Paramount Pictures | Release Date: June 11, 2004
3.5
USER SCORE
Generally unfavorable reviews based on 102 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
27
Mixed:
22
Negative:
53
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
9
TonyP.Jun 17, 2004
Great play off the orginal. Loved the ending.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
PeterJ.Feb 15, 2005
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. 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MichaelM.Oct 22, 2004
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
AbbyH.&AmyB.Dec 2, 2004
Amy: Good & Okay Abby: Liked It. Interesting, but not as good as the original.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
LuisD.Jun 10, 2004
The style is great and i love walken, midler and the always perfect kidman!!! its all about the homage.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
DudleyJun 12, 2004
Just awful.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
EfeB.Jul 30, 2004
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
AnnL.Jul 3, 2004
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
joes.Oct 25, 2005
My favorite movie.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
5
VinceH.Jun 12, 2004
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. 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
TaniaJun 14, 2004
I thought it was a cute movie. I am not sure why it is rated so low. It was entertaining and fun to watch. I would recommend it.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
4
PatrickM.Jun 14, 2004
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, 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
KelR.Jun 14, 2004
Sexism against men at its finest.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
PeterA.Jun 14, 2004
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 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! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
GeoM.Jun 15, 2004
OK, it's not going to win any awards and it wasn't the comic tour de force I had hoped for, but my 16 yr old son, my 21 yr old daughter, my wife and I all thought it was worth the matinee price. Midler was funny as ever and I loved OK, it's not going to win any awards and it wasn't the comic tour de force I had hoped for, but my 16 yr old son, my 21 yr old daughter, my wife and I all thought it was worth the matinee price. Midler was funny as ever and I loved the gay couple. It's a summer movie for cripes sake! It's not supposed to be good, it's supposed to be fun, and it is. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
HadesJun 15, 2004
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
TomasL.Jun 22, 2004
Let me sum it up in one word for you. SUCKED!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
BarryR.Jul 1, 2004
Left with no other movie playing at the time we wanted to go, I reluctantly made plans to see "The Stepford Wives". I had been told by some that it was not good and by others that they had left the theater in the middle so as not to have to Left with no other movie playing at the time we wanted to go, I reluctantly made plans to see "The Stepford Wives". I had been told by some that it was not good and by others that they had left the theater in the middle so as not to have to endure its viewing. One lone soul had told me it was a comedy (which was a surprise to me) so off we went to see it. Surprise, surprise, it was not only a comedy but a very tolerable one at that. I guess filled with the expectation that it would be a "loser", anything more seemed greater. However, in fairness to the film, it is a masterpiece of writing when you remember that the original was not only serious but also macabre in its treatment of women in particular and Paula Prentiss in the end (the film's, not hers). This film is funny and very enjoyable. It is light and well-written with terrific performances by Christopher Walken, Nicole Kidman, Mathew Broderick and Bette Midler. There is plenty of chauvinism to go around with men as well as women being the targets. No Academy Award nominations likely but it does earn a 7,0 rating for being entertaining, interesting and, from a technical point of view, an extremely good writing and directorial effort in taking a serious cult classic and making it a humorous endeavor that really works. Replace your spouse's battery and take him or her with you to enjoy the film. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
NicoleJul 10, 2005
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
NickA.Sep 16, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
IlzeS.Dec 22, 2004
This movie was so stupid. I liked only Nicole Kidman. So empty!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
TerraJun 11, 2004
I REALLY thought they pulled this movie off. I don't agree with the low score given to this film. I went with 2 friends (we all have different taste in films) and we all REALLY liked the film. It was funny and they did a nice job of I REALLY thought they pulled this movie off. I don't agree with the low score given to this film. I went with 2 friends (we all have different taste in films) and we all REALLY liked the film. It was funny and they did a nice job of remaking it and adding some great new twists! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
ChadS.Jun 11, 2004
When "The Stepford Wives" bids adieu to the 1975 template, confusion as to the makeup of the Stepford women calls into play, and we're no longer sure if they're humans or androids. There's some ideas, and laughs, a rarity in When "The Stepford Wives" bids adieu to the 1975 template, confusion as to the makeup of the Stepford women calls into play, and we're no longer sure if they're humans or androids. There's some ideas, and laughs, a rarity in contemporary comedic films, so it's a shame that the film isn't sure what the women are. "The Stepford Wives" begs to be darker in tone, a black comedy, instead of the lighthearted farce we get here. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
DennyH.Jun 12, 2004
Creepy, badly assembled, poorly written, philosophically sophomoric, coarse, and visually unpleasant. In fact, in terms of both both style and substance, it's ugly.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
DavidS.Jun 12, 2004
I thought this was really fun and entertaining. The tone of the film was perfect and even though the logic in it is lacking, that didn't stop me from getting into the surrealistic goofiness of the story. Also, it was beautifully photographed.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
WakoJakoJun 16, 2004
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???
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
TrinimanJun 19, 2004
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. 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
MarkB.Jun 21, 2004
I really despised the 1975 straight horror version of Ira Levin's bestseller; not only was watching the destruction of such smart, funny, likable women an incredibly depressing experience, but I was insulted as a man to be told that all I really despised the 1975 straight horror version of Ira Levin's bestseller; not only was watching the destruction of such smart, funny, likable women an incredibly depressing experience, but I was insulted as a man to be told that all I want in a woman is a sex robot. (Well, maybe once in awhile...) Maybe that's why, despite all the negative buzz, I thought that this satiric inversion worked pretty wonderfully. Screenwriter Paul Rudnick recognizes the absurdity of the premise early on and runs with it; you gotta love a movie that: (A) finds something fresh to say about reality TV; (B) casts Christopher Walken and Glenn Close in roles that take magnificent advantage of both their firmly-established screen personae AND the contradictions within; (C) realizes as nobody else has since Gus Van Sant's To Die For that Nicole Kidman is a far more powerful comedic presence than a dramatic one (except for Dogville); and (D) gives Faith Hill a perfect bit as a Stepford wife who's just a tad too fond of square dancing. Rudnick's script is loaded with sparkling one-liners and dialogue; his depiction of a women's club meeting that focuses on the virtues of pine cones (!!!) may be the single funniest movie scene so far this year. Let's not forget the underrated director Frank Oz, who pulls it all together; working with Oz, Rudnick also gave us the delightful In & Out; without Oz, Rudnick's scripts for Isn't She Great and Marci X sputter and die onscreen. Perhaps the architects of Stepford can find a way to physically join the two talents so that Rudnick can't make a move (or movie) without Oz. Just kidding! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
DawnB.Jun 21, 2004
Fun Movie. It's not meant to be taken seriously. My husband and I throughly enjoyed it. Sometimes you need some mindless fun. Great start to the summer movies.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
THJun 28, 2004
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!!!!!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
HughieWJul 12, 2004
Funny.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
DickM.Jul 14, 2004
This was better than I thought it would be. The beginning, which poked fun at reality tv shows, was pretty hilarious and the rest of the movie is generally enjoyable. This is the first time I could tolerate Bette Midler or Glenn Close in a This was better than I thought it would be. The beginning, which poked fun at reality tv shows, was pretty hilarious and the rest of the movie is generally enjoyable. This is the first time I could tolerate Bette Midler or Glenn Close in a movie. The flamboyantly gay character was surprisingly funny and not annoying like Sean Hayes from Will and Grace or any other exagerated gay character. I have a slight problem with the ending which took a very hollywood like twist when it could've ended on a very cool creepy scene. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
KevinE.Jan 31, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
smijatovFeb 14, 2012
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 theThis 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
8
ZilcellDec 17, 2012
Very interesting. One of the weirdest movies I have ever seen and yet it is witty, surprising, and entertaining.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
beingryanjudeSep 1, 2014
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
DanteKusagariApr 20, 2013
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!
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews