Log in / Sign up
 
    Share this page

    The Stepford Wives

    Reviewed by
    adamwatchesmovies@

    Even if you haven't seen the original "Stepford Wives" or you are unaware (until now) that this is a remake, you will still find yourself thinking that something's amiss with this 2004 film. I haven’t seen the original but what someone means when they say “Stepford Wife” and by osmosis I sort of knew what the premise was going to be going in. I was able to see between the lines. It’s a bad movie that by virtue of being diluted from something good kind of works as a lousy trailer for the original work and has some moments so it has small instances of redemption.

    Joanna Eberhart (Nicole Kidman) is a successful reality television producer who loses her job after her latest show results in a shooting spree (which I actually thought was pretty funny) With her husband (Matthew Broderick) and their two children they move to the quiet suburb of Stepford. There the husbands are happy, the wives cook sumptuous meals, everything is always tidy, and the lawns are impeccable. Heck, everything is just about perfect. Too perfect.

    An immediate mistake I spotted was that the story is set in modern times, when it clearly shouldn’t be. There’s an attempt to update the material, but it only goes halfway. I think there is something to be said about how changing roles in day-to-day life might have created an underlying resentment from men towards successful women, but you’re not going to find it here. The satire at the beginning of the movie for example, with the reality TV and game shows are good, showing scenarios that are actual probable (and in some cases very similar to actual shows that aired on television at some point) When Joanna is forced to move to a place where her life with the family will be a lot more peaceful it looks promising. The attempt to slowly build suspense and have the audience ask questions about how “perfect” this “perfect neighbourhood” is doesn’t work at all however. You need some subtlety to pull this kind of tale off, and "The Stepford Wives" has none.

    Joanna is depicted as an intelligent, successful and even forceful woman who pretty much always gets what she wants. The idea with the story is that she notices that there’s something about this place that is changing the women, or at least strongly encouraging them to adopt attitudes that they wouldn’t have normally. Although she notices that there's something amiss, there's never any real feel of urgency or fear that whatever has happened to everyone else is going to happen to her. One of the reasons for this is the casting. Nicole Kidman is already such an attractive woman that there seems little reason to have her change her looks. She’s not depicted as having any unbearable flaws like being neglectful or frigid either so there’s no tension. It’s classic bad casting because the lead is too sexy. Had Joanna been someone who was not necessarily ugly, but maybe plain, you could see why her husband would be interested in some of the other resident's wives. Maybe he’s not willing to cheat on her, but influence her in the way that so many others seem to have been transformed. That would make you wonder how much time Joanna has before “the change” happens to her as well. There is also a weird disconnect between what the audience will think that a "perfect wife" is, and what the film is going to try and sell you. This picture is a mish mash of elements from the 70’s crammed into the 2000's.

    The ending is also a major letdown. It’s way too safe and firmly plants this story as a comedy instead of what it should be: a thriller horror. “The Stepford Wives” feels like it needs to be darker and have a strong message about women standing up for themselves lest they become "Stepford Wives" themselves but instead we get silly fluff. What’s going on here?

    There are a couple of interesting elements to the film and like I said, you can se enough things that in theory could work that it will make you interested in seeing the original film. Is it worth the 93 minutes? I don’t really think so. On the upside though, I saw a few nice (what I assume to be) additions, like a gay spouse who is also in danger of becoming a "Stepford Husband" and some comical scenes, like the parodies at the beginning that are fun. The whole movie feels dumbed down and there is at least one scene that doesn't make any sense once you have seen the conclusion of the film (the ATM scene in case you missed it) It’s a misguided effort by someone who heard the premise and thought it was really interesting but missed the subtext entirely. (Full-screen version on DVD, March 4, 2013)

    4
    HelpfulNot helpful  Reply
    adamwatchesmovies@  24.11.2015 age: 26-35 2,866 reviews

    Show all reviews for this movie
    Note: The movie review posted on this page reflects a personal opinion of one user. We are not responsible for its content.

    Did you see ''The Stepford Wives''?

    There is a problem with your e-mail address and we are unable to communicate with you. Please go to My Account to update your email.

    How do you rate this movie?

    Select stars from 1 to 10.
    10 - A masterpiece, go, see it now
    9 - Excellent movie, a must see
    8 - Great movie, don't miss it
    7 - Good movie, worth seeing
    6 - Not bad, could be much better
    5 - So so, okay if you don't pay
    4 - Not good, even if you don't pay
    3 - Poor movie, not recommended
    2 - Very bad, forget about it
    1 - Worst ever, avoid at all costs

    Please explain. Write your comment here:

    Please choose a username to sign your comments. Only letters, digits, dash - or period. Minimum 4 characters.

    Your age and sex:

    We publish all comments, except abusive, at our discretion.