Digital Theatre [DTheatre.com]
 SPONSOR
Search for  

NAVIGATION
HOME/NEWS
BUY DVD MOVIES
THE CHATBOARD
SUBMIT NEWS
HELP
COMPANY INFO
CONTACT US
LOGIN
Username:
Password:
Need an account?
Sign up Now!
Note: Logged in users do not have pop-ups and pop-unders.
More Options
User Utilities
Help

Quote of the day:

"Viddy well, little brother. Viddy well." -- Malcolm McDowell (A Clockwork Orange)
SPONSORS



Topic: Film NY Times STEPFORD WIVES Review
By Wind(up)bird on June 11, 2004 6:28 AM

Making fun of images like these — smiling women in Eisenhower-era perms and evening gowns swooning over their automated kitchen cabinets — has become such a tiresome pop-culture staple that you may wonder if the movie, which opens today nationwide, has anything new to say about feminism, suburbia or consumer society.

The answer is not really, but it does manage to fire off a handful of decent jokes and a few sneaky insights before losing its nerve and collapsing into incoherence.

The source for both this film and the earlier one, which starred Katharine Ross and Paula Prentiss, is a slim, efficient novel by Ira Levin that uses the conventions of suspense fiction as a vehicle for allegory and social satire. Mr. Levin's Stepford, Conn., was a pleasant middle-class suburb whose menfolk, threatened by the rather mild feminism of their wives, killed them off and replaced them with subservient, sexually compliant robots.

The first "Stepford Wives" exploited the horror-movie implications of this premise, rather than its comic possibilities. Mr. Oz and Paul Rudnick, the screenwriter, swerve maniacally in the opposite direction, whipping up a gaudy, noisy farce that perpetually threatens to spin out of control and eventually does. The music, by David Arnold, is full of overdone, campy melodrama, like an Elmer Bernstein score for a Three Stooges picture. The performances — in particular that of Glenn Close as Stepford's robot matriarch — are both sly and overstated, giving Mr. Rudnick's sneaky one-liners a chance to be heard amid the cacophonous silliness.

Needless to say, a lot has changed in 30 years: now, Stepford is a gated subdivision full of late-model S.U.V.'s and sprawling stone McMansions, where a gay couple is welcomed and where everyone is white. (In Mr. Levin's novel a black family had just come to town, but I guess they've moved away.) Sexual politics have also come a long way. Joanna Eberhart, who dabbled in photography when she was played by Ms. Ross, is now, in the person of Nicole Kidman, the ruthless, ambitious head of a television network. Fired in the wake of a reality-show disaster, Joanna has a quick nervous breakdown and is then spirited off to Stepford by her nebbishy, beta-male husband, Walter (Matthew Broderick).

In the earlier "Stepford," the flight from New York was implicitly motivated by fear of urban chaos and social collapse. This time, though, the Eberharts are fleeing from the soul-emptying consequences of their own ambition, seeking out the cozy simplicity of an affluent world in which no one seems to have, or to need, a job. The husbands, a collection of lumpy, khaki-wearing dweebs (with the exception of Christopher Walken, their guru of old-school masculinity), congregate in the clubby headquarters of the Men's Association, which is also where their robot workshop is housed. The wives, meanwhile, cheerfully perform their household and bedroom duties, steered by personalized brass remote-control devices wielded by their owners — er, mates.

Though Joanna is repelled by the empty-headed obedience of the Stepford wives, she also wants to repair the damage that her career has inflicted on her husband and children. This damage is mentioned rather than shown, and the repair work is highly theoretical, since children in Stepford are only slightly more visible than black people. There is, however, a schticky pair of token Jews, played by Jon Lovitz and Bette Midler, whose character, until she is robotized, is a slovenly, loud-mouthed novelist and one of Joanna's few friends.

Mr. Rudnick is best at forging tiny verbal darts that tickle more than they sting. (Late in the game, Joanna discovers that one of the robot-designers once worked for AOL. "Is that why the women are so slow?" she asks.) Occasionally, as in the film's clever, cautionary view of gay marriage, you might intuit a crackle of genuine satire, but for the most part "The Stepford Wives" is as cheerful and inoffensive as its title characters. Every time you think it might be venturing toward social criticism, it pulls back into homily and reassurance, refusing to tell anyone in the audience anything she — or he — might not want to hear.

There are, of course, some real tensions and resentments embedded in this story — the hard choices facing ambitious women, the immaturity and misogyny that surge through so much popular culture, a rampaging materialism that makes the Stepford of 1975 look like a kibbutz — but the movie, especially in its disastrous and nonsensical final act, works as hard as it can to suppress them.

"The Stepford Wives" is, in other words, the opposite of satire. It is intended not to provoke but to soothe, to tell us, once again, that we can have it all, that nobody's perfect, and that if there is trouble in the world, or in our own homes, it's nothing we need to worry our pretty little heads about.

"The Stepford Wives" is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). It has some strong language and sexual references.

THE STEPFORD WIVES

Directed by Frank Oz; written by Paul Rudnick, based on the book by Ira Levin; director of photography, Rob Hahn; edited by Jay Rabinowitz; music by David Arnold; production designer, Jackson Degovia; produced by Scott Rudin, Donald De Line, Edgar J. Scherick and Gabriel Grunfeld; released by Paramount Pictures. Running time: 110 minutes. This film is rated PG-13.

WITH: Nicole Kidman (Joanna Eberhart), Matthew Broderick (Walter Kresby), Bette Midler (Bobbie Markowitz), Jon Lovitz (Dave Markowitz), Christopher Walken (Mike Wellington), Faith Hill (Sarah Sunderson) and Glenn Close (Claire Wellington).


[ comment on this story | comments (18) ]

Reader Discussions:
 Stepford Wives   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 14, 2004 6:17 PM

Your "tiptoe" review is nearly as disappointing as this truly bad movie. It was trite and pathetic. Even the star studded cast couldn't save it. Loved the origina.l Sorry I wasted the cash on this dog.

 I loved it!   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 15, 2004 6:35 PM

I myself  am  much  more  upset  at  the  five  minutes of  my  life  I wasted  reading  this  terrible  review.  Speaking  as  a  member of  the  general  audience,  people are  generally  not  interested  in  all of  the  comparisons  between  the  original  and  the remake.  We  simply want to  know if  this  is  a  good  movie  or  not!  Thank  goodness  I  watched  the  movie  myself  prior  to  reading  this  5th  grade  essay  comparing  and  contrasting  the  original  and the  new.  I  myself  and  the  audience I  watched the  movie with had  a  wonderful  time....the  laughs  were  a-plenty  and  the  performances of the  cast(which,  considering  this  bunch, could  have  easily  been  over the  top) did not  disappoint in the  least.  The  script  was  cleverly  crafted  though it  does  fizzle  slightly  later on( only  to  be  revived  by  clever  surprises in the  end).   Of  course,  if  you  are  expecting  some  sort of  a  hidden  prophesy  from the  heavens  to  pour  forth after  watching  (as  the  two  reviewers  prior  seemed to expect),  you should  stay away.  But  if  you are  looking  for  a  great  fun time with  a  lot  of  laughing,  by all means  go!

 A Funny Movie!   > reply 
Posted by cjmarbutt (No Email) on June 15, 2004 11:34 PM

What's not to like? The movie has some genuinely funny moments (everyone in the theatre was laughing outloud), a clever twist at the end and a wonderful cast.  Faith Hill held her own with the likes of Nicole Kidman and Glen Close.  Hard to believe this was her first movie.

And I think there was an apparently overlooked moral here: sometimes it less about what others do to us and more about what we do to ourselves.

 me no likey   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 16, 2004 6:00 AM

Dis movie looks like poo.

 RE: Broderick is delicious!   > reply 
Posted by Skulllfire (Pocko@Argentina.org) on June 16, 2004 1:27 PM

Be still my heart! I feel like singing! Broderick doth invade thy dreams like a yuka sitting there sliced up and ready to be eaten!!  This movie is really the remake of an older one starring one of my all time favorites, Tom Hanks.

 stepford wives review   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 17, 2004 6:06 AM

lame review -- appears to be afraid of offending hollywood establishment.

one of the worst movies i have paid to see--absolutely fell apart--appeared as though they didn't have a complete script when they began and just "winged" it.  save your money--this one will be on cable in 3 months.



 Stepford   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 17, 2004 11:27 PM

This movie spiraled down into chaos and nonsense. Which is fine, if it was intended to be a spoof. However, it didn't go far enough to be a good spoof of the original. It seems that the plot was simply shambled together around a few good one-liners and feministic satire. I really hated the scene at the very end. Don't we get enough of that lame comedy from CBS. Anyway, loved the one-liners, but the plot was flat.

 Looks shit   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 22, 2004 8:54 AM

I havent seen the movie yet but from what ive seen of da trailer it looks like shit, plus i hate Tom Hanks + his stupid southern accent is shit.

 what a terrible remake.   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 25, 2004 1:56 PM

i saw this movie about a week ago in theatres, not knowing anything about the movie, but expecting some sort of sci-fi thriller.  what i got instead was a ridiculous, incomprehensible story that while fairly well-acted, was just badly written.  yes, i admit i did laugh at some of the jokes - this movie did have its funny moments.  but i walked out of the theatre asking myself "what the hell did i just watch???"  i couldnt figure it out.  was it supposed to be a spoof?  was it made simply to confuse the audience?  i was so curious that i decided to rent the old stepford wives, and to my surprise, it was an entirely different movie!  the main characters had the same names, and the grocery store scene with all of the wives greeting eachother with mechanical "hello's" was present, but otherwise the movie held a completely different tone.  seeing both, i have come to this conclusion.  the 1975 version of the stepford wives was a chilling, 1984-esque story about the supression of female rights.  very enjoyable although at times melodramatic.  the 2004 version, however, is just ludicrous.  why did they do it?  what was the point?  i could not picture anybody watching the old movie and thinking "wow! this would make a GREAT comedy!"  it just does not make sense.  i find the remake pointless, and have been looking everywhere for a review to see what others think.  i entirely agree with this review, and think it is entirely necessary to contrast the two movies.  i cant imagine what fans of the first thought of this new piece of shit.  it is a shame too, because the acting was superb.  it just...was not a cohesive movie.

 What are you on man?   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 30, 2004 8:20 AM

The original WAS a comedy you fool! Or maybe you're one of those people who don't get irony. Oh, and you thought it was a Sci-fi thriller? WTF!!?

 RE: What are you on man?   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on July 1, 2004 2:04 PM

It was never intended to be a comedy.  You're dead wrong.

 RE: Oh AM I?   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on July 2, 2004 9:55 AM

Am I now? I must say that you are indeed talking out of your ass.

 Stepford Flies   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 26, 2004 7:17 AM

D-U-M-B, need I say more?  This stench of this piece of crap will attract flies.

 grade: -10 out of 100   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 12, 2004 1:23 AM

this could possibly be the worst movie of all time, and this cast should be ashamed of such a horrible remake.  The so called "funny" scenes were not funny at all, the plot was god aweful, and the ending was crap.  Christopher walken, who turns crappy movies to gold like king Midas, couldn't even save this one.  Unless you ahve a horrible taste in movies, dont waste your time or money on this worthless piece of trash.  p.s... if you have to rate a movie on how funny it is by defending the amount of people laughing with you in the theater, your comments fall on deaf ears.

 RE: Oh AM I?   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 12, 2004 1:28 AM

Yes, id haveto agree you are a moron.  It was definitely NOT supposed to be a comedy (the first one).  It was actually meant to be a horror type film.  the second one was a comedy spoof of the original, but was literally the worst movie i have ever seen.

 RE: stepford wives review   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on March 18, 2005 9:06 PM

A horrible film and complete waste of time.  I have no idea how anyone could say a good thing about it.  The whole thing was trite.  From the start, I wondered where it was going.  Nowhere, it turned out.  The only good quality is that it's only 90 minutes long.

 RE: what a terrible remake.   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on March 18, 2005 9:09 PM

As for the remake, I absolutely agree, a terrible waste of time.  Thanks for letting us know that the original had some value.

 RE: What are you on man?   > reply 
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on March 21, 2005 7:00 PM

He is right you know. It was a horror movie. Espesielly the ending. Very creepy


Post YOUR opinion!


Support dtheatre.com: Get cool merchandise!

Search dvds by keyword or cast:

Click here to buy movie posters!
Click here to buy movie posters!
Search For Posters!
Movie news related to: NY Times STEPFORD WIVES Review

CURRENT HOT TOPICS

New SUPERMAN RETURNS Trailer TV SPOT ADDED!! (11)

IRON MAN Director FAVREAU Wants Your Input At MySpace? (10)

Watch STEPHEN COLBERT'S Speech Given In Front Of Bush LINK FIXED (9)

NEW MOVIE TRAILERS
X-MEN 3: THE LAST STAND TRAILER!!X-MEN 3: THE LAST STAND TRAILER!
Rocky 6: Rocky Balboa Teaser Trailer!ROCKY 6: ROCKY BALBOA Teaser Trailer!
Superman Returns TrailerWatch Lucky McKee's The Woods Trailer!
Silent Hill Trailer!WATCH THE NEW SILENT HILL TRAILER!
RECENT MOVIE NEWS

NEW Ferrel Foxx MIAMI VICE Movie Trailer

New SUPERMAN RETURNS Trailer TV SPOT ADDED!! (11)

New X-MEN: LAST STAND Sneak Review STRONG?!

NEW Shyamalan LADY IN THE WATER Trailer (1)

NEW Clip From ROCKY 6: ROCKY BALBOA Is Online (1)

New STRANGERS WITH CANDY Movie Pics Online

Cruise's MI:3 Scores $48 Million Over 1st Weekend

REVIEW: Is SUPERMAN RETURNS Great?! (5)

SENSELESS SURVEY
Which of the following features would you most like to see on DT?
A Trailer Page
Movie Database
More Naked Stars
More News/Gossip
User Blogs/Profiles
Nothing!


[view results]

DONATE!
Support DT! Donate With PayPal:
LINK US!

dtheatre.com
dtheatre.com

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the poster. The rest © 2000 Digital Theatre, an Ai Graphics (AIGC) Production.