Logo

Cool News

They Can Make The Stepford Wives Perfect, But How's THE STEPFORD WIVES'!

Published at:  Apr 02, 2004 2:03:03 PM CST

SPOILER ALERT !!

Hi, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab...



I was about to post this story when this e-mail came in:



Here's the link to download the new stepford wives trailer. The makeup and whatever used for Bette Midler's tranformation must be from God- she looks completely different- Jon lovitz sounds funny too- not his usual voice we all know. I think the trailer looks good- and the film should be great. Is does look a little glossy- very hollywood and all- but I'm a stepford loon- and will watch basically any reimagining of the stepford story (even Donna Mills Stepford Husbands- truly terrible though). I can't wait!

SO DOWNLOAD THE TRAILER RIGHT HERE!!

I dunno. I thought the trailer was okay. Not great, but okay. And maybe it’ll turn out to be great. But today’s reviewer... well... see for yourself... and watch out for the huge spoiler if you want to see the film fresh:



Hello Harry,

This is my first time writing but I have been reading for many years and have also read your book. You can call me Wil Possum and if you know who that is, I will be quite impressed.

Anyway, just got back from an advanced screening ofThe Stepford Wives. I just read the other review on your site about this film and he said that the host claimed that that audience was the first to see this movie. Well, predictably the host of mine said the same thing to us.

Frank Oz and Scott Rudin were in attendence in the theater amonst a handful of other Hollywood types. They stood out like sore thumbs amongst the crowd made of up of mainly frumpy, annoying housewives and overweight girls wearing belly shirts. Yes it was a weird group. It was more of a PTA meeting that a movie.

Let me start off by saying that I really liked the original Stepford Wives and hoped for the best but something didn't feel quite right to me when it was explained that this film is a dark comedy.

Well, I had no idea what I was in for could possibly be the worst film that I've seen in years. And I've seen many.

A brief synopsis is that this crazy world appears to be run by women with Nicole Kidman being queen, man-hating bitch. She's the president of a network that could pass for Lifetime on steroids with the sensibilty of USA Network or SPIKE TV. So right off the bat she's a hateable character. For reasons not worth explaining she is fired and has a nervous breakdown.

So predictably her husband, Matthew Broderick takes her away from the big bad city to the suburbs. Meet the town of Stepford where all the houses are just as perfect as the wives.

Already a big difference other than the comedic aspect is that Nicole Kidman is not someone you want to see win while Matther Broderick is the nice but nerdy husband neglected for years. He makes a point that they haven't had sex in a year. But in order to make him edgier they create the fact that he cheated on her with her secretery. I guess they want to be sure to piss off the women in the audience.

Well it turns out that all the men of Stepford are weaklings who married powerful women and obviously couldn't handle being beneath them. This was even said in plain English for those who can't read between the lines.

Anyway it loosely follows the original's pace other than the fact that there is a gay couple and many anti-Republican comments. Liberal politics afoot in the Stepford of 04!

At some point Kidman apparently is changed and I exhaled thinking that maybe just maybe they did something right with this travesty only to find out that she and Broderick fooled the nerds and ruined Stepford for them to boot. The rationale is stupid and so is the fact that all the women turned into Rosey from the Jetsons. The worst example is Better Midler who transforms into a lawn mower. At that point I had to force myself not to leave just so I could trash it on the questionnaire.

In the miserable final ending the men have become the half robot/half human wives slaves'. Ho-hum giggle giggle.

I hope this movie bombs hard for all the reasons I stated above but also for ruining a poignant, uncomfortable 70's film and making an OXYGEN TV movie with a few special effects.

As myself and my wife, who also hated it, were walking out past the Hollywood types a security guard turned to me and asked me how I liked it. My wife said, "Don't ask" while I just shook my head. His only comment in his Spanish accent was, "Who would want to see a movie like that?" My answer was, "I don't know man. I don't know".

Wil Possum out!

Almost as soon as I posted this story, another review came in, as if in response. Here's that letter:



I have to disagree with Mr. Possum. “Stepford Wives” wasn’t perfect, but it wasn’t even the worst film I’ve seen this month, let alone this year. Kidman was really strong, and Midler was about the best she’s ever been. (I should say I can only take her in small doses, and this seemed to be just the right amount). I can’t even imagine working up the level of disdain for this film that this guy just did. It’s an entertaining film with decent-to-good comic performances and about a half-dozen big laughs. It’s not nearly as dark as the original, but sexual politics have changed in the last 30 years, so it doesn’t really need to be.

If I did have a criticism, it’s that the film can’t seem to stick to the go-for-broke attitude that it sometimes hints at, but never reaches. Right at the opening, with Kidman presenting her new slate of shows for her network, it hedges its bets. The shows are all reality program parodies. The premises of each: Divorce Court (where the parents have to compete for the affection of their children), Balance of Power (a quiz show where men and women just kind of one-up each other) and “I Can Do Better” (“Temptation Island”, where one married couple spends a week apart, with prostitutes). The set-up is funny, but the breakdown turns out to have less teeth than the TV show parodies in “Stay Tuned”. Seriously.

The problem is obvious: the parodies don’t even go as far as the shows being parodied. The film looks like it’s aiming for a PG-13. If it wanted to be really cutting, it’d have to go for an “R”. In the age of internet porn, you’d think they could have found more provocative targets in the war of the sexes. Instead it goes right to what it views as the heart of it: men are afraid of Martha Stewart. Not.

On the other hand, the cast: Midler, Kidman, Walken & Glenn Close all give entertaining performances. Broderick & Lovitz are underused. The gay pal of Kidman is very funny. Even Faith Hill does well with what she’s given. The script is mild, the direction is slick and the ending (obviously tacked on even if you haven’t seen the original) is amusing enough thanks to a fairly high-octane freak-out from Glenn Close.

I think what Possum doesn’t like is not so much the new movie as the new century.

Please feel free to call me Iron Man.

Like I said... I dunno. Paul Rudnick can be a funny man, but he’s also the screenwriter of IN & OUT and MARCI X, so he’s been responsible for more than his fair share of pain in the past. We’ll see this summer...



"Moriarty" out.








    + Expand All

    Readers Talkback

  • Apr 02, 2004 2:05:39 PM CST

    first posters suck!

    by wheel99

  • Apr 02, 2004 2:14:19 PM CST

    All Screwed Up

    by jervis tetch

    "The Stepford Wives" was always a bit of a one-joke horror story. The "secret" was pretty easy to figure out; you spent the whole original movie watching everybody else catch up.
    This hardly needed a remake in the first place, but it sounds like this one is all screwed up. Horror allegory or comedy? If a comedy, why will anybody seeking a horror thriller come see it? But if it's a comedy, is it worth seeing at all? The (SPOILER) change at the end sounds like typical modern Hollywood B.S. Can't have the downer ending of the original now, can we? Sounds like a mess -- and John and Joan Cusack were lucky to get out of it. P.S. And I can hardly wait for what Paramount does to "The Manchurian Candidate."

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 02, 2004 2:22:25 PM CST

    Hey, I liked IN AND OUT.

    by nordling

    Joan Cusack was great in that.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 02, 2004 2:23:26 PM CST

    file not found

    by rev_skarekroe

  • Apr 02, 2004 2:25:35 PM CST

    Bueller, Satine, Yoda and Libby Gelman-Waxner

    by christopher3

    Good lineup. For what, I'm not sure.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 02, 2004 2:26:25 PM CST

    This sounds terrible

    by olsen twins_fan

    What's being satirized exactly? Suburban life? Gender politics? Middle class values? Yawn.

    There is no way that I will see this, unless of course Ms. Kidman gets naked.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 02, 2004 2:27:44 PM CST

    Christopher 3

    by olsen twins_fan

    Is Bette Midler also Libby? I had no idea. And I hate Ask Libby.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 02, 2004 2:49:14 PM CST

    Total Plant

    by nerdboy1423

    This is an obvious plant, if not from someone in the biz but from a conservative bigot. I liked how he included that little liberal bashing remark, how clever, and how he said his "wife" didn't like this either, and then to throw in the "mexican" attendant guy who also didn't like the film. Why not throw in the puppy too, I bet he didn't like it either. The same with the kids. I have a phrase for planters like that, Go drink a beer, don't write here!

    Reply to Talkback

  • After this, Nicole Kidman goes to the other extreme as Ula, the Swedish "toy" in THE PRODUCERS.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 02, 2004 3:33:30 PM CST

    If she's the PERFECT, engineered wife that EVERY MAN wants -- ba

    by charles grady

    Look, Nicole Kidman is still moderately sexy, or at least as sexy as a pale redhead can be. But she's practically middle-aged. She's playing a ROBOT engineered to be the perfect dream wife for men everywhere. Why would men clammor for a 40-year-old robot instead of an 18-25 year old? Oh, yeah, because Nicole Kidman is a big star. But it's ridiculous. If scientists engineered every man's DREAM WOMAN, wouldn't they do something about the crow's feet and wrinkles and gauntness that Kidman displays, albeit in small doses? I think most men would be like, uh....thanks, but how about an Elisha Cuthbert robot, or a Beyonce Knowles robot, or a Charlize Theron robot, or a Katie Holmes robot, etc. -- someone who still looks like a bombshell but is youthful.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 02, 2004 3:38:20 PM CST

    At least the TRAILER suggests that Kidman is an engineered dream

    by charles grady

    Re-reading the review, perhaps that trailer is misleading?

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 02, 2004 3:41:30 PM CST

    It really sucks to have to read all this crap

    by stewiegriffin

    about what the trailer lloks like and then get to a link that dosen't work.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 02, 2004 3:42:40 PM CST

    She's 37, almost 38, not 40

    by nerdboy1423

    She was born on June 20, 1967 according to IMDB, so she still has a few years, but I would rather have Katie Holmes be a robot wife than Nicole "let's get naked" Kidman

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 02, 2004 4:04:35 PM CST

    Perfect Enough....

    by filker-tom

    Hey, my dream woman is my current SO -- spectacularly gorgeous, looks about 10 years younger than she actually is. If I were making this movie and wanted a "big star" SW, my first three choices would be Catherine Zeta-Jones, Keira Knightley, and Miranda Otto. But face it: You may creeb and bitch and moan about how Nicole Kidman isn't as young and hot as, say, Katie Holmes -- but if a fully-functional Nicole Kidman robot, physically indistinguishable from the real woman AS SHE IS NOW, walked up to you, smiled, wrapped her arms around your neck, and waited expectantly for that first kiss, you'd drown in your own drool. :)

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 02, 2004 4:32:18 PM CST

    R.C.'s opinion on Stepford Wives

    by r.c. the "wise"

    Who cares. Hopefully it will be funny. I just thought of a perfect person to portray Superman. Chris Klien would be great especially since their looking for "actors" the caliber of Ashton Kutcher or Paul Walker. Why not Klien. Put an addtional 25 to 30 pounds on him and he'd be fantastic.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 02, 2004 4:35:40 PM CST

    Nope, Paul Rudnick's actually Libby, though...

    by christopher3

    You've just hit on a PERFECT bit of casting, if you ask me.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 02, 2004 4:36:25 PM CST

    Pile of pathetic PC, feminazi crap.

    by salvatoregravano

    I'd rather play "Harvester" again to see the nice little town I like. Then reread the real "Stepford Wives".

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 02, 2004 4:51:32 PM CST

    The review sucks

    by pullmyfinger

    Is Wil Possum really Pat Buchanan? "Liberal politics afoot in the Stepford of 04" is the lamest thing I've ready today.

    Remaking this as a comedy was a good idea. My mom, grandma, and every chick I know will see this.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 02, 2004 4:59:13 PM CST

    WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FREAKING LINK

    by alcamaeon

  • Apr 02, 2004 5:06:49 PM CST

    who's wil possum?

    by mcluvin

    he said he'd be impressed if anyone could figure it out...anyone know?

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 02, 2004 5:16:09 PM CST

    In this day and age...

    by ed_wood_jr

    ...wouldn't a very faithful remake of the original film be much more interesting and edgy than the 'you go, girl' revision the story is getting here? Reimagining, or whatever you want to call it, is starting to prove that Hollywood is not only running out of ideas, but that the few ideas they have left are flat-out wrong.

    Reply to Talkback

  • cuz there's going to be alot of anger if this sounds as bad as the guy said it was.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 02, 2004 7:20:33 PM CST

    Another Original Idea

    by montypigeon

    Who says films lack originality? Lets just remake every film ever released and then when we are finished......REMAKE THEM AGAIN!!! Its an idea to make us millions and we never run out of films and if we do...screw it! We remake the remakes in 3D!!!!! and when that idea becomes old.....REMAKE THEM IN BLACK AND WHITE. Once that is done, lets make them SILENT or how about Lord of the Rings in LATIN!!!!!!! This is the future of film and also the death of it.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 02, 2004 10:11:53 PM CST

    All too true

    by billemic

    Whoever first brought up the fact that no one would want a robotic wife designed to look like a 40 year-old...that's hysterical and all too true. And the very fact that Bette Midler and Faith Hill are in this film assures that I will never see it. Now how about those two girls from Thirteen as robots...hmm...

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 02, 2004 10:55:48 PM CST

    Anyone who thinks Nicole Kidman is "middle-aged" is a frigging i

    by osmosis jones

    Oooh, past 35 is SO ancient, man! Kidman just grows more incredibly gorgeous and fuckable with each passing year (Tom Cruise MUST have dumped Penelope when he realized this). Life doesn't end at 30, people. This isn't Logan's Run...

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 03, 2004 12:21:23 AM CST

    Well kiss my grits!

    by ribbons

    Scott Rudin visits AICN! And he even WRITES IN!!!! Who knew? Completely baseless personal insults. Gee, I SURE wouldn't wanna seem as out-of-touch as Wil Possum! I'm with it, and to PROVE it I'll go see THE STEPFORD WIVES! Whatever.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 03, 2004 2:15:12 AM CST

    Oh, I HATE it when conservatives take digs at liberals!!!

    by skynetishere

    Whinge whinge fucking whinge!

    Get a life and a sense of humour you liberal arseholes.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 03, 2004 3:48:14 AM CST

    arsehole indeed

    by blue7

    Whinge? Go brush the three grey teeth you've got left, you sorry limeshit motherfucker.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 03, 2004 4:17:24 AM CST

    in and out

    by speed

    You know a lot of middle aged women love that flick. very popular with the whoopi crowd. It's sort of like the chasing amy for housewives.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 03, 2004 4:19:43 AM CST

    jesus do these people just put up the story and then take off fo

    by bearison ford

    fucking insane.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 03, 2004 5:37:21 AM CST

    New AICN catchphrase ahoy...

    by grando

    .. Bette Midler tranforms into a lawn mower! wtf?

    Reply to Talkback

  • Bloody hell...

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 03, 2004 8:51:29 AM CST

    SpaceSheik Johnson is right!

    by filker-tom

    Rat own, rat own, m'friend. I should've made it clearer in my original post, except that everyone was invoking Katie Holmes as if she's some sort of nubile goddess. Ehh. She ain't bad. But Nicole, with the character that comes only with maturity, is about a gazillion times sexier than her. Unless Joel Schumacher is directing. ;) And, now that I mention it -- no insult to those lovely ladies, and I'm sure they'll make it to that status very soon, but I shouldn't have let my adoration of Keira Knightley and Miranda Otto blue my judgment. They're not big stars... yet. Hmmm... big star SW. Eeyup, Nicole would definitely be in there, and Catherine Zeta-Jones as I said before, and J-LO (not because I think she's that good an actress, but MAN I think a Stepford J-Lo would be the best-seller of all time), Salma Hayek, Alyssa Milano, Liv Tyler, Kristy Swanson, and Claudia Christian. Anyone got a problem with that particular eight-pack? ;)

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 03, 2004 9:59:47 AM CST

    Nicole Kidman used to be hot...

    by crackula

    ...but she's refusing to age gracefully. I saw an interview with her on TV recently and she's turning into one of those scary botox robots.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 03, 2004 2:34:51 PM CST

    Stepford babes

    by scarborough

    What's wrong with a mature Nicole Kidman? I wouldn't kick her outta bed - robot or not. And while we're on the subject of ex-Cruise arm candy, Mimi Rogers would be my definition of a mature babe too! I'd certainly prefer her to some suspiciously-anorexic looking youthful hottie like Sarah Michelle Gellar.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 03, 2004 6:14:37 PM CST

    Whats the real issue here

    by pjdonnelli

    You call yourselves movie fans and your having a debate about the hottest woman (Nicole would so get it, sorry). My main concern here is that while i have no problems with a comedy remake of this film it seems a great mised oppurtunity to make a real horror out of something which was originally a very creepy film. This could have been played straight without rubbing in the metaphors and been a very disturbing haunting experiance.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 03, 2004 8:44:05 PM CST

    Nicole Kidman IS hot

    by desiertos

    At the age she is, she has never looked so amazing, Cold Mountain is a perfect example.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 03, 2004 9:02:08 PM CST

    Heavy Handed

    by jervis tetch

    If I get the "new" film correctly (I've seen the trailer in a theater, since it's not here), it goes out of its way to say that the "new" Stepford Wives were all highly sucessful judges, CEO's, doctors, etc, before changing. Thus, the 2004 Heavy Hammer of Ham-Handed Hollywood Self-Congratulatory Satire is brought down on our uneducated little heads, as if that's what all men want to do to their powerful wives. (Modernly, lots of men LIKE to marry more powerful wives.) Maybe they still do this in one place: Hollywood, where many male producers and directors still prefer their women as plaything bimbos and stay the hell away from achieving women.
    What a bunch of horse pucky. P.S. Of course Nicole Kidman's hot. What's the problem?

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 04, 2004 10:32:53 AM CDT

    I just love ...

    by itchy

    The no-life wanks on this board debating whether or not Nicole Kidman is hot. 95% of you losers would bang an Irene Ryan Robot if you thought you could smuggle it into your mother's basement. Bloody hell. Can't we just admit there's room for more than one definition of hot, and that undoubtably Nicole Kidman, Katie Holmes, Keira Knightly, etc. etc. fall within the objective parameters of "hot". I mean, if the whole group of them want to line up for one giant 2 hour daisy chain, I'm sure not going to change the channel.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 04, 2004 1:27:45 PM CDT

    P.C. Alert....

    by 20th century fox

    New Stepford Wives were all highly sucessful judges, CEO's, doctors, Lifetime/Oxgen Network-clone CEO's then the evil While Males (read Republican's) change them into bimbo's who cheat on thie wives...just in case the lifetime watching soccer moms were not agngry enough... Yeah the reviewer got it right. This is leftist dirvel... The orginal stepford wives worked (such as it did) cause it came out in the 1970's at the hight of the womens lib movement. It was a time when the majoirty of americans were duped by the likes of NOW that all they really cared about is women. Now (pun inteneded) we know that groups like that are all about getting more Democrats eleceted and your taxes rasied. Gee so the men at the end become Stepford Husbands (did you know there is actually a MOW by the same name...) yawn! Yes sell your Viacom stock now...

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 04, 2004 6:39:12 PM CDT

    I'd rather eat my own shit

    by drunken rage

    than watch this drivel. Jesus Christ, is Hollywood completely devoid of fresh ideas? Fuck!

    Incidentally, I'd like a Susanna York robot, thank you very much. Very much indeed.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 05, 2004 12:27:11 AM CDT

    is Laura Bush in this film?

    by beamish13

    now THAT is a Stepford Wife if there ever was one

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 05, 2004 9:46:39 AM CDT

    I dunno

    by floydpepper

    I was kinda looking forward to this , but truth be told a) I can't stand matthew Broderick and b) this is getting a lOT of bad press. I don't think this is going to be one of Frank Oz's better films. I'll probably wait for it to come out on DVD.

    --Floyd

    ps--Will Possum is from Emmet Otter's Jugband Christmas. he was the stagehand at the talent show.

    Reply to Talkback

  • I had to pull it out of my vcr and throw it accross the room after 20 minutes of that God-awful spectacle.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 05, 2004 4:37:09 PM CDT

    what filker-tom said

    by hud

    well said, too! and can Carla Gugino get some love here as madly hot?

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 05, 2004 7:50:49 PM CDT

    "In and Out" isn't that bad

    by beamish13

    neither is 1997's other Klein comedy FIERCE CREATURES.

    "I was talking to the lemur!!!"

    Reply to Talkback

  • go ahead, keep believing what Fox News and CNN tell ya. Morons

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 05, 2004 11:26:50 PM CDT

    Why was this made???

    by johnny ahab

    I mean, really, who out there was crying out for a remake of "The Stepford Wives", turned on its ear funny or played straight for horror?? The film worked fine way back when, but THERE WAS NO NEED TO UPDATE THIS. Paul Rudnick, stick to your Premiere day job and theater. When this tanks on the heels of mega-bomb "MARCI X", you will be radioactive in Hollywood. And Frank Oz, come on, man, you have more talent than this! More crap from the Shit Factory. Oy. Will avoid like plague.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 06, 2004 6:30:17 PM CDT

    While they're at it, they should remake Westworld with Hulk Hoga

    by lord shatner

    "Sloppy with your drink, brother"

    Reply to Talkback

  • Apr 09, 2004 6:22:00 PM CDT

    new trailer

    by tmp

    is at moviefone.com

    Reply to Talkback

User Login

Forgot password? Retrieve it here

or register as new user

Quick Talkback Form

Please login to post talkback