Et l'homme créa la femme

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

The original STEPFORD WIVES was a creepy movie with subtle touches of humor. That subtlety allowed the suspense and the sense of danger to build slowly, leading up to a rather disturbing finale. In this version, there is no subtlety or building up. Rather, the tone shifts are as jarring as jump cuts. It's a satire! It's a "campy" comedy! It's a suspense thriller! Look out! Here comes a happy ending! Not to mention the inconsistencies regarding the "Stepfordization" of the wives (discussed in other user comments). It's as if Frank Oz and company threw a bunch of unrelated scenes together and hoped no one would notice.

As for the cast, it's a disappointment to see such interesting actors and actresses assembled in such a weak film. Blame Paul Rudnick, whose campy-queeny- faggy humor is really wearing thin. (And I can write that because I'm gay!)

Didn't Bette Midler learn her lesson after ISN'T SHE GREAT????

I encourage everyone out there to run to the video store and rent the original.

First off if you are going in to see this based on the original movie or the book than you will definitely give this little to zero stars.

Thus I think is why the rating on it is so low. Everyone is basing it upon the edge-of-your-seat thriller that came out so many years before it.

But - if you come to see it with an open mind as a very silly science fiction movie and parody, definitely a comedy, then you're going to come away with a greater peace of mind and a chuckle in your chest.

It stars major characters such as Nicole Kidman, Matthew Broderick, Bette Midler, Glenn Close, Christopher Walken, Jon Lovitz, Faith Hill, and Larry King just to name a few. And it's fun and funny.

It is =NOT= a serious film like the first one was. The first one was epic, a real mystery, a real slow burn, a must watch film. And if you haven't seen it yet, don't spoil yourself by watching this first. No, go to see THAT one first, then this one as a very sweet after dinner dessert.

For this particular incarnation is like a sugar coated Easter egg with a bite already taken out of it, dripping with gooey sweetness to show you how silly and completely off the wall it is. It is not in the least bit scary.

Place this more along the lines of PLEASANTVILLE and you have a more accurate picture on the theme, plot, and general and overall feeling of the film. --dw817 (11-13-19)

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.