The Stepford Wives

"The Stepford Wives" certainly isn't the greatest thriller ever made, it isn't one of my all-time favorite movies, yet I've probably seen it 25 times and I'm always willing to return for more of its creepy, seductive ambiance. Director Bryan Forbes has created a funny/sinister atmosphere surrounding a secretive society of men in suburbia who exchange chilling glances and lines when they are alone ("She cooks as good as she looks, Ted."). It does however feature a very moody and unhappy Katharine Ross at the center, and it's easy to see why somebody might want to bump her off: she gripes, she complains, she stalks out of rooms flicking her long, thick hair out of her face. When Patrick O'Neal tells Ross at a social gathering that he used to work at Disneyland, she balks, "You don't look like someone who enjoys making other people happy." This just after meeting the man! Thank goodness then for happily crass and vulgar Paula Prentiss as Katharine's gal-pal Bobbie. Prentiss overdoes it a bit, but she comes into the picture at the right time and gives it an extra lift. The scenario (a squeaky clean Connecticut community) is gleefully turned inside out to reveal sinister underpinnings, and I loved Ross' sequence with the psychiatrist (who seems convinced by Katharine's outlandish story, which is a nice change of pace). No, it isn't art (or even the black comedy screenwriter William Goldman says he intended it to be), but "The Stepford Wives" is smooth, absorbing and enjoyable. It cooks as good as it looks. ***1/2 from ****

A normal couple move out of the stressful big city to live in a tranquil upper middle class semi- rural community, seeking peace and quiet. The town holds a sinister secret though- why do the wives of Stepford all seem to mindlessly content ? That is the start of this slow paced , surreal , and in some ways silly horror story. Gradually, clues begin the mount and the viewer becomes aware that soothing is very terribly wrong with these women. The last third of the film is better, more intense than the prior segments; the ending makes it all worth the while. Several themes are explored in this movie- an intensification of the 'war' between the sexes, crude stereotypes about that women think men want, the conflict between being independent , an individual, being free, plus Mans desire to 'create.' Some feminists objected to this movie but it should be obvious that , if anything, the movie is anti men, and not anti women at all.

I watched this film without knowing too much about it beforehand, which is the best way to get hit by its surprise revelations - so, as another reviewer suggested, don't read any reviews before seeing it, they'll probably spoil it one way or the other. It is fueled by the same fear that pervaded the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" films - the loss of one's individuality. The director's careful, methodical pacing and his attention to detail may make the film seem slow to impatient viewers, but they pay off in some really chilling moments. Katharine Ross is extremely engaging in the lead....and (not to give anything away but) I'll never forget the image of the woman with no eyes. (***)

It's about Joanna an anxious mom/photographer. Whose husband made her move away from new York to a Mayberry like town if Mayberry was in the twilight zone. She loves her kids and her dogs but her relationship with her husband... Sucks. It slowly unfolds how bad it is and why she is so unhappy.

All of her friends start out normal then they come back from a second honeymoon moon behaving very strangely talking in commercials. Is their something in the water or is something strange going on at the haunted looking mansion?

I love the actress who plays Joanna and adored wacky neighbor ladies. They were both pretty famous back in the day. Also liked the ambiguous ending.

I think they could have went further with it though ? Also wouldn't the kids start to notice something is off or other people interacting with them notice something ain't right?

It's just that good.... and, it is proof that you don't need a big budget to make a great movie. It is a very original and complete movie, in my mind (in other words, I can't think of a way to improve upon it). OK; so why didn't I give it ten stars? I'm not sure, to be honest, I guess I'm just stingy with my ratings.

I like movies that stick with me, make me think about the story afterwards, and want to watch it again some day, which this clearly does.