walken and married another too perfect wife , Glenn Close) which takes place in an old Manor house . Joanna soon discovers there lies a dark truth about the strange and servitude behavior in the all female residents and the sinister secrets hidden in the Stepford town .

The film is an amiable comedy with sci-fi , thriller elements and a little bit of drama . Heavily re-edited and re-written following test screenings , with new scenes shot and others deleted . The attempts to cater to audience tastes backfired as the new edits and scenes created continuity errors and major story problems . The casting is frankly well . Thus , a beautiful Kidman and good comedian actors : Broderick, Midler , Lovitz . Jolly and lively music by David Arnold . Special mention to colorful and glimmer cinematography by Rob Hahm . This new rendition is preferably a comedy , while the old version by Brian Forbes with Katherine Ross and Paula Prentiss was a chiller and considered to be very superior and being almost a classic film and followed three inferior sequels : ¨Revenge Stepford wives ¨, ¨Stepford children¨, ¨Stepford husbands¨ . The film was regularly directed by Frank Oz . The picture will appeal to the gorgeous Nicole Kidman fans. Rating : Average but amusing .

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.

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

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.