User Score
3.6

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 98 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 27 out of 98
  2. Negative: 50 out of 98
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. MichaelM.
    Oct 22, 2004
    5
    It's entertaining, witty and fun to watch - but it doesn't hold a candle to the original. The plot has a lot of holes, and some of the story isn't clearly told. The acting is what to be expected. Christopher Walken should have had a bigger part, and Bette Midler kind of stole the movie. Nicole Kidman I wasn't too impressed with, Glenn Close gives a solid performance It's entertaining, witty and fun to watch - but it doesn't hold a candle to the original. The plot has a lot of holes, and some of the story isn't clearly told. The acting is what to be expected. Christopher Walken should have had a bigger part, and Bette Midler kind of stole the movie. Nicole Kidman I wasn't too impressed with, Glenn Close gives a solid performance and Mathew Broderick is good in his role. Jon Lovitz has a funny small part as Bette Midler's couch potato womanizing husband. It's a "wait till video" kind of movie. Expand
  2. VinceH.
    Jun 12, 2004
    5
    I went into this film knowing very little about it, and must say I was a bit disappointed. The movie has spirited performances from the mostly-game cast, and Frank Oz clearly enjoys poking fun at the suburbia-cum-nightmare that is Stepford. The film's look has a bright, plastic and sunny sheen that perfectly captures the exterior "lie" that is Stepford. The ending attempts to be dark I went into this film knowing very little about it, and must say I was a bit disappointed. The movie has spirited performances from the mostly-game cast, and Frank Oz clearly enjoys poking fun at the suburbia-cum-nightmare that is Stepford. The film's look has a bright, plastic and sunny sheen that perfectly captures the exterior "lie" that is Stepford. The ending attempts to be dark and satirical but falls flat because it seems rush and loses a lot of its narrative drive. Entertaining and worth to rent on DVD, but there are a lot more movies out there. Expand
  3. PatrickM.
    Jun 14, 2004
    4
    All about the homage? Hey, I like walken like a fat boy loves cake, but let's not go overboard: this movie was a huge disappointment for me. I expected a witty, funny tour de force exploiting the wealthy suburban stereotype. Instead, Stepford offered up a watered down, boring, robotic town. The only thing I actually enjoyed about the movie was the flamboyant NY Times writer. He was All about the homage? Hey, I like walken like a fat boy loves cake, but let's not go overboard: this movie was a huge disappointment for me. I expected a witty, funny tour de force exploiting the wealthy suburban stereotype. Instead, Stepford offered up a watered down, boring, robotic town. The only thing I actually enjoyed about the movie was the flamboyant NY Times writer. He was great, but then he got "stepfordized" and with it went the movie. One thing that bothered me was the ending. I won't delve into it for those suckers that go to see this, but it was extremely uncreative and...there's that word again FORCED. I was wondering where Condaleeza Rice was...I saw her and Hillary in the preview, but didn't see them in there. Oh well, it couldn't have rescued this forced summer flick. Expand
  4. PeterA.
    Jun 14, 2004
    4
    Not as bad as the buzz and the critics seem to be saying, but ultimately pointless. With all the creative team and cast they assembled, this should have been MUCH better. I have been thinking all weekend, though, and I'm not sure this project could have succeeded no matter what they did. And where was Faith Hill? I would hardly say her screen time merited her even being billed!
  5. WakoJako
    Jun 16, 2004
    6
    I liked the comical treatment of this absurd tale, except for the atrocious ending. Poor Glenn Close. Won't somebody give that classy actress a decent big screen role???
  6. Triniman
    Jun 19, 2004
    6
    This works as a satire. It's also a bit creepy, but there's a fair amount of laughs. Nicole Kidman is a powerful, popular CEO of a TV studio that specializes in reality shows. Matthew Broderick plays one of her employees, a VP. Kidman gets fired and the family moves to the idyllic, pristine, gated community of Stepford, Connecticut. Early on, they realize that something weird is This works as a satire. It's also a bit creepy, but there's a fair amount of laughs. Nicole Kidman is a powerful, popular CEO of a TV studio that specializes in reality shows. Matthew Broderick plays one of her employees, a VP. Kidman gets fired and the family moves to the idyllic, pristine, gated community of Stepford, Connecticut. Early on, they realize that something weird is going on as the women are all like giddy airheads, always wearing dresses and high heels, while the men are relatively normal, if not a tad nerdy. This film makes some prickly comments about societal trends, hence its satirical side. Bette Midler is very funny. Glen Close looks badly preserved, Kidman and Broderick are fine and Christopher Walken is excellent. Due to the weak ending, this film falls short of being a must-see, though. Expand
  7. KevinE.
    Jan 31, 2005
    4
    Just keep telling yourself, 'It's about the art direction." and you might make it through. Really uneven, starts out cringe-ingly bad with Kidman mugging up a storm at her firing, picks up with the arrival of Glenn Close, falters again, picks up again with the arrival of Roger Bart as Stepford's flamingest newcomer, falters again, Midler valiantly rescues it, Walken buries Just keep telling yourself, 'It's about the art direction." and you might make it through. Really uneven, starts out cringe-ingly bad with Kidman mugging up a storm at her firing, picks up with the arrival of Glenn Close, falters again, picks up again with the arrival of Roger Bart as Stepford's flamingest newcomer, falters again, Midler valiantly rescues it, Walken buries it again... and on and on. A few surprisingly good, comic moments but mostly a mess. No one bothered to decide whether or not the robots were separate from or the same as the original human that was tinkered with (details!). Expand
  8. Sep 1, 2014
    4
    Frank Oz's The Stepford Wives starts out incredibly strong. As the story unfolds, both the direction, the actors and the audiences lose sight of what's going on. An unfortunate waste of ample on-screen talent.
  9. Apr 20, 2013
    4
    The story is bullsh*t, it's sexist as hell, and bland and shallow characters take a back seat to mediocre special effects that you're more likely to see on a YouTube video that was made on Adobe Flash! This movie sucks!
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.