In THE STEPFORD WIVES, Walter (Broderick) and Joanna (Kidman) Eberhart are the newest residents in a suburban neighborhood in Stepford. Seeing that the women she surrounds herself with all seem to be cut from the same mold... more », and are seemingly incapable of thinking for themselves, Joanna begins to think something suspicious is going on in Stepford. Upon realizing that her friends have been replaced by robots and that she's next on the list, Joanna and Walter decide to turn the tables and expose the truth about what's really been going on in Stepford.« less
Margaret E. (mde) from SPOKANE VLY, WA Reviewed on 12/7/2012...
Really quite a well executed movie with great acting and imaginative writing. If you like science fiction this is a pretty good one. I also enjoyed the many special features on the disk.
1 of 2 member(s) found this review helpful.
Ann B. from AURORA, CO Reviewed on 1/10/2012...
I thought this was a pretty good interpretation of the spirit of "The Stepford Wives" with a bit of a twist. Not a movie I want to own, but great for an entertaning evening.
1 of 2 member(s) found this review helpful.
Daniel S. (SmithBad05) from WEDOWEE, AL Reviewed on 12/23/2007...
This movie was very different than I expected. About the "Stepford" community where a woman turns her husband into a robot basically then he turns the women of the Stepford community into robots. Definately worth the watch but I probably won't watch it again.
2 of 3 member(s) found this review helpful.
Christine S. (Snowball7470) from CORP CHRISTI, TX Reviewed on 12/11/2007...
I loved this movie -- it's very funny -- Nicole Kidman is awesome!
"Thank God I got this from the library, Free of charge, didnt buy or rent or go to see this in a theatre. I loved the original Stepford wives, it was funny and creepy and mirrored that 70's fear of women becoming "robot" housewives instead of being liberated. This version made no sense, they werent supposed to be robots, or were they? they had chips implanted into thier own bodies? which one was it? They had boobs that inflated, money come out of thier mouths, they didnt burn. BUT at the end it was implied that it was just some microchips in the brain that made them act differently. Were there two scripts that just got combined and no one checked the continuity? Nicole Kidman, poorly cast, Matthew Broderick, poorly cast, well, the whole movie was poorly cast. It wasnt funny AT ALL. The "remote controls" for the women were a bit like the "toys" I have seen in X-rated stores. Even the 1987 Made for TV movie "the stepford children" was better written AND acted than this flop."
This movie is one of the worst I've ever wasted time viewing
Shawn M. Harris | Ypsilanti, MI United States | 12/22/2004
(1 out of 5 stars)
"The director couldn't make a decision on what to do with this movie so instead they made the movie non-commital and confusing. Pick a direction and go with it.
The question I was left with is, "Are the woman robots or are they real women that have chips inplanted to control their behaviors?" Apparently, the director also doesn't know the answer to this question because the movie waffles back and forth between both plots. I could elaborate more on how both plots are peppered throughout the movie, but to do so would give away scenes. Not that I think anybody should waste their time watching this swill, but if you do then I don't want to diminish the experience by giving away specific parts of the movie.
In summary, you would have to be brain dead to miss the huge holes this movie has in it. You can watch it, but do it realizing that you'll never get that 92 minutes of your life back."
Red Haired Stepford-Child
Dan Mcgarry | Ft Huachuca, az USA | 11/15/2004
(1 out of 5 stars)
"First, I'm not in the habit of panning films. My worst criticism has always been "It's worth seeing, but I wouldn't buy it." This remake of the Stepford Wives has set a new standard. Don't even rent it. I do not know what happened - whether they ran out of money for SFX or the stars demanded more of the budget than they'd counted on, but whatever it was, it cost the movie. Basically, there are 2 ways to view this story Scary or Funny. They failed at both. The book and original movie were spooky and disturbing. Frank Oz set out to make the remake a comedy, but failed. There is no continuity or consistency. Are the Wives Robots, or brainwashed women? Either could be true. One of the deleted scenes shows Bette Midler turn into Inspector Gadget (interesting, since Mathew Broderick is in the film, too) sprouting a variety of kitchen utensils from her fingers, and finally dropping a lawn mower from her butt, which she then rides out into the yard to cut the grass. It was both disturbing and funny, and there was no doubt that she was a robot. So they cut the scene. I think they suddenly realized halfway through the production that they wanted a happy ending, and that wasn't possible if the human wives had been killed and replaced with automatons. So they cut the scenes where their mechanical nature showed, but not all of them - there's still enough enough glimpses of Faith Hill giving off sparks, and serving as an ATM machine. The possibilities of the robots had great comic potential, which was abandoned. Another cut scene had the husbands urging Mathew Broderick to get the cigarette lighter option - "You'll be glad you did..." Bottom Line: The Remake of "The Stepford Wives" isn't funny, and it isn't scary, it's just sad."
D- remake of an A+ story...
WeezyBoPeep | RUSTIC NORTHERN MD | 12/12/2004
(1 out of 5 stars)
"This is the first movie review I have ever done on here...im normally a music reviewer on here. But this time I just can't keep quiet. I have read 5 Ira Levin books, and he is one of my favorite writers. So when I discovered that THE STEPFORD WIVES was made into a movie, I had to go rent it. I LOVED IT, the simplicity of the filming and the acting just captured the essence of Levin's story. Just like Rosemary's Baby. I was equally excited when I discovered that it was being remade again with the modern cast...after all, I'm a young guy and I thought, cool, now people will be able to see this great flick that I have loved for years.
WHAT A DISAPPOINTMENT. The remake sucks. It has the main character, Joanna, as this feminist ultra career oriented freak and it really fails to capture the beauty of the original with Katherine Ross, and without a doubt, does not deserve to have Ira Levin's name anywhere in the credits...its a SHAM. Don't buy it. They ruined this great tale!!! Get the original, or ROSEMARY'S BABY which is available for a lot less on here..."
Much Ado about Nada
MICHAEL ACUNA | Southern California United States | 06/12/2004
(3 out of 5 stars)
"The newest incarnation of Ira Levin's "The Stepford Wives" is first rate until about ¾ of the way through...then in a mad dash to end the thing, all logic is thrown out the door. At that point, what it really looks and feels like is, is that about 10-15 minutes of the movie was lopped off in order to come in under an hour and a half; which is too bad, because up to then, "The Stepford Wives" really has a lot of interesting things to say about man-woman relationships and marriage in the new millennium.
This new version even incorporates a fully accepted, by Stepford society, Gay couple: though one could argue that one of the partners is too gay to be true. Be that as it may, Bette Midler as a neo-hippy novelist (Bobbi Markowitz) and Nicole Kidman as a whacked out former major TV network President (Joanna Eberhart) are ironic and funny-as-hell.
But what happens ¾ of the way through? Who knows? Maybe the DVD version will give us the full version and fill in the gaping hole at the conclusion for us. As it is in the theaters now, "The Stepford Wives" is funny but woefully incomplete: finishing just short of making a complete and coherent comment about marriage-american-style in this year of 2004."