I don't get why this movie is so hated!

I am a fan of the novel and original film, so I was horrified to see how they had bungled the intent of the source material. The wigs and costuming were horrible- Midler and Kidman have never looked worse. The editing looked like a film school student had gotten a hold of the final print. And quite obviously the film cannot decide whether the women are robots or humans. There is no excuse for a film with this kind of talent behind it to be so sloppy.

The movie is funny, but I think that because the film has some major plot holes, people tend to dismiss it.

I think it would of been much better if they picked either changing them into Robots, or just computer chips into the women and then gave them extreme makeovers.

If they did the whole Robot thing and got rid of the actual wives then they could of had the two main characters pretend to do it, dig up evidence of what happened and have the police come in and bust them all.

If they did the whole Computer Chip thing: Then they could of stuck to the ending that they had.


A man can change his stars

This movie is hated? I really liked it.

I liked the book, and thought the original movie was a great little chiller if a little hard to take entirely seriously given the subject matter. So I thought a tongue in cheek satirical edition in the vein of The Witches of Eastwick was a great idea and might actually surpass the original. But this is not that movie.

The opening sequence is filmed in a tongue in cheek way, granted, but there is no way the content can be deemed funny. The movie, however allows no emotional resonance either and the whole thing leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Not a good start. So, this is the catalyst and now off we go to Stepford where the producers can't seem to decide if the wives are robots or under the influence of mind control. Neither option is satisfactorily explored or even satisfactorily exploited for comedy value.

The story makes no sense. At least that could be partially forgiven if it where funny but the comedy isn't actually funny (working out in stilettos? Hilarious?). Without the comedy this movie has nothing left. The story is swiss cheese, and the feminism issues from the original novel are never really given any credence here. In the end this movie failed on every level for me. Great cast, good production design, terrible script made even worse by meddling producers. I can honestly say that I'm shocked to see this movie rated around the halfway mark. One of the worst.

Now let's go bury this dead hooker.

i thought the movie was entertaining and nicole was great like always :)

I read the book years ago and it was a great little read and the story WAS chilling.

I like the original movie, also. Some of the treatment of feminist concerns and the technology from that time period are somewhat dated, but that does not take away from the spine tingling aspects of the core story and premise, and the deadly concerns of the characters (who actually had some depth to them as compared to this version) that can still creep out moviegoers, whether they are first-time viewers or return ones, like me.

The original story was a chiller and the 'remake' is apparently trying hard to be a comedy (with its stale jokes, typically brazen and over-the-top Bette, Inspector Gadget-esque technologies -- for example, the ridiculous ATM/mouth machine -- and rehashed stereotypes). How can the creators of this 'remake' have gotten it so incredibly wrong? Were they just aiming at a fast buck, cashing in on star power, not-so-special special effects, and the good reputation of the original story, appealing to an audience they thought oblivious to the central themes and quality of the book and original film? Reminds me of how the inferior 'Up the Creek' tried to cash in on the fame of the superior 'Animal House' (Tim Matheson starred in both as essentially the same character, for example), but the former can be forgiven in ways that the new 'Stepford Wives' cannot because at least 'Up The Creek' was in the same genre/style ballpark as 'Animal House'.

Also, remaking a horror movie into a comedy guts the entire concept of the original, and thus should not be termed a 'remake'.

It would be like attempting to remake something like 'Psycho' into a farcical comedy. The only time doing something like that would even have a chance at being the least bit worthy would be when done as satire, such as on SNL or The Simpsons -- when it would essentially be poking fun at itself for the sheer fun of doing so and thus would be on an entirely different plane than when something is passed off as a 'remake' (and SNL / The Simpsons would have done a much better job at the comedy, IMHO -- maybe that was what Christopher Walken thought he was doing when he signed on to this project?) I realize that there are schlock sequels made from various horror movies, but that's exactly what they are -- schlock.

I have a difficult time even calling this movie a true 'remake'. Sure, they have some of the basic elements (such as the name of 'Stepford', the housecleaning, the wife replacement thingie, etc.), but I think the movie makers would have been better off making an entirely different movie (which they essentially did), but with a different name and with no reference to the original if this is what they expected to end up with as the finished product.

And the 'is it real or is it Memorex?' plot hole is only matched in its incoherence by the hastily wedged-in shift of the Broderick and Close characters' motivations at the end.

This is essentially the worst 'remake' of a quality movie based on a quality book that I have ever seen.

The movie makers took gold, tried to pass it off as silver and ended up with pot metal.






"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois

I fully expected to hate this movie, as I dislike most remakes, but this movie is awesome!