User Score
3.6

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 97 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 34 out of 97
  2. Negative: 50 out of 97
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Feb 14, 2012
    2
    This was such a bad comedy! The cast is actually quite impressive, but they do not do much with their shallow characters - and how could they?? Horrible screenplay, and just a bad film overall... Nicole Kidman is decent in the film, and the overall cast is good. Bette Midler is pretty good and pretty much the most entertaining character in this "comedy." As Kidman said at a press statementThis was such a bad comedy! The cast is actually quite impressive, but they do not do much with their shallow characters - and how could they?? Horrible screenplay, and just a bad film overall... Nicole Kidman is decent in the film, and the overall cast is good. Bette Midler is pretty good and pretty much the most entertaining character in this "comedy." As Kidman said at a press statement once "It's a comedy. We hope." Unfortunately, that hope did not materialise into reality, since there is almost nothing funny about The Stepford Wives. It is not even bad enough to be funny - that's how bad it is! The 2 is truly only out of my respect for the misguided actors and for rather good production design - the costumes and art direction were both very well done. Overall, though, a film that had a lot of potential has been sucked dry of all its originality, charm and, most importantly, its humour. 2/10 Expand
  2. PeterJ.
    Feb 15, 2005
    3
    I rented this movie because my wife wanted to see it, so I was not expecting much at all. I expected it to be bad, and sure enough, it was. The biggest thing that bothered me was the casting. Kidman and Broderick do not go together at all. Bad chemistry. The rest of the movie was truly a bore, even my wife fell alseep. Again, I wasn't expecting much, so I can't say I was I rented this movie because my wife wanted to see it, so I was not expecting much at all. I expected it to be bad, and sure enough, it was. The biggest thing that bothered me was the casting. Kidman and Broderick do not go together at all. Bad chemistry. The rest of the movie was truly a bore, even my wife fell alseep. Again, I wasn't expecting much, so I can't say I was disappointed at all. Expand
  3. Dudley
    Jun 12, 2004
    1
    Just awful.
  4. EfeB.
    Jul 30, 2004
    1
    Frank oz. mr. voice of yoda and muppet show hero from the eighties. unfortunatelly mr. oz thinks he is still back in the eighties it seems because he has made or shall we say "un-made" a movie that is filled with old-school cliches. i say un-made because he has managed somehow to sink this multi milion dollar boat which was quietly sitting on a lake for at least an hour and a half when Frank oz. mr. voice of yoda and muppet show hero from the eighties. unfortunatelly mr. oz thinks he is still back in the eighties it seems because he has made or shall we say "un-made" a movie that is filled with old-school cliches. i say un-made because he has managed somehow to sink this multi milion dollar boat which was quietly sitting on a lake for at least an hour and a half when suddenly a gigantic iceberg fell on top of it. the stepford wives had a good story formula, "perfection equals inhuman" for some reason the whole film crew fell asleep when mr. oz decided that wasn't enough and twisted and squeezed the story to a sour twizler where the only way to end the mess was to call up the all american microphone background larry king himself. he is perfect to end this film because its the only polite way to tell the audience that they have been cheated and that their two and plus hours in that theatre was a crime in the art of movie making. nicole kidman's performance however is a good one, so good infact that makes me think she might have thought she was in a different movie while she was making it. in any case, i am sure she knows frank oz is not exactly stanley kubrick and she knows that we know that also....so....carry on dear ms. kidman; we still love you. for frank oz however, this film should be a hint that the audience are not puppets (unlike the ones in the muppet show). if you make a movie that "explains" everything, carry that over-explanation into the actors performances and further carry it to a point where the only way to salvage a film is to just yank on the fire sirens and exit all living creatures out of the movie theatre...you will be the only one standing there and loving your own self indulgent "i am no puppeteer", "where is my oscar?...look i have kidman!!!" un-movie. Expand
  5. AnnL.
    Jul 3, 2004
    1
    What? What? What? Tell me why, when the women all have computer chips in their brains, do Broderick's and Kidman's characters come upon a robot whose vacant eyes flick open at them? Where are the robots? Please. And the one liner "jokes." Especially the one directed at AOL was worth every groan in the theater. The only good thing, Nicole Kidman's hair. It's always so What? What? What? Tell me why, when the women all have computer chips in their brains, do Broderick's and Kidman's characters come upon a robot whose vacant eyes flick open at them? Where are the robots? Please. And the one liner "jokes." Especially the one directed at AOL was worth every groan in the theater. The only good thing, Nicole Kidman's hair. It's always so interesting because it looks so fake. Expand
  6. KelR.
    Jun 14, 2004
    0
    Sexism against men at its finest.
  7. Hades
    Jun 15, 2004
    2
    Wow... I was left speechless in my disgust after being subjected to this drivel. I haven't been so insulted by blatantly ignorant sexist stereotypes in a long time but they were so frequent and layed on so thick in this film that i was quite disturbed. Not even just against men, against women too (and I realize that is somewhat of the film's purpose or message..), yeah, one Wow... I was left speechless in my disgust after being subjected to this drivel. I haven't been so insulted by blatantly ignorant sexist stereotypes in a long time but they were so frequent and layed on so thick in this film that i was quite disturbed. Not even just against men, against women too (and I realize that is somewhat of the film's purpose or message..), yeah, one could argue the film stresses empowerment, personal choice, the unifying power of true love... Bla.. bla... bla... Every moment where the movie attempts to be profound or touching falls flat on its face. I wasn't even genuinely entertained during the movie save for a COUPLE of slight laughs. I couldn't help but sit and dread the experience and wonder when the predictable ending would rear its ugly head, and sure enough it did (not soon enough) but not before throwing in some half assed "plot twist" near the end, which added nothing to the already abysmal storyline. This is easily one of the worst films I've seen in quite awhile. Predictable, no heart, no soul, ignorant, stupid. Expand
  8. TomasL.
    Jun 22, 2004
    0
    Let me sum it up in one word for you. SUCKED!
  9. Nicole
    Jul 10, 2005
    0
    To begin, I am a Kidman fan and I also enjoyed the original Stepford Wives movie. Because of the previews, I did not expect this movie to be great, and was surprised when it turned out to be FAR worse than I thought. The revised plot is terrible, the "acting" is insulting, and the ending is ridiculous. I advise you to save yourself. It is not worth the time or effort to see - not even on cable.
  10. NickA.
    Sep 16, 2006
    1
    Well what an insult to the original, I don't care if people say this is a different take or that this is just a bit of cheesy fun, if you're going to call yourselves a remake of a film then for god sakes stick to the elements that made the original so splendid. I mean how can you take such a good cast and turn out this pile of crap. This goes down in my lists of remakes that Well what an insult to the original, I don't care if people say this is a different take or that this is just a bit of cheesy fun, if you're going to call yourselves a remake of a film then for god sakes stick to the elements that made the original so splendid. I mean how can you take such a good cast and turn out this pile of crap. This goes down in my lists of remakes that should never see the light of day ever again. Expand
  11. IlzeS.
    Dec 22, 2004
    1
    This movie was so stupid. I liked only Nicole Kidman. So empty!
  12. DennyH.
    Jun 12, 2004
    1
    Creepy, badly assembled, poorly written, philosophically sophomoric, coarse, and visually unpleasant. In fact, in terms of both both style and substance, it's ugly.
  13. TH
    Jun 28, 2004
    0
    Oh, Putrid! An extreme bastardization of the novel, and a failure as a farce. In fact, this movie was so bad, I believe it attempted to be a farce AFTER it was fully edited as a quasi-comedy. Save your $9!!!!!
Metascore
42

Mixed or average reviews - based on 40 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 40
  2. Negative: 14 out of 40
  1. At no time do the men -- that is, the straight ones -- believably hold the upper hand. In the new town of Stepford, there's no bitterness, no struggle, no competition, none of the scars of the sexual revolution. There's just gay apparel.
  2. 80
    Contrary to recent rumors that it was a dud, the new Stepford Wives, with its chocolate-box visual style, archly heavy-handed foreshadowing and its scene-for-scene parody of the original's fright strategies (Walken's waxy menace is once again played for laughs), is a gas.
  3. Because the entire audience knows what's going on, the filmmakers hope to distract viewers from storytelling weaknesses with an urgent sense of style.