
|
Quote of the day:
"Viddy well, little brother. Viddy well." -- Malcolm McDowell (A Clockwork Orange) |
 |
|
 |
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).
|
Reader Discussions:
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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!
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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!
|
|
 |
dtheatre.com
|