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
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.
Great credit sequence, downhill from there!
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.
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.
New adaptation from Ira Levin's best seller with a beauty Nicole Kidman
Charming Joanna (Nicole Kidman) is a successful and creative journalist of a TV channel , then she suffers a breakdown for a programme . She along with her hubby (Matthew Broderick) and children are moved from Manhattan towards the quaint little town of Stepford (Conneticut) , a very modern and upper class location . She didn't like the neighborhood with attractive and perfect but unintelligent housewives . She is concerned that many wives spend their lives in domestic slavery . Joanna early befriends a pair good friends (Bette Midler and John Lovitz). Meanwhile , her husband joins the mysterious Stepford Men's club (run by a powerful Christopher Walken and married another too perfect wife , Glenn Close) which takes place in an old Manor house . Joanna soon discovers there lies a dark truth about the strange and servitude behavior in the all female residents and the sinister secrets hidden in the Stepford town .
The film is an amiable comedy with sci-fi , thriller elements and a little bit of drama . Heavily 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 . The casting is frankly well . Thus , a beautiful Kidman and good comedian actors : Broderick, Midler , Lovitz . Jolly and lively music by David Arnold . Special mention to colorful and glimmer cinematography by Rob Hahm . This new rendition is preferably a comedy , while the old version by Brian Forbes with Katherine Ross and Paula Prentiss was a chiller and considered to be very superior and being almost a classic film and followed three inferior sequels : ¨Revenge Stepford wives ¨, ¨Stepford children¨, ¨Stepford husbands¨ . The film was regularly directed by Frank Oz . The picture will appeal to the gorgeous Nicole Kidman fans. Rating : Average but amusing .
The film is an amiable comedy with sci-fi , thriller elements and a little bit of drama . Heavily 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 . The casting is frankly well . Thus , a beautiful Kidman and good comedian actors : Broderick, Midler , Lovitz . Jolly and lively music by David Arnold . Special mention to colorful and glimmer cinematography by Rob Hahm . This new rendition is preferably a comedy , while the old version by Brian Forbes with Katherine Ross and Paula Prentiss was a chiller and considered to be very superior and being almost a classic film and followed three inferior sequels : ¨Revenge Stepford wives ¨, ¨Stepford children¨, ¨Stepford husbands¨ . The film was regularly directed by Frank Oz . The picture will appeal to the gorgeous Nicole Kidman fans. Rating : Average but amusing .
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.
Forget this mess and rent the original!
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.
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.
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






