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. Tania
    Jun 14, 2004
    9
    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.
  2. 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
  3. joes.
    Oct 25, 2005
    10
    My favorite movie.
  4. TonyP.
    Jun 17, 2004
    9
    Great play off the orginal. Loved the ending.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. AbbyH.&AmyB.
    Dec 2, 2004
    7
    Amy: Good & Okay Abby: Liked It. Interesting, but not as good as the original.
  8. LuisD.
    Jun 10, 2004
    10
    The style is great and i love walken, midler and the always perfect kidman!!! its all about the homage.
  9. Dudley
    Jun 12, 2004
    1
    Just awful.
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. KelR.
    Jun 14, 2004
    0
    Sexism against men at its finest.
  15. 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!
  16. GeoM.
    Jun 15, 2004
    7
    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.
  17. 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
  18. TomasL.
    Jun 22, 2004
    0
    Let me sum it up in one word for you. SUCKED!
  19. BarryR.
    Jul 1, 2004
    7
    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 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
  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. IlzeS.
    Dec 22, 2004
    1
    This movie was so stupid. I liked only Nicole Kidman. So empty!
  23. Terra
    Jun 11, 2004
    8
    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!
  24. ChadS.
    Jun 11, 2004
    7
    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 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
  25. 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.
  26. DavidS.
    Jun 12, 2004
    9
    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.
  27. 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???
  28. 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. Collapse
  29. MarkB.
    Jun 21, 2004
    8
    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 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
  30. DawnB.
    Jun 21, 2004
    7
    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.
  31. 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!!!!!
  32. HughieW
    Jul 12, 2004
    8
    Funny.
  33. DickM.
    Jul 14, 2004
    7
    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 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
  34. 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
  35. Dec 17, 2012
    8
    Very interesting. One of the weirdest movies I have ever seen and yet it is witty, surprising, and entertaining.
  36. 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.
  37. 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.