THE STEPFORD WIVES

[thompsoncory]

"The wives of Stepford have a secret"

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/153/862599.jpg

Plot Summary: A young couple moves from Manhattan to the upper class suburb of Stepford, Conn., and discover that the Stepford men are replacing their wives with compliant robots.

Directed by: Frank Oz (Bowfinger)

Starring: Nicole Kidman (Moulin Rouge), Matthew Broderick (Inspector Gadget), Bette Midler (The First Wives Club), Christopher Walken (Catch Me If You Can), Faith Hill (debut), Glenn Close (Fatal Attraction), Jon Lovitz (Rat Race)

Written by: Paul Rudnick (In & Out)

Rated: PG-13

Running Time: 1 hour 55 minutes

Year: June 11th, 2004

------------

I cannot wait for this movie. The trailer (which many have mixed opinions on) really struck a chord with me, and I think it looks like a good dark comedy. I will be seeing this movie opening day.

Also, is anyone else surprised that this is getting the widest release next weekend? It will be playing in over 3000 screens, as opposed to GARFIELD's 2700 theaters and THE CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK's 2500 theaters.

[t3h Qster]

the 2 trailers (teaser and trailer) make me wanna check this movie out......damn kidman can be one fine looking chica when she wants to be :)(

[BorderEevilIII]

For the very FEW schmoes who has seen the ORIGINAL it still would have been GREAT if the THRILLER formula played some kind of factor but goes in the DARK COMEDY direction in the 2004 update BUT I do see myself goin to the theater to see it.

[Sigur509]

Nicole Kidman........




I'm FUCKING there!

[Strider]

I actually think The Stepford Wives looks like an interesting dark comedy. The involvement of Nicole Kidman and Christopher Walken alone is more than enough to make me want to see it, and I think I will see it.

Strider

[sharkstank]

yeah looks good. i love walken and kidman (and faith hill) so i have good hopes.
im actually seeing it monday at an advance screening, so i'll post my thoughts tuesday. i do think riddick will make more money and actually be better though

WWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[dellamorte dellamore]

Bette Midler = arghhh . The film looks totally dreadful even with the excellent Kidman in the lead . The intense feeling of paranoia and dread , and the whole independent woman rebel angle is toast in favor of , well i have no idea if the trailers are any indication , this thing is a mess . All slick and clean and trying to be witty , oh man , STV material .


Yeah , i guess the rebellious woman angle is on hand here in the form of the outspoken , annoying , cliched " nonconformist " wife that Midler plays , but everything else that made the first so creepy , relevant , intriguing , and insightful , looks like it has been totally discarded in this joke , in favor of a bunch of self concious performances and some lame attempts at comedy .



I'll wait for the DVD , or i'll just watch Kidman in Dogville again , if i'm that desperate to see her again .

[BubbaStrangelove]

I didn't realize Better Midler is in this. T'm not sure what to make of this. My wife is a huge fan of the original, and wants to see this, but I'm just going along. All I'm hoping for is an average film.

Also -- wasn't the fact that they are robots an actual story twist in the first movie? What is with them showing the robots in the trailers?

:mad:

[dellamorte dellamore]

Yeah , you're right about that , but i guess they feel why hide it since a bunch of people prob know about it anyway , guess maybe they could have concealed that aspect until towards the end , but then they wouldn't have been able to show off the fancy cgi in the trailer .

Where's the suspense now ? What's the revelation going to be , blah .

[BubbaStrangelove]

Everyone in it is good too -- I'm not a Midler fan, but let's face it, she's been in a bunch of stuff people adore.

I'm scared the movie will be a big embarassment.

If the movie was out, I'd go see it, and post about how it really was.

Am I in the right forum?

[Fisting Ackbar]

Looks weird. The trailer gave me the impression as if it doesn't know if it wants to be a black comedy or a thriller, and the advance word in the street isn't good.

I'm going to try to see the original first, then I'll re-evaluate my thoughts about this.

[BorderEevilIII]

Calm down fellow schmoes Joan Cusack/John Cusack was originally in the reamke but dropped out THUS Bette Midler and I believe Matthew Broderick stepped in their places.

And its FULL ON DARK COMEDY. The trailer sometimes trick YOU in what it shows.

[Cronos]

i saw the trailer and it didnt make me want to go and see it, it did look like it could be funny so i might rent it

[doNkeykong]

im a big matthew broderick fan...
plus nicole kidman looks hot with short brown hair
i must see this movie

[Moviefan1234]

I love Nicole Kidman and Christopher Walken, but it looks as if they just did this for their paychecks. It doesn't look humorous, it doesn't look thrilling, it's just there.

[Jon Lyrik]

Yikes, this movie looks awful (especially in the TV spots). And advanced word on it is very poor. And the budget is $90 million. And they had to rush reshoots not too long ago. Can we say bomb?

[Sad man]

I think this looks awesome. The trailer was great. Plus, I really like Nicole Kidman, Matthew Broderick, Glenn Close and Bette Midler (Yeah, I do :o). The director, Frank Oz, did a wonderful job with the hilarious Bowfinger. I'm dying to see this.

The trailer showed too much though, do we really need to know that the wives are robot? And do they need to show that Bette Midler becomes one of them? I hope it was just to trick people and that there are more twists in the movie.

[sharkstank]

The Stepford Wives: **

so i went to the screening and saw the film, and i must say that it was just alright. not good, not bad, just enough to give it faint praise.

the good-
walken was great
midler and the gay guy were pretty funny
close played her role perfectly
one good twist
short movie, moves along ok
some good, smile inducing humor
well acted

the bad-
kidman wa miscast
broderick added NOTHING, played his usual (only) role
hill didnt either
pretty slow in some spots
lazy
no good solid laughs, just chuckles
predictable in most areas
the major problem was the movies identity crisis. it kinda tried to be both light fluff and biting dark humor, so it stays in limbo.

overal it is middle ground for me. thumbs in middle if you will, leaning down. ok they're down. not recommended, but you dont have to avoid it like the plague. the teaser trailer was better than the finished product though

those are my short thoughts b4 i go to bed

WWWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[dellamorte dellamore]

Spoiler



I have weird feeling that Midler is turned into a robot but comes back for revenge , destroys her doppelganger , and pretends she is the robot to infiltrate Walken's fortress of solitude . Or maybe Walken is a robot himself , or everyone is except Kidman .

[jpete51]

unfortunately, i think that this movie will bomb. with a high budget, and not too good word of mouth, not too many people are looking foreward for it.

i just read the 70s book, and i thought it was good, but a little anti-climatic. hopefully this one will exceed expectations, but i doubt it will.

[Schatten]

Broderick and Walken are a couple of my favorite actors and this story's a classic so I'll surely be seeing this at the movies. My mom rarely goes to the theater with us and she really wants to see it, so that's why I'm also looking forward to this.

[Benny]

Could be entertaining, since Frank Oz is a good director and it has a decent cast and my lady Nicole. I don't see how it could improve on the original though.

[Tommy Doyle]

Just got back from an advanced screening.... my favorite film of the year so far.

An amazingly hilarious movie. There was all this speculation that it was going to be more dark comedy than anything, and yes, although there were parts of dark comedy in it (one of the final scenes that invovled Glenn Close and Christopher Walken is without a doubt incredibly twisted, but in a laugh out loud kind of way), the movie actually played more towards the straight kind of comedy, not all, but a lot.

Nicole Kidman, Better Midler and Roger Bart, when on screen together, light it up. I haven't seen cast members that play off each other so well in years. Matthew Broderick, Christopher Walken, Glenn Close and Jon Lovitz round out the more prominent cast in an absolutely flawless manner. Faith Hill has a much more minor role, and it feels as if she was cast in her role just so a recoginzable face could be seen when the storyline further progresses.

I like the idea that the writer, producers and directors played up on the unintentional camp from the first movie. At the time yes, it was a pretty chilling movie... watched now, it's got an air of silliness and camp to it, and that seems to be the main goal behind this remake.

They weren't trying to copy the original, they weren't trying to imitate the original, the movie knows this, and makes no apologies for it at. It's basically to be viewed as a stand alone campy, quirky comedy, with a few darker moments thrown in.

There was one thing that I left the movie confused about, but since it's actually the bigger plot twist, I won't type it here. (It's nothing Memento kind of fuck with your mind, just a few "Well, if THAT was there, and THAT happened, how come THIS didn't happen?" kind of thing.) Nothing that takes away from the overall enjoyable nature of the movie.

And damn if there weren't a few lines that Bette Midler threw out that literally had me laughing five minutes later. The audience reaction was very positive towards the movie, with applause at the end, and on the way out audience members already saying lines from the movie again.

I was actually very surprised I liked the movie as much as I did. I had hesitant expectations going it, and I actually thought it could be one of those movies that sucked, but was enjoyable in spite of, or because of, how much it sucked.

Already have plans to see it again with another friend this coming Sunday. Can't wait. (there's a bunch of lines in the movie I missed because of audience laughter carrying on to long, so hopefully I'll be able to catch a few more the second time around)


9/10

[libraswords]

I don't know about this movie.

I think its going to be one of those insane comedy
type movies that go nowhere.

I think I'll wait til it goes on video, as for the theater, it sucks!

[Schatten]

Originally posted by libraswords
I don't know about this movie.

I think its going to be one of those insane comedy
type movies that go nowhere.

I think I'll wait til it goes on video, as for the theater, it sucks!

Are you saying the theater sucks or going to go see the movie at the theater sucks? I don't know if you know this but there was a novel first, and if you read it you'll no that it doesn't lead to 'nowhere'.

[anakinsrise]

This movie reminds me to much of Death Becomes Her ,which was only so-so,so i will wait for the DVD or cable.

[charliebobo]

Berardinelli hated it...

Stepford Wives, The
A Film Review by James Berardinelli

*1/2 out of ****

It can easily be argued that a straightforward remake of the 1975 science fiction thriller, The Stepford Wives, would not be possible in today's climate. After all, the original film traded heavily on the womens' liberation movement, and today's audiences accept the equality of men and women as a given. Plus, what might have been considered a clever twist 30 years ago has been reduced by the passage of time into something cheesy and clichéd. (Actually, even in 1975, viewers of "Star Trek," "Doctor Who," and/or "The Twilight Zone" would have seen the surprise coming.) So what to do? While the wiser course probably would have been to abandon the project at an early stage, the filmmakers chose instead to turn The Stepford Wives into a comedy. Calling this a "bad idea" is an understatement.

Yes, Paul Rudnick's script generates some laughs and there are a couple of nasty zingers (including one aimed squarely at AOL). But the comedy is not consistent or edgy enough to distract us from the underlying storyline, which, freed from the need to be played straight, is inconsequential and uninvolving. We don't care about what's happening. There's no tension, no character development, and absolutely no reason to stay in theaters once Rudnick's humor has started to wear thin. The tone of the material defeats director Frank Oz; he never manages to strike an effective balance between the thriller elements and the comedic ones. And, to exacerbate an already unfortunate situation, Rudnick and Oz tack on a new ending that's so godawful it's not even worth thinking about.

The broad strokes of the story will be familiar to those who have seen the 1975 movie and/or read the Ira Levin book from which it was adapted. Joanna Eberhart (Nicole Kidman) is a TV executive who is fired after a reality show contestant goes on a shooting spree. Needing a fresh start, Joanna, along with her husband, Walter (Matthew Broderick), and their two children, moves to the town of Stepford, Connecticut. But there's something strange going on there. Except for Joanna and another newcomer, Bobbi (Bette Midler), all of the women are perfectly-groomed, subservient sex toys. It doesn't take much digging for Joanna to determine what's wrong with the Stepford wives, but, by then, she may have lost her husband to the local mens' club, the members of which hide a dark secret.

This is the second collaboration between Rudnick and Oz, but it's nowhere near as successful as their first outing, In and Out. Rudnick's shtick quickly grows tiresome, and some of the characters he intends to be humorous fail to provoke a chuckle. These include a gay caricature, played with irritating effeminate mannerisms by Roger Bart; a wicked witch-type, essayed by Glenn Close; and a small, deadpan part for Christopher Walken. Walken's role isn't written with a great deal of overt comedy; I think we're supposed to laugh just because he's Christopher Walken. To be completely fair, Ruddick and Oz craft a pair of Reality TV parodies that are hilarious - unfortunately, neither lasts more than a minute. And a later spoof of a school educational film is considerably less effective.

If the film is to work on any level, even a comedic one, it's necessary for the viewers to sympathize with Joanna and Walter. However, the script and scattershot performances keep them at arm's length. Nicole Kidman is in full scenery-chewing mode, and Matthew Broderick hasn't been this invisible since Ferris Bueller had to go back to school. There is a rather long and tedious scene in which the two discuss their marriage, but this did nothing except try my patience. In order for character-building material to work, it's necessary to start with legitimate characters. There aren't any in The Stepford Wives. All we have is robots on auto-pilot, and that appears to extend beyond who's on screen.

[t3h Qster]

great acting and storyline, but it got cheesy at times.....7/10

[MartinGPB]

saw it today, not bad at all-- nothing hilarious, nothing terrible-- a few moments were too cheesy, and i did laugh quite a bit-- glenn close was very funny-- walken was wasted-- anyway, pretty enjoyable-- im surprised anyone really HATED this

btw, im a fan of the original

7/10

[Rick-James]

I'll be seeing this later today.. I hope it's good.

[PuggyD]

Saw it last night; twas pretty darn good. I haven't seen the original, but I did read the book. Anyways, it had some slow points, but some of the stuff was hilarious (like the book club.) Despite one major plot hole and some troubling implied politics behind some of the stuff, a very solid, enjoyable movie. 7.5/10

[dillhead005]

JUST CAUGHT THE FLICK... what do I think?

Meh.

I honestly expected better. The trailers made the film look like a solid/twisted black comedy that would eek of political-incorrectness. This was about half true.

The movie does have its witty moments and has many times where you find yourself laughing at its schtick. Even the "gay guy" stereotype is funny. The films plot remained solid, funny, unpredicatable, and even should I say.... original, until about 1 hour in.

The films ending (without giving anything away) is horrendously rushed and choppy. It tries to pull the "hah! caught you off guard" twist ending bit. Most of which I predicted from the moment that it was possible to predict. Also, instead of letting the ending speak for itself, we needed 5 minute character monologes to explain every detail of if, and, who, and why. I felt like all the characters transformed into James Bond villans. :(

ALSO: Knowing what I did about the plot, I expected much more suspence and dark humor. I expected to be sitting their in pure awe of the films twisted message and laughing my ass off everytime it crossed the line into I-cant-belive-they-just-did-that senarios. But unfortunatly, the humor, while funny, remains pretty tame, and any chance for a "fuck you" to political correctness is snuck around, and quickly avoided.

SO MANY OPORTUNITIES, LITTLE ATTACK!

I guess I'd recomend it. I did laugh, it wasn't a bad movie. Just don't expect anything too out of the ordinary, even though this film could have been everything out-of-the-ordinary.

5/10

[Christoph]

6.5/10

Highly entertaining but gargantuanily stupid. I enjoyed the acting, although brodrick sucked, teh director is genius and the plot is stupid. It was very well done for a movie that looked worse then horse's dick,

[BorderEevilIII]

I just came from the movie.

It was ok and god bless Frank Oz. The movie could have used a little bit more in the humor that they were aiming for. Nicole was pretty good playing the lead. Matthew Broderick was awright but would have been good if John Cusack was still in it though. Better Midler was pretty good in hers. I loooooved Roger Bart. I thought he just a few things that made the movie still amusing. I do agree that Christopher Walken seemed like the WEAK LINK here... Where was that Walken I always know that stood out like a sore thumb. He looked like he was on Ritalin or something.....
But still the ending was a suprise for me.....

(7/10)

[PuggyD]

***Slight Spoliers***




I don't understand why so many people are saying that there wasn't enough satire to it, no bite, and no risks taken with the messages presented. I thought there was plenty of stuff that was a little more subtle, but still interesting from a political standpoint. For example, the fact that the wives seem so uncomfortable around Jews, and then later when Roger is converted he's a born again Christian. The religious undertones I thought were really interesting and, actually, kind of questionable. Also, the bit where they implied that gay people who aren't effeminate are bad was weird, as if they were implying that straight-acting homosexuals don't (or shouldn't) exist outside of Stepford.

[BorderEevilIII]

Originally posted by PuggyD

Also, the bit where they implied that gay people who aren't effeminate are bad was weird, like straight-acting homosexuals don't (or shouldn't) exist outside of Stepford.


OK WHAT?!??! Before I start FLYING off the door handle with this statement you are making.

**SPOILERS**

The reason Roger Bart got changed was to make him MORE straight acting.


*END OF SPOILER*



And I assume your are referring to what YOU got out of the movie and not contrast it w/ the real world when you added in the word SHOULD'NT <---:mad:

[MadsenOMC]

SPOILERS

The wonder of low expectations. I really expected this to suck and be a laugh-free comedy. Surprisingly, I enjoyed it and actually laughed quite a few times. I loved the reality TV spoofs in the beginning and the Mike White cameo. Glenn Close is fantastic. There are some great sight gags and hilarious lines. It's short. I found a lot to like. It's far from great, though. The pacing is off in places and it does feel like it's been heavily tinkered with. And it looses its footing towards the end. But overall, I had a good time with it. A solid matinee.

6/10

[PuggyD]

Mild spoilers, again.

Ok, I think I worded that poorly. What I meant was the *movie* made it seem like they were saying that straight-acting gays are bad. I understand that they changed him to make him more straight acting, which was greeted by Kidman with as much horror as all the soulless Betty Crocker wives. I'm saying that the MOVIE was saying that that's a bad thing, which I don't agree with. I also understand that in that specific case it was portrayed as bad simply because that's not who Roger really was and he had already expressed a personal distaste for people who act like that, but they kind of generalized about it as well, which I found upsetting. They kind of implied that there is something seriously wrong and unnatural about gays who act straight, or are republican, or are religious, which I do NOT agree with.

[MadsenOMC]

You're right, there is nothing wrong with a gay man who acts "straight" or is religious or a Republican. Especially the first one. But with the latter two, it's sort of a slippery slope. There may be nothing wrong with it, but choosing to be part of a group that, on the whole, disapproves of your lifestyle and doesn't accept you, what you do, your partner, etc., well personally I think that is open to ridicule.

[The Engraved]

The Stepford Wives - 7/10

I found this movie entertaing and funny, but with utterly flawed moments. Kidman, Midler and Bart all were funny and interacted well (when they were together, they were fantastic). Christopher Walken though in a minor role was also great (when isn't he? Never, I tell you Never!). But what bothered me during and after the movie ended was its execution, its contradiction.

Spoilers


By the end of the movie we are led to believe that nano-chips had been implanted into the women. Yet we see a robot of Kidman and then theirs the blonde who dishes out cash from her mouth. Why are these scenes in there? They make no sense if that is the case. Also, during the square dance, one seems to malfunction and spins beyond human capabilities and then when Midler is altered, she does not feel pain when her hand touches the stove. I don't understand this. Why were the robots created in the first place if nano-chips were to be implanted into the women? By the end, we find out there was at least one robot, so why the nano-chips? :confused:


End Spoilers



Hopefully when the DVD comes out it will clarify everything.

[Dixiecup]

I saw it yesterday, and I just no likey. I thought the fake dog thingy was total cheese, and the toilet thingy was, too. I was HOPING for a dark comedy, and not played for total cheese.

SPOILERS:






The ending made no sense to me whatsoever. Why would she 'act' like a robot? TWF? Why stay in Stepford, period? (obviously, so the movie would have a friggin ending, if that's what you call it.) If he were going to bust up the lab, so to speak, he could have done it anytime, at the boys club. I was just hoping for a better overall product. I think the gay guy ran away with the movie, hands down. Bette did a good job, too. Nicole? m'kay. Matthew? Fuggetaboutit. Sucked. Wrongly cast. Faith? For the uh, four? lines she spoke, she was just eye candy. So, IMHO, it was two out of five stars.

[Spock]

Having enjoyed the original, I'm not expecting the remake to be BETTER, but I hope it's at least good enough to be considered worthwhile to see.

I was taken back when I saw Berardinelli's horrible review, but our tastes differ at times, so maybe this is one of them.

Lastly, isn't merely seeing Nicole Kidman worth the price of admission?

I'll probably wait for this movie to come out on DVD though; there are other movies I want to see first.

[dellamorte dellamore]

Well , i guess you can't call the film a flop ( just yet ) , but it may be hard pressed to break even ( 90 Mil ) if the opening weekend gross is any indication , unless it has some box office legs , but i doubt it will . Still i doubt anyone is crying over a 22 mil opening , and i doubt they are celebrating either .

[Shockwave]

unless it has some box office legs , but i doubt it will . Still i doubt anyone is crying over a 22 mil opening , and i doubt they are celebrating either .

Indeed. This, Riddick and Garfield all ate each other alive. Its enough that they will make thier money back in time, but i dont think any of them will make a killing.

[dellamorte dellamore]

After reading some comments on the film , it doesn't sound too bad , just incompetently executed with possible plot inconsistencies , so it's been upgraded to a definite dvd rental , and the original is a buy now , although they seem to have a different tone .

[Common Sense Man]

Okay in light of my new job, which allows me to see movies for free! I am giving this a slightly better review, as if I would have had to pay for it I would have been pissed!

Minor Spoilers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


It was relatively funny, but as with all movies recently they have to have the gay character for added color and comic relief.

I have no problem with the gay comic character but it just seems that every freaking comedy lately is using this crutch.

Other than that the movie was moderately funny.

The CGI dog was pointless and if you are going to have a CGI character at least make him believable, see Teddy from AI if you want a good CGI animal.

And of course Walken is always good but here he has basically a cameo with no real comedy.

But what really pissed me off was.

Major Spoilers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


Is the fact they didn't know how to end it. This movie had one of the biggest plot holes I have ever seen.

They talk about the chicks being robots, then they talk about adding computer chips to their brains.

So are they robots or do they just have chips in their brains?

Well this question is answered when Broderick and Kidman go thru the conversion process and you see a blank robot, which you assume will become the new Kidaman.

But at the end when Broderick saves all the women they simply snap out if it!

WTF!

What happened to all the bodies of the real women if they are robots.

If they are not robots why did they show one.

If they are robots as we are lead to believe then why are they normal after the chips are destroyed!

Obviously the writers wanted to take this in another direction but decided to change the plot. Maybe from a failed drama/thriller to a comedy.

This left them with no way to get all the women they killed off back to life again.

So they just overlooked it.

At least that is all I can come up with, otherwise why show a damn fembot when they went thru the conversion process!

So in closing I give this movie a 4 of 10 and consider that I added a point for seeing it for free.

If the movie was laugh your ass off funny I could over look this, but it wasn't.

Out........................................

[dellamorte dellamore]

Yeah , from what some people are saying , a bit more plot consistency would have gone a long way to making this film something memorable , but i haven't seen it yet so i'll see just how flawed it is when i do .

[Peppy]

I watched it a few days ago, and it was much better than I expected it to be. There were a few scenes where I laughed out loud. And the ending was glorious.

[Sigur509]

This could have been so much better, with the cast and the Director. Could have been, but I was let down, I realy wanted to like this one too.


4/10

[anakinsrise]

IN SHORT:I want a divorce !!


THE GOOD: I enjoyed the jokes about reality television,throughout the movie.And some of the banter between the characters was funny especially Bette Midler,and Roger Bart,and especially after Bette's character "changes"The film tried to capture that haunting feel of the original in a few scenes especially with th husbands,and their knowing looks and nods to themselves.


THE BAD: Im sorry i didnt buy Nicole Kidman as the ballsy t.v exec.I feel she was overacting in the opening scenes.There are plot holes the size of the Grand Canyon through out the film.I thought there would be more to the film but its very anti climatic,and i even began to fall asleep during Glenn Close's speech.At times i felt as if i was watching a boring sketch on Saturday Night Live.The talents of Broderick,and Walken are wasted.I guess the producers felt the famous names would make this a blockbuster.


IN THE END:Scale of 1-10 a 5, wait for the dvd or cable.

[DRbeauty]

The robot thing just ruined it for me

[EDsoulsurvive*]

ehh i so this movie a week or so ago and had a decent enough time with it. I was never bored and got a few good laughs, it all just seemed a little weak to me tho. 6/10

[Kim_EZ]

Amusing start, but the middle and end was stupid.

5/10