The image of beautiful, not necessarily sexy, women parading through the aisles of a grocery story in picturesque, almost Victorian summer dresses and wide white broad brimmed hats is one of the most lasting of this effective thriller based on the work by Ira Levin. Katherine Ross engagingly plays a women being moved with family in tow from the hustle and bustle of New York City to the serene suburbs of old Connetticut. Ross soon discovers that life for the gentle sex is anything but normal. All the women of Stepford seem to be concerned with is housecleaning and pleasing their husbands. This is a good, high energy film that shocks more from looks and what you do not see rather than what you do see. Helping greatly is a solid acting cast working with a pliable script. Though shot with an almost static effect at times, The Stepford Wives packs a few good punches. The scene in the grocery store and the scene with the empty eyes are just two of the highlights for me. Patrick O' Neal, lovely Tina Louise, and the ever loquacious Paula Prentiss costar. At the heart of the film is human identity and the worth it has/should have. There are aspects of social commentary abounding: the relationship of men and women in marriage, the effects of Suburban living, and the dangers of technology.
183 Reviews
The Perfect Wife
gftbiloxi9 April 2005
She is a meticulous housekeeper, flawless cook, thrifty shopper, adoring mother, perfect wife, always well groomed, always ready to please. But not, of course, a career woman, particularly if her success makes her husband feel belittled. Even today, more than thirty years after Ira Levin's bestseller startled the reading public, we are likely to refer to such a woman as "a Stepford wife"--a creature who seems both perfect and perfectly shallow.
The 1974 film version follows the Levin novel quite closely. Joanna Eberhart is a beautiful young woman of the era in which the women's moment had come of age: intelligent, forthright, and meeting her husband on equal terms. Then she, her husband, and their children move from New York to the small town of Stepford, where she is dismayed to find that most of the neighboring women seem engaged in a competition to have the neatest house, the best-groomed children, the most satisfied husband. Joanna is relieved to find women like herself in newcomers Bobbie and Charmaine, but even so, it seems... odd. So odd that she begins to question her sanity.
The film works on several levels, not the least of which is the macabre sense of humor with which director Byran Forbes endows the film: it is often very funny in a disquieting sort of way, as when Joanna and Bobbie's efforts to start a women's group results in a gathering of perfectly manicured women exchanging recipes and comparing floor polishes, or when Joanna and Bobbie accidentally overhear a Stepford couple making love. But for all the wittiness involved, THE STEPFORD WIVES is rooted in the women's movement of the 1970s, an era in which "a woman's place" was hotly debated on a national level. Just what is "a woman's place?" And to what lengths might men go to keep their women in traditional roles? Unlike many similar films, THE STEPFORD WIVES has tremendous restraint--and moreover a truly exceptional cast. Katherine Ross' talents were never before or after so well used, and Paula Prentiss gives perhaps her single most memorable performance here as Joanna's friend Bobbie. The supporting cast is equally fine, most particularly so with Patrick O'Neal as the unnerving "Diz" and a nice turn by Tina Louise as Charmaine.
Ultimately, THE STEPFORD WIVES is something of a "one trick pony:" it works best on a first viewing, when you don't know what's coming, and on subsequent viewings the film tends to read as unnecessarily slow. Even so, it is an interesting little cultural artifact, an "almost classic" that is sure to give you pause the next time your better half announces he is joining a men's club. Recommended.
Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
The 1974 film version follows the Levin novel quite closely. Joanna Eberhart is a beautiful young woman of the era in which the women's moment had come of age: intelligent, forthright, and meeting her husband on equal terms. Then she, her husband, and their children move from New York to the small town of Stepford, where she is dismayed to find that most of the neighboring women seem engaged in a competition to have the neatest house, the best-groomed children, the most satisfied husband. Joanna is relieved to find women like herself in newcomers Bobbie and Charmaine, but even so, it seems... odd. So odd that she begins to question her sanity.
The film works on several levels, not the least of which is the macabre sense of humor with which director Byran Forbes endows the film: it is often very funny in a disquieting sort of way, as when Joanna and Bobbie's efforts to start a women's group results in a gathering of perfectly manicured women exchanging recipes and comparing floor polishes, or when Joanna and Bobbie accidentally overhear a Stepford couple making love. But for all the wittiness involved, THE STEPFORD WIVES is rooted in the women's movement of the 1970s, an era in which "a woman's place" was hotly debated on a national level. Just what is "a woman's place?" And to what lengths might men go to keep their women in traditional roles? Unlike many similar films, THE STEPFORD WIVES has tremendous restraint--and moreover a truly exceptional cast. Katherine Ross' talents were never before or after so well used, and Paula Prentiss gives perhaps her single most memorable performance here as Joanna's friend Bobbie. The supporting cast is equally fine, most particularly so with Patrick O'Neal as the unnerving "Diz" and a nice turn by Tina Louise as Charmaine.
Ultimately, THE STEPFORD WIVES is something of a "one trick pony:" it works best on a first viewing, when you don't know what's coming, and on subsequent viewings the film tends to read as unnecessarily slow. Even so, it is an interesting little cultural artifact, an "almost classic" that is sure to give you pause the next time your better half announces he is joining a men's club. Recommended.
Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
Good, methodically paced thriller.
gridoon2 September 2003
I watched this film without knowing too much about it beforehand, which is the best way to get hit by its surprise revelations - so, as another reviewer suggested, don't read any reviews before seeing it, they'll probably spoil it one way or the other. It is fueled by the same fear that pervaded the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" films - the loss of one's individuality. The director's careful, methodical pacing and his attention to detail may make the film seem slow to impatient viewers, but they pay off in some really chilling moments. Katharine Ross is extremely engaging in the lead....and (not to give anything away but) I'll never forget the image of the woman with no eyes. (***)
Mysterious and intriguing flick in which a family moves to supposedly idyllic Conneticut town where find weird and suspicious people
ma-cortes18 August 2020
Classy adaptation from Ira Levin's best seller with script by prestigious William Goldman and stars beauty Katharina Ross . This very thrilling and suspense story from the author of Rosemary's Baby deals with the charming Joanna (Katharine Ross) along with her hubby Walker (Peter Masterson) and children tired of the rat race move from bustling Manhattan towards the quaint little town of Stepford (Conneticut) , a really modern and upper class location . She doesn't like the bizarre neighborhood with attractive and perfect but unintelligent housewives . She gets suspects and is concerned when many wives spend their lives in domestic slavery , as they seem to delight in moronic conversation and are strangely content and subservient to their hubbies . Joanna early befriends a pair good friends (Paula Prentiss , Tina Louise) . Meanwhile , her husband joins the mysterious Stepford Men's club (run by a powerful Patrick O'Neal and married another too perfect wife ) which takes place in an old Manor house . Joanna soon discovers there lies a dark truth about the strange and servitude behavior in the all female residents and the sinister secrets hidden in the Stepford town . As the truth about the wives is more terrifying and shocking that their lives . ¨Something strange is happening in the town of Stepford. Where the men spend their nights doing something secret . And every woman acts like every man's dream of the "perfect" wife. Where a young woman watches the dream become a nightmare. And sees the nightmare engulf her best friend. And realizes that any moment, any second - her turn is coming¨.
This enjoyable film is a sci-fi/thriller with a twsted plot , intriguing and suspenseful elements and a little bit of drama . Being almost a classic film , faithfully based on an Ira Levin novel , retelling several creepy and eerie events when a newcomer woman arriving in Stepford decides to investigate the rare happenings occurring in the rare , sleepy little town . A nice and original idea given light touch with a neat twist at the final . Although , it's a shame that first hour or so of this film is so slow , resulting to be in some moments briefly dull . The casting is frankly well as the fine trio of protagonists : Katharine Ross , Peter Masterson and Paula Prentiss , all of them giving terrific performances . As well as an excellent support cast , such as : Nanette Newman , Patrick O'Neal , William Prince , Carol Rossen, George Coe , Dee Wallace Stone , Michael Higgins , Josef Sommer and seven-year-old Mary Stuart Masterson, who is daughter of the starring , in her first film role . Special mention for atmospheric and evocative cinematography by Owen Roitzman who photographed The Exorcist . As well as moving and thrilling musical score by Michael Small . This is the classic rendition , this is the old version well directed by expert filmmaker Brian Forbes resulting in a splendid chiller and considered to be very superior to remake ¨The Stepford wives¨ 2004 that was preferably an amiable comedy regularly directed by Frank Oz with Nicole Kidman, Matthew Broderick , Bette Midler and John Lovitz ; this latter being heavily re-edited and re-written following test screenings , with new scenes shot and others deleted . This¨Stepford wives¨ 1975 was followed three inferior sequels : ¨Revenge Stepford wives ¨, ¨Stepford children¨, ¨Stepford husbands¨ . The picture will appeal to thriller fans . Rating : Notable 7/10 . Better than average.
This enjoyable film is a sci-fi/thriller with a twsted plot , intriguing and suspenseful elements and a little bit of drama . Being almost a classic film , faithfully based on an Ira Levin novel , retelling several creepy and eerie events when a newcomer woman arriving in Stepford decides to investigate the rare happenings occurring in the rare , sleepy little town . A nice and original idea given light touch with a neat twist at the final . Although , it's a shame that first hour or so of this film is so slow , resulting to be in some moments briefly dull . The casting is frankly well as the fine trio of protagonists : Katharine Ross , Peter Masterson and Paula Prentiss , all of them giving terrific performances . As well as an excellent support cast , such as : Nanette Newman , Patrick O'Neal , William Prince , Carol Rossen, George Coe , Dee Wallace Stone , Michael Higgins , Josef Sommer and seven-year-old Mary Stuart Masterson, who is daughter of the starring , in her first film role . Special mention for atmospheric and evocative cinematography by Owen Roitzman who photographed The Exorcist . As well as moving and thrilling musical score by Michael Small . This is the classic rendition , this is the old version well directed by expert filmmaker Brian Forbes resulting in a splendid chiller and considered to be very superior to remake ¨The Stepford wives¨ 2004 that was preferably an amiable comedy regularly directed by Frank Oz with Nicole Kidman, Matthew Broderick , Bette Midler and John Lovitz ; this latter being heavily re-edited and re-written following test screenings , with new scenes shot and others deleted . This¨Stepford wives¨ 1975 was followed three inferior sequels : ¨Revenge Stepford wives ¨, ¨Stepford children¨, ¨Stepford husbands¨ . The picture will appeal to thriller fans . Rating : Notable 7/10 . Better than average.
Heaps better than the remake
dcshanno19 November 2004
I'm sure 'The Stepford Wives' spoke more to the audiences of 1975 than it does to the audiences of today, but this holds its own as decent, satisfying thriller. Really little more than a variation on 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers,' 'Stepford' follows that film's structure of slowly unspooling clues and suspicions and saving its bigger 'gotcha!' moments for the end. Katherine Ross was no doubt the star of this film, but Paula Prentiss really stood out for me. Gawky and enjoyable, she oddly predicted Geena Davis by a full generation. At one point in the film, my girlfriend commented of her wardrobe, 'Wow, can you imagine a grown woman today wearing a hot pant jumper?' The '70s
yikes!
I had the misfortune of both seeing the remake of 'The Stepford Wives' before seeing the original and *actually seeing* the remake of 'The Stepford Wives.' If the original serves any purpose, it is to expose the remake for the gutless, toothless, anemic waste of everyone's time that it is. God, what a terrible movie
I had the misfortune of both seeing the remake of 'The Stepford Wives' before seeing the original and *actually seeing* the remake of 'The Stepford Wives.' If the original serves any purpose, it is to expose the remake for the gutless, toothless, anemic waste of everyone's time that it is. God, what a terrible movie
"Archiac" is not on the word list
Boyo-217 April 2000
This movie holds up surprisingly well, nearly twenty five years after its first release. The premise could still intrigue today - there are still men who would like nothing better than to have the women in their lives be less human. I guess now women want the same things and this is known as progress.
Anywho, the movie is great and if it were up to me, Katherine Ross' birthday would be a national holiday. She is terrific and beautiful and is matched by best buddy Paula Prentiss. Tina Louise and Nanette ("I'll die if I don't get this recipe") Newman are also memorable. The final shots of Ross are chilling, and top off a memorable movie.
Anywho, the movie is great and if it were up to me, Katherine Ross' birthday would be a national holiday. She is terrific and beautiful and is matched by best buddy Paula Prentiss. Tina Louise and Nanette ("I'll die if I don't get this recipe") Newman are also memorable. The final shots of Ross are chilling, and top off a memorable movie.
An Eye-Opener for a 17 Year Old
inspectors7126 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The first time I saw The Stepford Wives, it was on ABC, in, I think, the fall of 1975. Since then, I've seen TSW about a half dozen times, and I still am amazed at how unsettling this sci-fi/feminist Gothic can be.
I don't think of myself as a feminist--the levels of anger and hostility are a turn-off--but I got the point of the movie. Stepford is a grown-ups' movie because it has the audacity to tell an uncomfortable story, one of possessiveness and mass-murder in a sleepy New England community.
The futuristic technology in the movie was dated for a long while, but with the advent of that Scarlett Johansson robot in the news, the end scene in TSW seems eerily prescient.
In my childhood, I expected the good guys--or in this case, the heroine--to win. I won't give anything away, but the ending of The Stepford Wives is easy to see coming as an almost senior-citizen, but as a high school senior, I was stunned at how the story ends.
Some years ago I read the Ira Levin novel. There is a moment in the book that, if I had been a 17 year old, I would have found incomprehensible. The main character and her husband are drifting away from each other, and, one night, the husband starts masturbating in bed while his wife, who he thinks is asleep, is very much awake. She lays still with her back to him. He is crying while he's manipulating himself, and she's horrified but silent.
Here is his wife, 6 inches away from him, but the distance could easily be 6 miles. They're no longer married. She's dead to him.
Heavy stuff, dude.
Johanna Eberhart's husband, Walter, holds a secret so monstrous, his wife's horror at his self-gratification would quickly vanish if she knew her fate.
So, when I sat down to watch the movie again some 10 years ago, I was startled at how deeply disturbing the book was and how the movie almost gets it right. The cast is both acceptable and believable, and my only quibble is that, as things wrap up, The Stepford Wives starts to veer dangerously close to a clichéd mad slasher flick.
And that's my only complaint. My favorite moment in the movie is when one of Katherine Ross' friends, I think it was Tina Louise, mocks suburban wifey-wifeness by sneering through cigarette smoke, "Personally, I'd rather not squeeze the goddamned Charmin."
That line is my take-away from this well-made, unpleasant, and disturbing little horror flick.
I don't think of myself as a feminist--the levels of anger and hostility are a turn-off--but I got the point of the movie. Stepford is a grown-ups' movie because it has the audacity to tell an uncomfortable story, one of possessiveness and mass-murder in a sleepy New England community.
The futuristic technology in the movie was dated for a long while, but with the advent of that Scarlett Johansson robot in the news, the end scene in TSW seems eerily prescient.
In my childhood, I expected the good guys--or in this case, the heroine--to win. I won't give anything away, but the ending of The Stepford Wives is easy to see coming as an almost senior-citizen, but as a high school senior, I was stunned at how the story ends.
Some years ago I read the Ira Levin novel. There is a moment in the book that, if I had been a 17 year old, I would have found incomprehensible. The main character and her husband are drifting away from each other, and, one night, the husband starts masturbating in bed while his wife, who he thinks is asleep, is very much awake. She lays still with her back to him. He is crying while he's manipulating himself, and she's horrified but silent.
Here is his wife, 6 inches away from him, but the distance could easily be 6 miles. They're no longer married. She's dead to him.
Heavy stuff, dude.
Johanna Eberhart's husband, Walter, holds a secret so monstrous, his wife's horror at his self-gratification would quickly vanish if she knew her fate.
So, when I sat down to watch the movie again some 10 years ago, I was startled at how deeply disturbing the book was and how the movie almost gets it right. The cast is both acceptable and believable, and my only quibble is that, as things wrap up, The Stepford Wives starts to veer dangerously close to a clichéd mad slasher flick.
And that's my only complaint. My favorite moment in the movie is when one of Katherine Ross' friends, I think it was Tina Louise, mocks suburban wifey-wifeness by sneering through cigarette smoke, "Personally, I'd rather not squeeze the goddamned Charmin."
That line is my take-away from this well-made, unpleasant, and disturbing little horror flick.
The Stepford Wives
EdgarST26 January 2000
It seems "The Stepford Wives" is enjoying a revival. However, it has been a cult movie since its release. As Gregory J. Paris writes, the act of losing one's personality while adjusting to conformity is an important issue in this film. In addition, it deals with man's obsession with "creating", until the day he realizes that the act of procreating is perhaps humanity's greatest gift for creation. It also reminds us of the cult to the mother figure, of the dangers of modern technocracies, of phallocracy
All these concepts are expressed in a peculiar form in "The Stepford Wives", a movie that deserves to be included among the best of Hollywood's second golden era, the 1970's. Director Bryan Forbes, producer Edgar J. Scherick, and, among the performers, actress Paula Prentiss, recognized comedy as an intelligent genre to make a social comment about society, with Stepford as a metaphor. With moving dolls bestowed with graceful movements, dressed in long dresses, wearing hats and carrying parasols, the tone of the sophisticated American comedy seems appropriate to tell this horror story. The connection with dolls is established since the first sequence, when --following husband Walter's unilateral decision-- the family is moving to Stepford, and the kids call mother Joanna's attention to someone carrying a mannequin across a street in New York City: this aspect is used again, most notably when Joanna hosts the Stepford husbands, dressed in a flesh-colored suit. In Stepford, a liberal suburb, with good schools, low taxes, pure air, and business dedicated to electronics, you can sleep with your doors open. Wives are all dressed up, they have no interest in women's rights, and except for Bobbie Markowe and Charmaine, the rest –-when not cooking or ironing-- complain of not being able to bake every day, or would promote for free a brand of starch spray, just because it is such a good product. The funny thing is that the husbands are as boring and robot-like as their wives. They're all successful professionals, who obediently have joined the men's association, which turns into Joanna's headache and builds the tension of the film. There is little suspense in "The Stepford Wives", as we know it in other motion pictures: since the beginning we know that something is wrong, but the filmmakers make us watch the anomalous situation, with Michael Small providing music that is far from horror or suspense scores. What Forbes and company do is to tease us, because we know that Joanna will become Playmate of the Year (check the poster!), following the drawings of an ex illustrator from Playboy magazine, and the technical specifications of a former Disney executive. When she understands why Carol acts like a zombie, why Charmaine hangs her tennis outfit, and why Bobbie turns into a 'chic' housekeeper, Joanna is confronted with her own replica. Why? Because the males can. As simple as that: "Me Tarzan, you second person, you stick to the loser position in a game that I always win". "The Stepford Wives" reminds me of another movie, L.G. Berlanga's "Tamaño natural" (Life-Size), in which Michel Piccoli buys himself a plastic doll to replace his wife. Berlanga and his writers Rafael Azcona and Jean-Claude Carrière emphasized psychological aspects. On "Stepford", while many of its comments add spice to the story (someone affirms that blackmail is what makes America great, another male has been sent to Panama maybe to arrange things for a new revolution or a new invasion), they also point to social and political reasons for this state of things, of this dehumanized community that money and know-how can buy. The technological paranoia enters the main bedroom. The male, confronted with the agony of some of his gender's privileges, his false attributes and wrong values, hits against the female. This may seem pessimistic, but it is also very realistic. The points "The Stepford Wives" made, created a controversy when it was released in 1975. Since then science has advanced. Maybe now they can make better Stepford wives, that cannot be altered by liquor or a stab, but many things related to the human heart remain the same. The problem is still there, because our egomaniac approach to our fellow human beings of any gender has remained basically the same, making the film actual still today.
It's wife Jim, but not as we know it ...
Beard_Warning30 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The Stepford Wives is a film with a lot of unfulfilled potential. The plot revolves around strange goings on in the suburban area of Stepford. A new couple move into the area and the wife (Katherine Ross) soon realises something is afoot. It all seems to resolve around a secretive men's organisation.
There are a number of problem's with this film. Whilst the 70's was the classic area of paranoia films (think "The Parallax View", "All the president's men" etc), director Bryan Forbes fails to really convey the paranoia, tension and suspense needed. When compared to Polanski's "Rosemary's Baby" (another adaptation from an Ira Levin novel) it falls very flat indeed.
The screenplay is not particularly strong. I'd be interested to seen William Goldman's original script - apparently Forbes completely rewrote it.
The casting is all wrong too. According to the original novel (and Goldman's original screenplay) the wives themselves are supposed to playboy bunny types - the complete embodiment of the American ideal of a perfect woman. Nanette Newman may be a good actress, but centrefold material she is not. This somewhat destroys the husbands' motives. If you are going to make a replacement wife, you are going to make her as perfect as possible.
It was rumoured that De Palma was considered for the director's role - I think this would have been a far more interesting film with him at the helm.
Still, some of the concepts and themes are interesting - which in some ways makes it all the more disappointing that the final result is so flat.
There are a number of problem's with this film. Whilst the 70's was the classic area of paranoia films (think "The Parallax View", "All the president's men" etc), director Bryan Forbes fails to really convey the paranoia, tension and suspense needed. When compared to Polanski's "Rosemary's Baby" (another adaptation from an Ira Levin novel) it falls very flat indeed.
The screenplay is not particularly strong. I'd be interested to seen William Goldman's original script - apparently Forbes completely rewrote it.
The casting is all wrong too. According to the original novel (and Goldman's original screenplay) the wives themselves are supposed to playboy bunny types - the complete embodiment of the American ideal of a perfect woman. Nanette Newman may be a good actress, but centrefold material she is not. This somewhat destroys the husbands' motives. If you are going to make a replacement wife, you are going to make her as perfect as possible.
It was rumoured that De Palma was considered for the director's role - I think this would have been a far more interesting film with him at the helm.
Still, some of the concepts and themes are interesting - which in some ways makes it all the more disappointing that the final result is so flat.
"Like one of those robots in Disneyland..."
moonspinner5530 June 2001
"The Stepford Wives" certainly isn't the greatest thriller ever made, it isn't one of my all-time favorite movies, yet I've probably seen it 25 times and I'm always willing to return for more of its creepy, seductive ambiance. Director Bryan Forbes has created a funny/sinister atmosphere surrounding a secretive society of men in suburbia who exchange chilling glances and lines when they are alone ("She cooks as good as she looks, Ted."). It does however feature a very moody and unhappy Katharine Ross at the center, and it's easy to see why somebody might want to bump her off: she gripes, she complains, she stalks out of rooms flicking her long, thick hair out of her face. When Patrick O'Neal tells Ross at a social gathering that he used to work at Disneyland, she balks, "You don't look like someone who enjoys making other people happy." This just after meeting the man! Thank goodness then for happily crass and vulgar Paula Prentiss as Katharine's gal-pal Bobbie. Prentiss overdoes it a bit, but she comes into the picture at the right time and gives it an extra lift. The scenario (a squeaky clean Connecticut community) is gleefully turned inside out to reveal sinister underpinnings, and I loved Ross' sequence with the psychiatrist (who seems convinced by Katharine's outlandish story, which is a nice change of pace). No, it isn't art (or even the black comedy screenwriter William Goldman says he intended it to be), but "The Stepford Wives" is smooth, absorbing and enjoyable. It cooks as good as it looks. ***1/2 from ****
Go into it knowing as little as possible
TheOneThatYouWanted29 April 2017
So I watched both versions of the Stepford Wives back to back. And, of course, the original is better but not for obvious reasons. Basically the newer version is a wannabe Tim Burton movie that fails on all levels.
But whatever, this is a review for the original, which is a well made semi-horror film. But the film doesn't work if you know the ending because the film is more of a mystery than a horror. You know something isn't right with the wives living in Stepford, but you don't know just what and you're trying to figure it out with the lead actress. But woah, this film must have sparked a lot of controversy back in the days. Even by today's standards it seems almost as extreme as "Get Out." And boy how we need "Get Out's" with all the madness going on, must have been the same deal with women back then, or maybe Hollywood was late to the party considering this came out in the late 70s. Whatever. It is an entertaining film if you go into it knowing as little as possible.
But whatever, this is a review for the original, which is a well made semi-horror film. But the film doesn't work if you know the ending because the film is more of a mystery than a horror. You know something isn't right with the wives living in Stepford, but you don't know just what and you're trying to figure it out with the lead actress. But woah, this film must have sparked a lot of controversy back in the days. Even by today's standards it seems almost as extreme as "Get Out." And boy how we need "Get Out's" with all the madness going on, must have been the same deal with women back then, or maybe Hollywood was late to the party considering this came out in the late 70s. Whatever. It is an entertaining film if you go into it knowing as little as possible.
Suburban Complacency is Dangerous
nycritic16 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Ira Levin must not like women, or hold them in high regard. In ROSEMARY'S BABY he put his leading lady through the worst pregnancy in literature, and once she got an ounce of courage to act on her own and escape the coven that surrounded her, he had an uninvolved doctor send her right back in. And now in THE STEPFORD WIVES, he does an almost by-the-numbers repeat of his previous novel (sans the supernatural in favor for extremely subtle science fiction overtones) and switches not only location but divides the genders, in which the men, viewed mainly as piggish dorks, are behind some shady business and are somehow married to these knockout (yet oddly vacant) hausfraus whose only motive in life seem to be discussing fabric softeners, cleaning at all time, and then cleaning some more.
I presume most people, if not all unless they have been living under a rock or Siberia, will be acquainted with the plot, which in the novel is very short yet covers a period of four months, and in the movie moves along a little too slowly in the beginning but later starts to gather quiet force in a tightening noose, so I won't detail it here because to do so would not only be redundant but could not be done without revealing an important aspect of the movie. While the novel basically drops the secret midway by means of a poem Joanna Eberhart writes, the movie takes its time to let us in on the conspiracy which at the end reveals itself in that final, horrifying sequence at the Men's Association. And by then we've been outraged by the women's blighted feminism, and infuriated at the men who are little more than dangerous cavemen hiding behind technology and deceptive appearances.
I don't know if Levin, in creating his story, was looking for satire or horror but he manages to (again) blend elements of the two in a short yet unforgettable book. The fact that "Stepford" has made its presence in today's vocabulary has a lot of debt to the story and of course, the shocking movie. Both work on different levels while giving us the same bleak ending, but the movie has Joanna conveying even more sadness at the end as the camera moves into the expression in her eyes, and one can see just how much has been quenched in the name of submission. Katharine Ross is great in giving us that visual sense of a woman's life snuffed in favor of a mannequin's programmed existence. For that, it deserves to be up there with another similar classic: INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, as stories about the Individual being forced into Assimilation by Complacency and Conformism, and Stepford couldn't spell it out better.
I presume most people, if not all unless they have been living under a rock or Siberia, will be acquainted with the plot, which in the novel is very short yet covers a period of four months, and in the movie moves along a little too slowly in the beginning but later starts to gather quiet force in a tightening noose, so I won't detail it here because to do so would not only be redundant but could not be done without revealing an important aspect of the movie. While the novel basically drops the secret midway by means of a poem Joanna Eberhart writes, the movie takes its time to let us in on the conspiracy which at the end reveals itself in that final, horrifying sequence at the Men's Association. And by then we've been outraged by the women's blighted feminism, and infuriated at the men who are little more than dangerous cavemen hiding behind technology and deceptive appearances.
I don't know if Levin, in creating his story, was looking for satire or horror but he manages to (again) blend elements of the two in a short yet unforgettable book. The fact that "Stepford" has made its presence in today's vocabulary has a lot of debt to the story and of course, the shocking movie. Both work on different levels while giving us the same bleak ending, but the movie has Joanna conveying even more sadness at the end as the camera moves into the expression in her eyes, and one can see just how much has been quenched in the name of submission. Katharine Ross is great in giving us that visual sense of a woman's life snuffed in favor of a mannequin's programmed existence. For that, it deserves to be up there with another similar classic: INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, as stories about the Individual being forced into Assimilation by Complacency and Conformism, and Stepford couldn't spell it out better.
Madienform Bonfire
bensonmum213 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Joanna Eberhart (Katharine Ross) has moved to Stepford with her husband and children. The place seems absolutely idyllic. But it's not long before Joanna and her new found friend Bobbie (Paula Prentiss), also new to Stepford, begin to realize not all is as wonderful as it seems. The women in town seem to have no interests other than cleaning their houses and pleasing their husbands. Is it something in the water? Joanna and Bobbie must discover the mystery of Stepford before they become its next victims.
While The Stepford Wives may be slow going, it never gets dull. The slow pace adds a lot to the mystery. I've often argued that for effective suspense, you can't rush it. It takes time to build. And even though I knew exactly where The Stepford Wives was going, it was a joy to watch the mystery unfold.
Two of the biggest things the movie has going for it are the cast and the script. As for the cast, Katharine Ross and Paula Prentiss are outstanding. Ross plays her role in a very understated manner and isn't quick to jump to wild conclusions without adequate proof. Too often, characters in horror movies will jump to the wildest of conclusions without a shred of evidence. It makes things very unrealistic. As for Prentiss, she steals every scene in which she appears. And her character is one of the most intelligent, yet free-spirited characters I've seen recently in a movie. In fact, given the implausibility inherent in the story, the entire script is written intelligently. The characters speak and act as one would expect given the circumstances. Plus, any script with the phrase "Madienform Bonfire" is alright with me.
I suppose my biggest complaint would be the lack of time given to the mansion that houses the Stepford Men's Association. I kept waiting for Joanna and Bobbie to do some amateur sleuthing, but it never happened. And even when Joanna finally gets inside, it's over far too quickly.
While The Stepford Wives may be slow going, it never gets dull. The slow pace adds a lot to the mystery. I've often argued that for effective suspense, you can't rush it. It takes time to build. And even though I knew exactly where The Stepford Wives was going, it was a joy to watch the mystery unfold.
Two of the biggest things the movie has going for it are the cast and the script. As for the cast, Katharine Ross and Paula Prentiss are outstanding. Ross plays her role in a very understated manner and isn't quick to jump to wild conclusions without adequate proof. Too often, characters in horror movies will jump to the wildest of conclusions without a shred of evidence. It makes things very unrealistic. As for Prentiss, she steals every scene in which she appears. And her character is one of the most intelligent, yet free-spirited characters I've seen recently in a movie. In fact, given the implausibility inherent in the story, the entire script is written intelligently. The characters speak and act as one would expect given the circumstances. Plus, any script with the phrase "Madienform Bonfire" is alright with me.
I suppose my biggest complaint would be the lack of time given to the mansion that houses the Stepford Men's Association. I kept waiting for Joanna and Bobbie to do some amateur sleuthing, but it never happened. And even when Joanna finally gets inside, it's over far too quickly.
Promising story but execution fells pretty flat
Johan_Wondering_on_Waves10 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
So this movie is based on a novel by the man who also wrote "Rosemary's baby". That's a hard task to live up to. OK I wasn't expecting it to be as good as the aforementioned movie but with an interesting premise like this I was quite underwhelmed by the result. It's shocking how little is actually happening despite a duration of almost 2 hours. Pacing is slow and there is too much dialog that really isn't much helping the story forward. With the exception of main actress Katharine Ross, the characters don't seem very important getting little elaboration. There is obviously a lot going on in that little quiet town but not very much is shown. In the end the mystery is revealed but still I would have wanted to know more than the poor explanation of Mr Dis in the ending why the men were doing that to their wives plus how did they come up with these clones. Surely a pretty drawing can't be enough? I hated the ending, hoped our heroine could have found a way to fight back. That was pretty sad for all the efforts she did. I was hoping she at least could have escaped that sad fate.
Still absolutely remarkable after all these years.
San Franciscan30 April 2003
Warning: Spoilers
THE STEPFORD WIVES is an absolute classic of its type, and there is a reason why this amazing movie has managed to earn such a powerful place in popular culture and even slang terms. It presents an idea that has to be experienced fresh, without any previous knowledge of its concept and ideas, in order to be fully appreciated by first-time viewers.
I was lucky enough to have had that opportunity years ago.
If by some equally lucky chance you personally have no idea what this movie's concept is about and are completely innocent of it, let me pass on some helpful advice; read no further than this paragraph. The movie may seem to have a snail's pace, hokey acting and a dull layout but trust me, see it through to the end. Don't stop watching it whatever you do until it finishes. I'll just say that I envy your getting to experience this film for the very first time... I wish I could be in your shoes again.
***SPOILERS AHEAD: All those who haven't seen or heard about this movie should stop reading here***
Okay, those people will be SO lucky to get to experience this sharp fable for the very first time fresh, as it was intended. I have found it classified under several different categories in different videostores; "sci-fi", "horror", "thriller", "drama", and yes, "classic". The truth is that it fits into all those categories. But however you want to personally classify it, THE STEPFORD WIVES is a powerful movie with a powerful message to share.
The movie nearly threatens to bore you to death at first as it lulls you into a fake feeling of comfort while it slowly starts dropping clues as to what is happening in the creepy little town of Stepford. After seeing it all the way through to its shocking conclusion, one can see that all the "bad acting" was deliberate and just how carefully crafted this mini-masterpiece really is.
The performances are actually all top notch once you realize how the acting was "supposed to be" in the end. Joanne and her friends are all so well-portrayed and superbly acted that you find yourself rooting for them even when you don't realize at first just how serious their plight really is. And the dark portrayal of the character "Diz" (I USED to think *I* made that name up first! ACK!) is powerful, and made all the more insultingly evil when it turns out he used to work for Disneyland; like Pinocchio's "Stromboli" character, the connection of using the technology of such a happy and innocently beautiful place for such an evil purpose makes us loathe him all the more (one gets the impression that Diz was FIRED from Disneyland for being such a selfish and cruel snake).
This movie has often been described as a Women's Lib statement. And, of course, it can definitely be taken that way. But it actually works on a far deeper level than that. There are two levels to it at once: it attacks the obnoxious stereotype of men out there who believe that all women should be slaves to mechanically do their bidding, AND it also savagely attacks the equally obnoxious stereotype of women out there who believe that all men are the selfish, heartless jerks that they are in this movie.
And as extra "plus" points, the movie even makes huge proclamations about the importance of being true to yourself and not being forced to go along with blind conformity. The women are forced against their will to eventually become "bland conformists" void of personality, a strong statement of just how awful it would be if everyone was alike and how it is everyone's individuality that makes them so wonderful and special. This idea is further enforced by Joanne's obnoxious but weak husband; he goes along with the whole idea due to peer pressure, and all the while attempts to drink the pain away with tears in his eyes because he doesn't want to do it but is nevertheless too much of a coward to say "no" due to his desperately wanting to fit in with the "In" crowd (and that's a statement that EVERYONE can and does understand).
This movie is a wonderful reminder of how it is our humanity and our individual personalities as people that make living so special. Many films have made that point, of course, but not many out there have managed to do so with the powerful "slap in the face" whallop of THE STEPFORD WIVES, an important film that still rings true in a world where people's special and individual qualities are becoming more and more ignored.
I was lucky enough to have had that opportunity years ago.
If by some equally lucky chance you personally have no idea what this movie's concept is about and are completely innocent of it, let me pass on some helpful advice; read no further than this paragraph. The movie may seem to have a snail's pace, hokey acting and a dull layout but trust me, see it through to the end. Don't stop watching it whatever you do until it finishes. I'll just say that I envy your getting to experience this film for the very first time... I wish I could be in your shoes again.
***SPOILERS AHEAD: All those who haven't seen or heard about this movie should stop reading here***
Okay, those people will be SO lucky to get to experience this sharp fable for the very first time fresh, as it was intended. I have found it classified under several different categories in different videostores; "sci-fi", "horror", "thriller", "drama", and yes, "classic". The truth is that it fits into all those categories. But however you want to personally classify it, THE STEPFORD WIVES is a powerful movie with a powerful message to share.
The movie nearly threatens to bore you to death at first as it lulls you into a fake feeling of comfort while it slowly starts dropping clues as to what is happening in the creepy little town of Stepford. After seeing it all the way through to its shocking conclusion, one can see that all the "bad acting" was deliberate and just how carefully crafted this mini-masterpiece really is.
The performances are actually all top notch once you realize how the acting was "supposed to be" in the end. Joanne and her friends are all so well-portrayed and superbly acted that you find yourself rooting for them even when you don't realize at first just how serious their plight really is. And the dark portrayal of the character "Diz" (I USED to think *I* made that name up first! ACK!) is powerful, and made all the more insultingly evil when it turns out he used to work for Disneyland; like Pinocchio's "Stromboli" character, the connection of using the technology of such a happy and innocently beautiful place for such an evil purpose makes us loathe him all the more (one gets the impression that Diz was FIRED from Disneyland for being such a selfish and cruel snake).
This movie has often been described as a Women's Lib statement. And, of course, it can definitely be taken that way. But it actually works on a far deeper level than that. There are two levels to it at once: it attacks the obnoxious stereotype of men out there who believe that all women should be slaves to mechanically do their bidding, AND it also savagely attacks the equally obnoxious stereotype of women out there who believe that all men are the selfish, heartless jerks that they are in this movie.
And as extra "plus" points, the movie even makes huge proclamations about the importance of being true to yourself and not being forced to go along with blind conformity. The women are forced against their will to eventually become "bland conformists" void of personality, a strong statement of just how awful it would be if everyone was alike and how it is everyone's individuality that makes them so wonderful and special. This idea is further enforced by Joanne's obnoxious but weak husband; he goes along with the whole idea due to peer pressure, and all the while attempts to drink the pain away with tears in his eyes because he doesn't want to do it but is nevertheless too much of a coward to say "no" due to his desperately wanting to fit in with the "In" crowd (and that's a statement that EVERYONE can and does understand).
This movie is a wonderful reminder of how it is our humanity and our individual personalities as people that make living so special. Many films have made that point, of course, but not many out there have managed to do so with the powerful "slap in the face" whallop of THE STEPFORD WIVES, an important film that still rings true in a world where people's special and individual qualities are becoming more and more ignored.
Stepford: A traditional community
bkoganbing4 September 2019
I hadn't seen The Stepford Wives in over 30 years when I got to see it again. I
had forgotten how long it was and how slow it moved. At least 20 minutes could
have been cut out of it.
Peter Masterson and Katharine Ross a New York City upper class Yuppie couple gets this idea to move to the suburbs and Fairfield County in Connecticut is as posh a place as you'll find. It's really his idea, but she goes along.
It looks ideal but to Ross she notices changes coming over some of the women. It's like they're drained of individuality and ideas. They become obsessed with just being housekeepers.
It's a pretty interesting thought, these folks becoming pod people for the 70s. How is it done and Ross is determined to find out.
Let's just say that Stepford is a community where none of these newfangled ideas about destroying the patriarchy won't find their way there. No subversion in this community.
For women everywhere who have evolved beyond Phyllis Schafly this is a scary movie. No monsters real or imagined, still a frightening in 1975 that the moviegoing public found. Katherine Ross is caught up in reactionary place and is a perfect portrait of a trapped woman.
Talk about upholding traditional values.
Peter Masterson and Katharine Ross a New York City upper class Yuppie couple gets this idea to move to the suburbs and Fairfield County in Connecticut is as posh a place as you'll find. It's really his idea, but she goes along.
It looks ideal but to Ross she notices changes coming over some of the women. It's like they're drained of individuality and ideas. They become obsessed with just being housekeepers.
It's a pretty interesting thought, these folks becoming pod people for the 70s. How is it done and Ross is determined to find out.
Let's just say that Stepford is a community where none of these newfangled ideas about destroying the patriarchy won't find their way there. No subversion in this community.
For women everywhere who have evolved beyond Phyllis Schafly this is a scary movie. No monsters real or imagined, still a frightening in 1975 that the moviegoing public found. Katherine Ross is caught up in reactionary place and is a perfect portrait of a trapped woman.
Talk about upholding traditional values.
She Cooks as Good as She Looks
utgard1428 December 2013
Joanna Eberhardt (Katharine Ross) and husband Walter (Peter Masterson) move their family from Manhattan to a quiet suburb called Stepford. All of the wives there seem to be completely subservient to their husbands. Before long, Joanna begins to suspect there may be more to the housewives' behavior than meets the eye. She also wonders if the mysterious Men's Association, of which her husband is the newest member, is behind it all.
I liked this movie a lot more than I expected to. I've read before that the film was too slow but I enjoyed the pacing. I went into this knowing, more or less, what the plot was all about so I wasn't surprised by much. Still it was an enjoyable "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" type of thriller with some sci-fi elements and dark humor. The cast is good. Ross isn't a favorite of mine but she's fine here. Paula Prentiss is the standout, however. Her effortless and charismatic performance as the Ethel to Katharine Ross' Lucy helped soften the somewhat icy Ross. Tina Louise is also in it and enjoyable. The only real fault casting-wise is Nanette Newman, wife of the director. She doesn't seem the right fit for her part. But otherwise the movie has a solid cast. It's an entertaining film. It obviously has some subtext to it that many will find interesting to chew on. Whether you're one of them or not, it's got enough going for it to make for an enjoyable straightforward viewing experience.
I liked this movie a lot more than I expected to. I've read before that the film was too slow but I enjoyed the pacing. I went into this knowing, more or less, what the plot was all about so I wasn't surprised by much. Still it was an enjoyable "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" type of thriller with some sci-fi elements and dark humor. The cast is good. Ross isn't a favorite of mine but she's fine here. Paula Prentiss is the standout, however. Her effortless and charismatic performance as the Ethel to Katharine Ross' Lucy helped soften the somewhat icy Ross. Tina Louise is also in it and enjoyable. The only real fault casting-wise is Nanette Newman, wife of the director. She doesn't seem the right fit for her part. But otherwise the movie has a solid cast. It's an entertaining film. It obviously has some subtext to it that many will find interesting to chew on. Whether you're one of them or not, it's got enough going for it to make for an enjoyable straightforward viewing experience.
Wives Out
Lejink13 May 2021
One hopes that director Bryan Forbes and indeed source novelist Ira Levin were being highly satirical with this very chauvinistic tale in which the good ladies of Stepford seem to conform to a very man-centric view about what constitutes the perfect wife. The womenfolk in this small backwood town seem to exist only to cater to the every need of their husbands, uniformly deferring to them in everything, from ensuring their man has a hearty dinner waiting for them when they return to their spotlessly cleaned home after a hard day at work, to indulging their every whim even in the bedroom. These women certainly know their place and appear perfectly happy in their docile domesticity, allowing the men to meet up together and rule the roost even though it's clear that these guys are all self-important, narcissistic bozos who'd struggle to put their trousers on the right way round, if left to themselves.
Into this idyllic Big Boys Town comes Katherine Ross, as Joanna Elkhart, a young photographer married to her city-slicker lawyer husband with their two young kids, the family craving a change of pace as well as place, but she's immediately struck by the bland, obedient ways of all the wives she meets in town as well as the strangely similar outdated clothes they wear, all white lace and plunging neck-lines. She pals up with another newbie, Paula Prentiss's gobby Bobbie, but then when even she suddenly turns into a welcome-mat wife like all the rest, her suspicions are aroused and she determines to ascertain the truth, which she does at dead of night in a roaring thunderstorm, natch, at the big old house in the centre of town presided over by the apparent leader of the men's association, played by the sinister Patrick O'Neal.
Filmed in a dreamy, gauzy, very 70's style by Forbes, rather like a glossy TV advert, it certainly draws you in to its super-indulgent men-only fantasy-world, up until the last half-hour as the truth is uncovered and we move into horror-film territory. Watching it, I was reminded of that other classic male-fantasy movie of the time, Michael Crichton's "Westworld", although here, at least there's no sign that this boys-only nirvana is going to end anytime soon.
Like I said, I'm guessing and hoping that director Forbes is taking a side and striking a blow for woman's lib in the battle-of-the-sexes argument which was raging at the time. I do think he made a mistake however in casting, as he usually does in fact, his English wife Nanette Newman as one of the wives as she's too old and mumsy for her part.
Very much a film of its time, in subject-matter, standpoint and visual style, it does leave the viewer with a sense of disquiet but also one would hope, distaste for the caveman attitudes perpetuated in the movie.
Into this idyllic Big Boys Town comes Katherine Ross, as Joanna Elkhart, a young photographer married to her city-slicker lawyer husband with their two young kids, the family craving a change of pace as well as place, but she's immediately struck by the bland, obedient ways of all the wives she meets in town as well as the strangely similar outdated clothes they wear, all white lace and plunging neck-lines. She pals up with another newbie, Paula Prentiss's gobby Bobbie, but then when even she suddenly turns into a welcome-mat wife like all the rest, her suspicions are aroused and she determines to ascertain the truth, which she does at dead of night in a roaring thunderstorm, natch, at the big old house in the centre of town presided over by the apparent leader of the men's association, played by the sinister Patrick O'Neal.
Filmed in a dreamy, gauzy, very 70's style by Forbes, rather like a glossy TV advert, it certainly draws you in to its super-indulgent men-only fantasy-world, up until the last half-hour as the truth is uncovered and we move into horror-film territory. Watching it, I was reminded of that other classic male-fantasy movie of the time, Michael Crichton's "Westworld", although here, at least there's no sign that this boys-only nirvana is going to end anytime soon.
Like I said, I'm guessing and hoping that director Forbes is taking a side and striking a blow for woman's lib in the battle-of-the-sexes argument which was raging at the time. I do think he made a mistake however in casting, as he usually does in fact, his English wife Nanette Newman as one of the wives as she's too old and mumsy for her part.
Very much a film of its time, in subject-matter, standpoint and visual style, it does leave the viewer with a sense of disquiet but also one would hope, distaste for the caveman attitudes perpetuated in the movie.
Very Dark Sci-Fi
claudio_carvalho8 January 2006
The urban aspirant photographer Joanna Eberhart (Katharine Ross) moves from Manhattan to Stepford, Connecticut, Massachussets with her family. Her husband Walter Eberhart (Peter Masterson) decided to live in a calm suburb, but Joanna did not like the neighborhood with beautiful and perfect housewives. She becomes friend of Bobbie Markowe (Paula Prentiss) and Charmaine Wimperis (Tina Louise), and when they change their behaviors and viewpoints, Joanna discloses a dark secret in the place.
On 21 April 2005, I saw the remake of "The Stepford Wives" and I found it a funny entertainment. However, the original adaptation of Ira Levin's book is a suspenseful and very dark sci-fi, and certainly better and better than the 2005's version. When I was a teenager, Katharine Ross was one of my favorite actresses, and she is perfect in the role of an intelligent woman finding the truth hidden behind the complacency of such dedicated wives. The pace of this thriller is adequate, and the direction of Bryan Forbes is very good. I do not know why this great movie has not been released on VHS or DVD in Brazil. My vote is eight.
Title (Brazil): "As Esposas de Stepford" ("The Wives of Stepford")
On 21 April 2005, I saw the remake of "The Stepford Wives" and I found it a funny entertainment. However, the original adaptation of Ira Levin's book is a suspenseful and very dark sci-fi, and certainly better and better than the 2005's version. When I was a teenager, Katharine Ross was one of my favorite actresses, and she is perfect in the role of an intelligent woman finding the truth hidden behind the complacency of such dedicated wives. The pace of this thriller is adequate, and the direction of Bryan Forbes is very good. I do not know why this great movie has not been released on VHS or DVD in Brazil. My vote is eight.
Title (Brazil): "As Esposas de Stepford" ("The Wives of Stepford")
Slow motion collision with a twisted patriarchal technocracy ?
marshalskrieg18 December 2019
A normal couple move out of the stressful big city to live in a tranquil upper middle class semi- rural community, seeking peace and quiet. The town holds a sinister secret though- why do the wives of Stepford all seem to mindlessly content ? That is the start of this slow paced , surreal , and in some ways silly horror story. Gradually, clues begin the mount and the viewer becomes aware that soothing is very terribly wrong with these women. The last third of the film is better, more intense than the prior segments; the ending makes it all worth the while. Several themes are explored in this movie- an intensification of the 'war' between the sexes, crude stereotypes about that women think men want, the conflict between being independent , an individual, being free, plus Mans desire to 'create.' Some feminists objected to this movie but it should be obvious that , if anything, the movie is anti men, and not anti women at all.
Mary Stuart Masterson hasn't changed a bit!
caspian19786 April 2005
Katharine Ross gives her best performance in this modern day horror / science fiction masterpiece. For odd, but explainable reasons, the Stepford Wives looks a little like Suspiria and I Spit on Your Grave. Since it was shot in the 1970's, the movie is somewhat of a time machine that allows us to look back at a different time. The ending's climax makes the movie a true horror movie as the hallway's of the Men's Association looks a lot like the Girl's Dance Conservatory in Suspiria. The look of the movie seems low budget at times, but this simple use of direction and story telling adds to the setting of Stepford. Ross is perfect for the role. It is a giant slap in the face when Ross sees her robot-like self with bigger breasts that her. This adds to the idea of Men wanting to control their wives and wanting certain things from them. Even for the 1970's, this is a giant push back to the 1950's with human / women's rights. Scary and utterly horrific by the end, the Stepford Wives is a success as the movie makes its audience think.
Lazy, 70s thriller.
OllieSuave-00718 January 2021
This is lazy-feel 70s thriller about a Joanna Eberhart who moves to Stepford, Connecticut with her family, but soon discovers that the women in the town are odd and exhibits robotic behaviors.
The pacing of the movie is fairly slow and much of the suspense and thrills do not take place until the second half of the movie. The acting was OK and the plot had potential, but the overall, lazy atmosphere and lack of urgency in the film didn't quite give the story much excitement. Much of the movie is all talk and dialog.
Grade C
The pacing of the movie is fairly slow and much of the suspense and thrills do not take place until the second half of the movie. The acting was OK and the plot had potential, but the overall, lazy atmosphere and lack of urgency in the film didn't quite give the story much excitement. Much of the movie is all talk and dialog.
Grade C
It's Just Really, Really Good
joshwapp21 January 2022
It's just that good.... and, it is proof that you don't need a big budget to make a great movie. It is a very original and complete movie, in my mind (in other words, I can't think of a way to improve upon it). OK; so why didn't I give it ten stars? I'm not sure, to be honest, I guess I'm just stingy with my ratings.
I like movies that stick with me, make me think about the story afterwards, and want to watch it again some day, which this clearly does.
I like movies that stick with me, make me think about the story afterwards, and want to watch it again some day, which this clearly does.
Dark, Satirical, Gripping Thriller About Domestic Bliss In Small-Town America
ShootingShark12 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Joanna Eberhart moves with her husband and two children to the picturesque Connecticut village of Stepford to escape the grime and crime of New York. But she misses her old life and finds Stepford dull and superficial. The women act like TV commercial dolly-birds, whose only desire is to be pretty, fit in and support their families. Where is their individuality, and what do all the men do all night at their mysterious club ?
Like a lot of movies with a killer twist, some people say that once you know the gag in this movie then it's not worth seeing. That completely misses the point. The plot is gripping (and wisely doesn't explain itself too much) but it's the social comment that's particularly incisive and interesting. Most women have to force themselves not to be defined by their relationships to others, and are expected to adhere to the role of glamorous, non-presumptive cook-cleaner-lover-nursemaid without complaint; the movie is a funny, scary, crafty examination of that role taken to the most ludicrous extreme, crystallised when Joanna says, "When you come back there'll be a woman with my name and my face, she'll cook and clean like crazy, but she won't take pictures and she won't be me !". What I find particularly interesting about this is that the male fantasy of what women should be - based on some fifties ideal that never existed - is as prevalent as ever today. Check out the girls section of any toy store and there's nothing but endless rows of pink, ultra-feminised tat. Look at female singers on MTV or women in commercials and they are almost all portrayed as sex objects with nothing to say but look how alluring I am. TV is full of crappy reality shows telling women how to make their home look nicer or how to cook better. Where are the angry broads shouting about this, as there were in the sixties and seventies ? In short, this is a very rich theme, more so now than ever. Technically, the film is terrific; Owen Roizman's photography is a finely-judged mixture of the bland sheen of Stepford's appearance and the dark underbelly of its secrets, with the final scene in the supermarket particularly memorable. The good-but-not-great cast are enjoyable - the show-stealer is Prentiss who is hilarious as the lovably screwy Bobbie; when a statuesque blonde asks her which of two sweet-looking flowers she prefers, her cheerful response is, "Erm, I don't think either one.". Look fast for Dee Wallace as a German maid. Scripted by uber-screenwriter William Goldman and based on a brilliant book by Ira Levin (who also wrote Rosemary's Baby and The Boys From Brazil), and remade as a more overtly comic piece by Frank Oz in 2004. Trivia - Masterson's daughter Mary Stewart - a very successful adult actress, particularly in the nineties - plays one his two children, and Newman (famous here in the UK for selling washing-up liquid on TV would you believe) is the wife of Forbes. A great film about women, made by men.
Like a lot of movies with a killer twist, some people say that once you know the gag in this movie then it's not worth seeing. That completely misses the point. The plot is gripping (and wisely doesn't explain itself too much) but it's the social comment that's particularly incisive and interesting. Most women have to force themselves not to be defined by their relationships to others, and are expected to adhere to the role of glamorous, non-presumptive cook-cleaner-lover-nursemaid without complaint; the movie is a funny, scary, crafty examination of that role taken to the most ludicrous extreme, crystallised when Joanna says, "When you come back there'll be a woman with my name and my face, she'll cook and clean like crazy, but she won't take pictures and she won't be me !". What I find particularly interesting about this is that the male fantasy of what women should be - based on some fifties ideal that never existed - is as prevalent as ever today. Check out the girls section of any toy store and there's nothing but endless rows of pink, ultra-feminised tat. Look at female singers on MTV or women in commercials and they are almost all portrayed as sex objects with nothing to say but look how alluring I am. TV is full of crappy reality shows telling women how to make their home look nicer or how to cook better. Where are the angry broads shouting about this, as there were in the sixties and seventies ? In short, this is a very rich theme, more so now than ever. Technically, the film is terrific; Owen Roizman's photography is a finely-judged mixture of the bland sheen of Stepford's appearance and the dark underbelly of its secrets, with the final scene in the supermarket particularly memorable. The good-but-not-great cast are enjoyable - the show-stealer is Prentiss who is hilarious as the lovably screwy Bobbie; when a statuesque blonde asks her which of two sweet-looking flowers she prefers, her cheerful response is, "Erm, I don't think either one.". Look fast for Dee Wallace as a German maid. Scripted by uber-screenwriter William Goldman and based on a brilliant book by Ira Levin (who also wrote Rosemary's Baby and The Boys From Brazil), and remade as a more overtly comic piece by Frank Oz in 2004. Trivia - Masterson's daughter Mary Stewart - a very successful adult actress, particularly in the nineties - plays one his two children, and Newman (famous here in the UK for selling washing-up liquid on TV would you believe) is the wife of Forbes. A great film about women, made by men.
A feminine thriller/suspense/horror
frightenedwalmarthomo14 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is like a decent lifetime movie. It isn't really horror, more like a hitchcock style of horror or mystery. A woman and man basically move to a town and at the end of the movie discover that all of the wives have been turned into robots. Thats literally all there is to the storyline, a very basic and simple storyline. The movie is also fairly simple but what carries it along is the dialogue, it is feminine and has an ASMR quality.. Not a bad movie.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
