The secret to a Stepford wife lies behind the doors of the Men's Association.The secret to a Stepford wife lies behind the doors of the Men's Association.The secret to a Stepford wife lies behind the doors of the Men's Association.
- Awards
- 3 wins total
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
5.472.9K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Featured reviews
Lighten up, people
Many 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!
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!
Not what you think.
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)
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)
Light hearted, better then the reviews have you believe.
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
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
fluff gone wild
If you spent $10 for this movie, you would undoubtedly want 8.50 of it back. As it is, I spent $3.95 on movies on demand and felt cheated.
This is an extremely flimsy movie drenched in color with a fantastic cast that falls short of being either scary or funny. One certainly expects more - a lot more - from Paul Rudnick. There were a lot of missed opportunities here, due to the fact that the film couldn't figure out what it wanted to be.
Glenn Close is positively hilarious as the head matron, but most of the rest of this marvelous cast, including Nicole Kidman, Bette Midler, Christopher Walken, and Matthew Broderick are wasted. There are some very good moments, and the opening credits are brilliant. But ultimately it falls short.
And I mean short. As a screenwriter myself, I know that a script must be at least 90 pages. If this movie was 75 pages, I'll eat one of Glenn Close's gorgeous hats. Folks, don't rip off your audience like that. It's not good business.
This is an extremely flimsy movie drenched in color with a fantastic cast that falls short of being either scary or funny. One certainly expects more - a lot more - from Paul Rudnick. There were a lot of missed opportunities here, due to the fact that the film couldn't figure out what it wanted to be.
Glenn Close is positively hilarious as the head matron, but most of the rest of this marvelous cast, including Nicole Kidman, Bette Midler, Christopher Walken, and Matthew Broderick are wasted. There are some very good moments, and the opening credits are brilliant. But ultimately it falls short.
And I mean short. As a screenwriter myself, I know that a script must be at least 90 pages. If this movie was 75 pages, I'll eat one of Glenn Close's gorgeous hats. Folks, don't rip off your audience like that. It's not good business.
A film made by a focus group, rather than anyone artistic
Standing alongside The Wicker Man as the worst remake ever this really is a pile of utter nonsense. The original had a good story to tell but this one is just a joke.
Nicole Kidman would seem to be the perfect choice for a robotic woman, I've never seen her show any emotions whatsoever. You can't really blame the cast, the script is so poor that even the best actor would struggle to convey any meaning in their lines.
The studio weren't too happy with the downbeat ending so ordered a change, and then another, and then another. This ensured that this movie has a happy smiley ending and the fact that it makes NO SENSE whatsoever didn't seem to worry them because in their minds we the viewers are basically vegetables that just need to be exposed to some flickering images for about an hour and a half.
An entire army of producers cut this one up and made an absolute mess of it, it's barely even a proper film let alone a coherent story. You know what's really frightening though? It still gets a 5 star rating (at the time of writing) so most people think this trash is average.
Even for bad movie fans there's just nothing to enjoy, the whole film is atrocious and the fact that it is a remake of a good film just plunges the knife in deeper. Deserves a spot in the bottom 100.
Nicole Kidman would seem to be the perfect choice for a robotic woman, I've never seen her show any emotions whatsoever. You can't really blame the cast, the script is so poor that even the best actor would struggle to convey any meaning in their lines.
The studio weren't too happy with the downbeat ending so ordered a change, and then another, and then another. This ensured that this movie has a happy smiley ending and the fact that it makes NO SENSE whatsoever didn't seem to worry them because in their minds we the viewers are basically vegetables that just need to be exposed to some flickering images for about an hour and a half.
An entire army of producers cut this one up and made an absolute mess of it, it's barely even a proper film let alone a coherent story. You know what's really frightening though? It still gets a 5 star rating (at the time of writing) so most people think this trash is average.
Even for bad movie fans there's just nothing to enjoy, the whole film is atrocious and the fact that it is a remake of a good film just plunges the knife in deeper. Deserves a spot in the bottom 100.
Did you know
- TriviaHeavily re-edited and re-written following test screenings, with new scenes shot and others deleted. The attempts to cater to audience tastes backfired as the new edits and scenes created continuity errors and major story problems.
- GoofsWhen the family is driving to Stepford, Pete says "But why are we moving?". Kimberly can be clearly seen mouthing his line before saying "to Conneticut?"
- Quotes
Claire Wellington: I asked myself, "Where would people never notice a town full of robots?"
[gasps]
Claire Wellington: Connecticut.
- Crazy creditsIn the credits, Corning is credited with "cutlured stone" rather than "cultured stone".
- SoundtracksA Fifth of Beethoven
Written by Walter Murphy and Ludwig van Beethoven (uncredited)
Performed by Walter Murphy
Courtesy of Thomas J. Valentino Inc.
- How long is The Stepford Wives?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Las Mujeres Perfectas
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $90,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $59,484,742
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $21,406,781
- Jun 13, 2004
- Gross worldwide
- $103,370,281
- Runtime
- 1h 33m(93 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content






