The Stepford Wives Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Make one.
The wives of Stepford have a secret.
Are you a Stepford wife? Are you a Stepford husband? Couple, ask yourselves: Would you move to Stepford?
Joanna Eberhart (Nicole Kidman) is a successful TV producer on the verge of yet another Emmy-winning streak of TV shows when she is fired from her job at a prestigious network. She then has a mental breakdown and her husband Walter (Matthew Broderick) and their two children (Dylan Hartigan, Fallon Brooking) move to Stepford, Conneticut, the most perfectly perfect little town there ever was. The women of Stepfrod spend all day knitting, gardening, exercising in beautiful dresses, and are the most splendid of all women on Earth. Soon, Joanna along with her best-selling author buddy, Bobbie (Bette Midler) and Democratic, flamboyant fairy friend Roger (Roger Bart) realize that something isn't right in Stepford. All is not as perfect as it seems...especially after Roger and Bobbie are turned into perfect portraits of Stepford. Why are the women of Stepfrod so perfect? What do the Stepford Husabnds have to do with the scheme? Will Joanna ultimately uncover the truth? Or are the Stepford coming for her to make her a blonde, bubbly piece of perfection?
| Matthew Broderick | Walter Kresby |
| Nicole Kidman | Joanna Eberhart |
| Christopher Walken | Mike Wellington |
| Glenn Close | Claire Wellington |
| Bette Midler | Bobbie Markowitz |
| Faith Hill | Sarah Sunderson |
| Roger Bart | Roger Bannister |
| David Marshall Grant | Jerry Harmon |
| Jon Lovitz | Dave Markowitz |
| Dylan Hartigan | Pete Kresby |
| Fallon Brooking | Kimberly Kresby |
| Matt Malloy | Herb Sunderson |
| Kate Shindle | Beth Peters |
| Tom Riis Farrell | Stan Peters |
| Lorri Bagley | Charmaine Van Sant |
| Frank Oz |
5.20 out of 10 (10503 votes)
Visitor Reviews
One of the worst remakes I've ever seen
posted on 28 Aug 2009If you like the premise of this movie get the original this remake was appalling, no tension, no thrills. The only bright spots were Bette Midler and Roger Bart. In the original the tension and mystery builds and you feel sympathy for Katherine Ross you also are kept guessing much longer. I have to say that having seen the original I couldn't wait for Nicole Kidman to get her comeuppance. The tension never builds and the mystery is short lived. I watched this film with someone who had never seen the original and they had guessed what was going on within the first 15 minutes, therefore the rest of the film played out like a limp damp rag. The best lines and performances are by Bette and Bart and if you don't mind ignoring much of the rest of the film then just watch it for their performances.
overdone
posted on 28 Aug 2009I will first state that I have only watched the first 20 to 30 minutes of the film but my limited comments will suffice.POSSIBLE SPOILER The first movie was a suspense thriller with a smidgen of black comedy but this one tries too much too quick and fails initially. The suspense element of the first one is virtually ignored in this remake. I am an optimist on many levels in life and I wish that this movie had succeeded but the reasons are clear why it did not succeed within the first few minutes. They just tried to too darn hard and it sadly falls on it's head. Because I am an optimist, I will later watch the rest of it for posterity's sake only.
Near Miss
posted on 24 Aug 2009I got to see this movie in a test audience setting 4-27-2004. The movie was very predictable and formulaic. Which is ashame because I really like the principals involved. Matthew Broderick was very under utilized and Glen Close / Christopher Walken "phoned" in their performances. Bette Midler and a new face Roger Bart were actually quite good and their performances really stood out, especially Roger Bart. I hope to see more of him in the future. Nicole Kidman is especially beautiful here but again this was not a great role or performance for her, and I really like her work. She was wasted here.I don't mind that they converted the original movie to a dark comedy ...I think was a good idea, but the jokes were tired and not very original. This was the first time I'd ever gone to a test screening and I really wanted to like the movie... but I couldn't. It has "Death Becomes Her" feel to it, but the performances don't measure up. This is worth a matinee or rental, but if you really want to laugh a lot ... look elsewhere.
Make your freaking minds up! (MAJOR SPOILERS)
posted on 24 Aug 2009For crying out loud, are they robots or not? If the wives are robots, then how come they go back to normal as soon as Walter remotely zaps the chips in their brains (and why build that option in anyway?). If they're humans with chips in their brains then what's with the sparking ears, growing breasts and the ATM machine (who refills that cashbox anyway?). Just because they've made it into a (supposed) comedy doesn't mean they can abandon all sense of internal logic.As for that, it tries really hard to be a comedy but, except for 5 or 6 snappy one-liners, ends up as a vaguely embarrassing piece of slapstick. Unlike the classic original, there's no tension since 99% of the audience already know the Stepford secret, and it can't even claim to be satirising anything. The 70's version was a comment on people's reactions to the burgeoning feminist movement, but what is there to satirise here - reality TV? Lame.Over the top performances (except for Broderick who sleepwalks through his underwritten role) and too many plot holes make this just another of the countless pointless remakes which unwisely choose not to take the original seriously.Please, please Hollywood: By all means keep on making remakes, but why not remake some s****y movies and turn them into something good, rather than the other way round.
We walked out half-way through it!
posted on 20 Aug 2009An abysmal dud. No real humor. Only crude sick jokes with homosexual overtones. A cast highlighted by Nicole Kidman and Matthew Broderick.Yet, who knew we would be dished the likes of Glenn Close and the disgusting Miss M, Bette Midler. Faith Hill's character and performance is embarrassing.The film is flatter than a pancake and duller than an iron skillet. We missed the last half because we walked out. But I can't imagine Stepford could get any better or any worse! The output from Hollywood has sunk so low. Think I'm going to pull out my stash of Godzilla movies until things improve.
Lighten Up!!
posted on 12 Aug 2009I have read many comments bemoaning the lack of plot, lack of acting, lack of sense etc. This is not the "Stepford Wives" of thirty years ago. It is not a cogent story or a contemporary horror film - IT IS A COMEDY. It is played for laughs from start to finish. It was never meant to be like the original. Why do some people take everything so seriously? I wasn't laughing from start to finish, but there were enough chuckles to make it OK. There were certainly more laughs here than in the much acclaimed "Sideways". Stop over-analyzing and laugh at the jokes. See a movie to have a good time. Nicole Kidman was just fine as the heroine, but the best lines were for Bette Midler. Christopher Walken is always creepy.
Take off the rose-colored glasses; the original was NOT better, just different.
posted on 08 Aug 2009Frank Oz directs a tongue-in-rouged-cheek redux that stumbles a tad as it doesn't quite commit fully to either a black comedy or an over-the-top satire, doesn't quite reach "thriller" quality, doesn't quite step up to the plate. BUT it's inevitable: When remakes are released of 'classic' movies – from Ocean's 11 to the Stepford Wives – we don our rose-colored glasses and wax poetic about how much better the original was. In this case: Wrong. Different, yes; better, no. This remake is true to the premise of the original, but takes a fresh, skewed approach, going for camp and parody where the original was a drama; going for speedy, full-bodied character development right out of the gate where the original dragged its characters along woefully, with hangdog looks and dour expressions substituted for dialogue that told their backstory. Uber-urban couple Joanna and Walter move to the Connecticut 'Burbs this timeafter Joanna has a complete nervous breakdown when her big city career implodes. She's a power woman on a power trip, and her cord gets unplugged big time. So, Joanna's wrassling her own identity crisis when she meets the blissful, beautiful, subdued society of Stepford. Despite an peculiar speech pattern, Nicole Kidman is splendid as Joanna, as she struggles to come up for air in Stepford. Instead of enshrining Joanna as the Feminist Goddess fighting deadhead domesticity as in the original, this version shows her warts and all, and the audience seemed to feel she got what she deserved initially. There is a sweetness in Joanna trying to find her softer feminine side, her nesting and nurturing instincts, even when her hyper type-A personality kicks into gear, resulting in hundreds of cupcakes screaming 'compulsive overachiever.' Her new best friend Bobbie (Bette Midler) is, refreshingly, NOT a sympathetic character, and (perhaps inadvertently) Director Oz has crossed her with Miss Piggy, as an egocentric, combative, acerbic writer who wallows in a slob-sty lifestyle with her pig of a husband, the ever-idiotic Jon Lovitz. The injection of a gay couple into Stepford is an interesting twist, and Faith Hill is utter perfection as the Stepford wife with her wiring going awry. Christopher Walken is a bit underused, but as always, reliably weird and oddly ominous as the head honcho of the sexist men's club, which property is dead on from the original movie. Matthew Broderick is, as Joanna succinctly states, her 'goofy Walter,' all wide-eyed and struggling to assert himself as his emasculated testosterone gets refueled in Happy Man Land. Glenn Close is a wasp-waisted dervish as the untiring, endlessly organizational, insidiously irritating Claire, who leads the women of Stepford in their goosesteps. The good news is that, unlike the sluggish, drably introspective original, this Stepford Wives is glamorous and richly imbued with vibrancy. The bad news is that -- OK, social commentary opinion ahead, feel free to tune out -- sadly, the kneejerk ridiculing and debasing of all things traditional and June-Cleaver-like is overt and heavy-handed in Hollywood, and wrapping it up in glitzy, star-laden movies like this may be "fun" but it has more than a bit of a nasty, mean spirited undertone. In today's world of latchkey kids, rampant divorce, domestic violence, lack of honor and integrity, shirked personal responsibility, crude and rude antisocial behavior, etc., we could use MORE family tranquility, dedicated husbands and wives, and respect for the sanctuary of a welcoming home with an unselfish, loving, committed father and mother who embrace the most important job in the world: raising better children which leads ultimately to a better world. The burgeoning trend of 'stay at home Moms' in America seems to be an uplifting, promising development in improving the quality of society through improving the quality of family. It's unfortunate if movies like The Stepford Wives slap these folks down for their 'old fashioned' values.
Nicole Kidman delivers yet another terrific performance!
posted on 27 Jul 2009POSSIBLE SPOILERS A fantastic story line, a superb cast: Nicole Kidman, Mathew Broderick, Bette Midler, Christopher Walken and Glenn Close and terrific acting, what more dose a film need? Nicole Kidman stars as Joanna Eberhard, a former Television associate, whom is fired and thus suffers a nervous breakdown, her husband, Walters (Mathew Broderick) decides them and their two children need a fresh start, so they leave New York, and head to Stepford, a suburban town.When they arrive, they are warmly greeted by Claire Wellington (Glenn Close) who manages to drag Joanna to female-get-together hall, but it's not what Joanna is expecting.
The women do nothing but smile and star and are total drips, the only other woman who doesn't seem to be affected in Stepford is Bobbie Markowitz (Bette Midler), Joanna is terrified and with the help of Bobbie she sets out to uncover the truth . . . Christopher Walken co-stars as Glenn Close's domineering husband.A fantastic film with a spoonful of sci-fi, a handful of comedy and a dose of thriller.
This film is an extremely good example for other film makers, and actors, who should strongly admire the fantastic performances of Nicole Kidman and Bette Midler not to mention the superb supporting from Glenn Close especially and Mathew Broderick. Two thumbs up!!
The Stepford Disaster
posted on 27 Jul 2009This is probably one of the weirdest films ever1. I went and saw this film a few days ago. The first half of the film is quite enjoyable (not great), Nicole performance is quite lame, but Bette Midler's performance is ironical, funny and basically very good. But the last half of the film is soooo bad. Its contradicting, incoherent and absolutely confusing. I just can't believe how several great stars (Glen Close, Nicole Kidman, Bette Midler, Christopher Walken) accepted to start in this rubbish.- Just the ending ruins the film.
4.26/10.00 reddragon1110
Dismal, couldn't even finish watching it
posted on 25 Jul 2009It always amazes me the scripts that attract talent. Glenn Close and Christopher Walken should have known better than this, and Frank Oz wastes their impressive talent on this uninspired remake. Nicole Kidman, well her presence can be understood in that she is trying real hard to make a stable career for herself...she is a very talented actress (witness "The Others")...give yourself a break Nicole and stop trying too hard. I tried to watch this, seriously tried, but before the first hour was us I was folding laundry as that was much more inspiring then this film. My advice, go do some laundry yourself instead of wasting your time. Too much dressing (great actors) not enough substance...a sad, sad film.
Outstanding in most respects, and entertaining above all.
posted on 21 Jul 2009The problem with this film is that it could have been an absolute masterpiece... if they'd managed to figure out how they wanted to do the robot/brainwashed women. If you're paying attention during the film you'll eventually realize that the filmmakers obviously couldn't decide whether or not to go with robots, or with some sort of nano-tech engineered chips being implanted in the womens brains. My guess is that the nano-tech chips were what they decided on after shooting too many scenes with robot oriented material. My wife has decided that the fact that they couldn't make it one way or the other gives this film a D grade, but I tend to like it more than that. If they would've just gone with the nano-tech chips from the beginning the film would've been spectacular! The mood, set design, acting, and dialogue were very entertaining... thrilling, comedic...very engrossing. But at the end of the day you're still left bothered by the obvious fact that they reshot some material, but used other material and so it comes off as a film that isn't pure. I suppose it feels a bit insulting to the intelligence - did they not realize that the public would catch that glaring mistake? It just makes me sick to my stomach when I see something like this happen to a film that could've been amazing. Shame on whomever didn't approve enough budget to rewrite and reshoot EvERYTHING that needed to be fixed (to make it either all robot material, or all nano-chipped material). It's your fault the film has languished at the box office. In the future, remember that the public will catch you EVERY time you try to get away with less than 100%.In closing, if you're in the mood for an imperfect but entertaining film then this one should fill the bill nicely.
Lighten up, people
posted on 17 Jul 2009Many 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!
rivals plan 9 from outer space
posted on 17 Jul 2009seriously, it's not hyperbole to call this one of the worst moviesever made. the absolute worst prize is usually given to plan 9 fromouter space, but ed wood now has a rival. not one redeemingfactor. over broad and under funny. really terrible. reviewers who letthis one get by without a warning no to see it should hand in theirpress credentials. I know these comments call for a minimum often lines, but what else can I say? Even the musical score is overdone...blasting out at higher decibels as if to tell us that a joke hasjust been made or that a "big scene" is either on the way or ishappening now.
Stepson of Stepford; Don't Try This at Home?
posted on 15 Jul 2009Obviously, this is more fantasy than science fiction. Recent reviews here made me wonder if it played better in the theater than at home. This remake seemed intended as satire but some thought-provoking elements carried over from the original work. Maybe it's a cliché, but many people are disappointed in themselves or others if they don't match an "ideal," and advertising and genetic engineering could undoubtedly exploit this. Good acting, especially a brilliant Nicole Kidman. The original movie was good, so I'm glad it was changed significantly; otherwise, why bother (although a little less information at the end about "how they did it" wouldn't have bothered me; most of the script was cleverly funny).
Ack.....
posted on 13 Jul 2009Yes that's me hacking up a hairball - a BIG, TEASED, BACKCOMBED HAIRBALL after watching this awful dreck. Thank you Netflix; if I had paid $9 to see this....wait...I feel another hairball coming on...Sorry about that. Anyhow, I was really excited about this film after seeing the preview. I loved the original, it scared me as a kid. I thought this would be a fun, comic update on the original film and how could you beat that cast? (Over the head, with a lame, illogical, apparently 30 page script.) This film is sooo bad. The cast is uniformly awful(Glenn Close does score some points as a maniacal June Cleaver type and Roger Bart is cute, but enough with the queen thing!) Even Bette Midler & Christopher Walken are boring. If Nicole Kidman had tilted her head and arched that eyebrow one more time, I would've screamed. (She is pretty creepy in the transformation reveal scene, but she sort of always creeps me out anyhow. Not that I don't like that.) To top off the nausea factor, there's the oh-so-unsubtle relating of Republican patriotism & "family values" to Stepfordish robotism. How original for liberal Hollywood!! Aren't they being clever!! (Hey, I'm a Libertarian, no skin off my nose, just off my finger as I tried to fast forward through that awful campaign scene.) I'm not even going to touch the whole "are they robots or is it a brain chip?" debacle that has been hashed to pieces here already. It was just a convenient "out" for a lazy writer who wanted a new & 'cute' ending. So all the hotshot husbands are at the grocery...har, har, har...gag.
Welcome to Stepford, population: Camp, POTENTIAL SPOILERS HEREIN!
posted on 09 Jul 2009WARNING! POSSIBLE SPOILERS HEREIN!In 1975, Ira Levin's book "The Stepford Wives" was made into a film. The movie, like the book, was a horror/science-fiction treatise on the women's movement about an idyllic little town where the men turned their feminist wives into subservient June Cleaver clones. In retrospect, the movie was both chilling in its premise and amazingly campy in its execution, like much of Levin's work ("Rosemary's Baby", "Sliver"). The new adaptation of Levin's book (since it's not exactly a remake of the 1975 film) decides to jettison the horror aspect and go straight for the camp factor. In this it succeeds, but the film is wildly uneven at times and often feels as if it has itself been a victim of the Stepford machinery.Joanna Eberhart (Nicole Kidman) is the powerful and respected head of the EBS television network. When a disgruntled contestant on one of her reality shows goes on a shooting spree, Joanna is fired to avoid damaging lawsuits.
Her husband Walter (Matthew Broderick) decides that the family needs a new start and moves to the small gated community of Stepford, Connecticut. Soon Joanna finds that all of the women in Stepford are smiling, well-groomed, and live only to serve their husbands, who spend all of THEIR time at the Stepford Men's Association. The Stepford women even wear their best dresses to aerobics class, where all their exercises mimic household chores, and to the book club, where they discuss books on decorating. The only others who find the situation bizarre are Bobbie Markowitz (Bette Midler) and Roger Bannister (Roger Bart), and soon the three are trying to get to the bottom of Stepford's secrets.As might be expected, the best performances of the film come from the Stepford wives themselves. Kidman is always a pleasure to watch on screen, and Midler has some of the best one-liners in the film even though she's playing a character she's played a dozen times over. Bart steals nearly every scene he's in as the only Stepford wife who's a gay man (and quite the little flamer to boot). Glenn Close is hilarious as Claire Wellington, the town's matron, and Faith Hill has some very amusing moments in her brief screen time. The men, however, don't come off nearly as well. Broderick is woefully miscast, and he never seems to bring any spark to his milquetoast of a husband. Christopher Walken, as the leader of the Men's Association, doesn't even appear to be trying, and his appearance in a supposed-to-be-retro-campy commercial for Stepford is painful.Director Frank Oz and screenwriter Paul Rudnick have both done fine work in their careers, and they make a valiant effort to film a dark satirical comedy, but they're just not quite up to the task. Oz's direction is quite static, and there are times in the film when it's clear that the cast wasn't being cooperative (rumors of on-set fighting ran rampant during production).
Rudnick is a master of campy, zingy one-liners, and while the movie is filled with several genuinely funny moments and lines, there is little connecting them. It's as if he was so concerned with filling the script with jokes that he forgot a plot or character development. Characters come and go too quickly for us to become invested in them, and Kidman and Broderick have no chemistry to speak of. There are also several inconsistencies with how the wives are presented, which are never resolved or explained, although the movie's brisk pace and re-shot ending suggest that such details may have existed at one time. Additionally, the film tends to alternate between campy farce and techno-thriller, as if Oz and Rudnick were never sure of which end to play.Despite all these drawbacks, the film is still watchable and entertaining with more than one moment of drop-dead humor. Enough moments, in fact, that it almost makes up for the disappointingly predictable ending. In addition, the opening credit sequence is brilliant, a montage of near-fetishistic scenes of 1950's housewives dancing in absurdly futuristic kitchens. Worth a trip to the theatre or video store, for sure, but make sure you've got a high tolerance for camp. 6 out of 10.
Complete disaster
posted on 01 Jul 2009So many great actors and such a bad movie. Extremely artificial. I watch all new movies, I love movies. Lately I notice that if I think that a movie won't be special usually it is. And if I've heard a lot about a new movie, with great actors in it, it turns out (mostly) a complete disaster, like this one. I have this feeling that there is nothing left in the world to be told in a movie. There are no more stories?? Or what is the problem of the movie makers?? I mean, of course they need to make money and if they get famous actors they'll get huge box-offices, but come on! You can make movies only to get the box-office. And as for the main character performed by Nicole Kidman, well she is a very good actress, but you can not give 100% if you make 5 movies pro year!!!! It's getting kind a routine with no emotions.! Very beautiful, professional doll!!
Easily The Worst And Most Unnecessary Remake Ever!
posted on 29 Jun 2009Its disturbing to note the number of classic '70's films that have had their reputations trashed by 'remakes' - 'The Wicker Man', 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre', 'The Omen', 'Assault On Precinct 13' and now this. Ira Levin's novel was not a laugh-out-loud comedy, and neither was Bryan Forbes' 1975 movie, but this Frank Oz-directed film tries to be - and fails dismally.The screenplay adheres closely to the original story, but over-eggs the pudding with 'funny' one-liners, and a ludicrous 'happy' ending which makes the finale of the 1980 'Revenge Of The Stepford Wives' T.V. movie seem believable by comparison.The story was intended as a darkly humorous comment on the women's lib movement, as the male population of a small American town tries to reverse the tide of feminism by murdering their wives and replacing them with robot doubles, replicas both obedient and beautiful. But the tone of the original has been allowed to leak away; this lumbering travesty has the look and feel of a 1960's sitcom. About the only thing missing is a laugh track.As for the performances, Nicole Kidman is so wooden that when she first appeared I thought she had already been 'replaced'. Bette Midler, is as always, terrible. Glenn Close, Christopher Walken and Matthew Broderick could have phoned in their performances.The exact nature of the duplications is confused - are the women being replaced by robots, or simply brainwashed? For most of the picture, it appears to be the former, but when Broderick shuts down the control centre at the climax, the wives regain their personalities, suggesting the latter. What a cop-out.I have heard complaints that the 1975 movie was 'cheesy'. Well, let me put the record straight. Fashions, hairstyles, technology etc. may have changed dramatically since the 70's, but the fact remains that Bryan Forbes' movie is a far better picture than this one. William Goldman's script did not insult the intelligence of the audience, and Katherine Ross and Paula Prentiss outclass Kidman and Midler. On the cheeseometer, the remake registers as pure Stilton.I wonder which sci-fi classic will be next in line for the same treatment. John Frankenheimer's 'Seconds'? Will the remake end with 'Tony Wilson' ( the Rock Hudson character in the original ) cracking lame gags as a Company doctor drills his skull?
A pretty average effort
posted on 27 Jun 2009Considering the talent on display it's a pretty lame effort all round. The film tries to be funny but doesn't really showcase the best talents of all of the actors. Nicole is unrealistic as the exec who has fallen from grace, Broderick doesn't come across as insignificant as he did in "Election", Lovitz is no match for Midler, Walken isn't his usual creepy self and Faith Hill is far more attractive in real life.Does the volume of movies that people like Kidman and Walken put out mean we are to expect more poor efforts. On the DVD Kidman did say that this was a fun relaxing movie after the intense filming of "Birth". Perhaps she should have taken a holiday instead.
Utter waste of talent and money...
posted on 30 Aug 2009Honestly, don't waste your time.The producers were not diligent enough here. The script is a half-baked comedy/fright hybrid that makes no real attempt at shaping an authentic story line. The director forgot to tell Kidman that she can't resort to her teary eyed intensity (a la "the hours") every time it is time to act "emotional" instead of "ironic". The D.P. thought that he could get away with a monotonous washed out look because he was creating a dream land. Dream land doesn't mean the whole thing looks like a cupcake (even when the 'dramatic' scenes are happening). Broderick again cannot find his footing, there is no red Ferrari or 'Twist and Shout' extravaganza to save him this time, one would think an aide would whisper this in his ear. Two points( of ten ) for a palm (not hand) full of great one-liners.2/10