Revenge of the Stepford Wives (1980 TV Movie) User Reviews

The clueless wives are back...

[Vomitron_G · 5/10 · 7 October 2011]

"Revenge of the Stepford Wives" was in some countries unimaginably released & re-titled as "Terror in New York". What? Yes, this film doesn't even take place in New York. And the 'terror' part? Well,...

"Revenge of the Stepford Wives" is the first in a series of three '80s made-for-TV sequels to the terrific theatrical original, "The Stepford Wives", from 1975. While this is more or less a direct sequel - albeit a very inconsistent one - to the first film, parts 3 & 4 ("The Stepford Children" and "The Stepford Husbands") are more like spin-offs. Naturally, the great - and at times terrifying - concept from the original film gets a bit unintentionally sillier in "Revenge of the Stepford Wives". Since we know from the start what's going on in the town of Stepford, the mystery simply isn't there anymore. All scenes take place during the day and the made-for-TV look & feel doesn't exactly help things either. Meaning, things never get creepy or suspenseful. Even the involvement of cult genre director Robert Fuest (from the "Dr. Phibes" movies, starring Vincent Price, and everybody's favorite melt-movie "The Devil's Rain", featuring Ernest Borgnine as a cross-eyed devil goatman) didn't do anything to uplift the bland production values. But that doesn't mean the film doesn't manage to entertain.

Sharon Gless (as the investigating reporter Kaye Foster, arriving in Stepford with the intent of possibly making a TV program about the town's way of life) is a capable leading lady and it's applaudable she managed to walk through this movie with a straight face, seeing how she often found herself in rather ridiculous situations (like Julie Kavner 'short-circuiting' in her kitchen, then picking up a knife trying to kill Gless). A pre-"Miami Vice" Don Johnson is also walking around in it as the fresh cop in town, eventually agreeing with the Men's Association for his wife to become Stepfordized. You'll also have to wait until the very end of the film for the Stepford wives to actually take revenge (in a laughably appropriate manner). Things might have been dumbed down a lot in this implausible script which takes the original concept of the first film and runs the wrong way with it. But perhaps just because of all this, "Revenge of the Stepford Wives" turns out a rather amusing watch.

Oh CMON!

[triple8 · 4/10 · 22 November 2003]

WARNING:SPOILERS THROUGHOUT!

This WOULD have been great-had the movie followed the premise of the first stepford wives. It's fun to watch the nast stepford men get their due-at last!-but trouble is-if you've seen the first one-this doesn't make any sense-it's as if the writers forgot there evr was an original stepford wives! You can't take the original premise of a classic,make a sequel and just change the whole sequence of events of the first one-it's laughable, ridiculous and and just plain crazy! I am sure the writers could have come up with a plausible way to make a sequel in keeping with Stepfords' original ending-plus wouldn't it have been nice to have Joane and Bobbie back? If I could say what would have been the BEST it would have been to pick up the story with the THERAPIST Joane originally saw as the main character, maybe trying to contact her and realizing Joane was telling the truth-there IS something wrong in stepford.The therapist(can't remember her name)could then go on a quest to find out what's going on in stepford.

I see this SO MUCH with sequels not living up to the original. But this was just a joke-while it WAS nice the way the movie ended who could take it seriously knowing it has almost nothing to do with the original? To bad too, this could have been great.

Revenge Of THE STEPFORD WIVES {TV} (Robert Fuest, 1980) **1/2

[Bunuel1976 · 6/10 · 12 October 2013]

A lady TV reporter (Sharon Gless) arrives in Stepford to hold a survey on its standing as the perfect American community. The concept of the 'makeover' is curiously (and implausibly) reworked here, events play out more like a straight thriller this time around and the look, as befits its small-screen origins, is even blander than before – if still somewhat surprising given the involvement of such a visual stylist as British director Fuest! Nevertheless, the end result proves reasonably effective, with the climactic uprising – against the returning Patrick O'Neal character from the original (here played by Arthur Hill) – agreeably riffing on "The Island of Dr. Moreau". The oddly battered print (for such a relatively recent movie) I watched not only bore hardcoded Dutch subtitles but also the abysmal and misleading video-generated re-titling of TERROR IN NEW YORK – a remnant of the VHS days that also deceitfully highlights the presence within of Don Johnson (then riding high on the success of TV's Miami VICE) in the role of an initially compliant but eventually rebellious cop on its videotape sleeve!

Silly, but fun tv sequel

[DGlen1979 · 12 June 2004]

I enjoyed this movie for two reasons. One: I am a huge fan of the original 1974 film to which this is a sequel, and Two: I love 70's- 80's tv horror movies. The original Stepford Wives is often criticized for being an inferior adaptation of the Ira Levin story. Since I've never read the book I can only say that the movie is ominously moody, spooky and effectively suspenseful. It really manages to create a feeling of uneasiness and Katharine Ross and Paula Prentiss are fantastic as the female leads (played by Nicole Kidman and Bette Midler in the 2004 remake). This sequel does a really bold, unexplained thing and foregoes the premise

revealed in the surprise ending of the original, giving a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT reason for why the women of Stepford are always so "perfect."

Sharon Gless (Cagney from "Cagney and Lacey" and Debbie from "Queer as Folk") is a tv reporter who travels to Stepford to do a report on the ideal community. She quickly befriends another outsider, played by Julie Kavner (the voice of Marge on "The Simpsons"), who is the wife of a cop (Don Johnson from "Miami Vice" and "Nash Bridges"). From there the story pretty much follows that of the original, with Gless in the Ross role and Kavner very much in the Prentiss role. The exception is that Gless's character actually attempts to save her friend and free the women of Stepford, as would not have been possible in the original for obvious reasons. If you're like me and you love 70's and 80's horror tv movies, this is a must. The basic tenets of the horror genre seem to contrast completely with the medium of television during this time, since anything remotely gory or intense would have been censored, most tv horror movies aren't scary at all. In fact, often they come across as cheesy and unintentionally funny. This can be a whole separate, even addicting, genre in itself (see Wes Craven's "Invitation to Hell"). Spielberg's "Duel" and Dan Curtis's "Trilogy of Terror" are real exceptions to this rule, however. So don't go into "Revenge of the Stepford Wives" expecting a masterpiece. Although Gless is very good, the material is just... cheesy. Still, if you're a fan of the original or cheesy tv horror, you should definitely check this one out. I've seen it way too many times. Now I have to go take my pill.

Ridiculous Follow Up to Good Movie

[tex-42 · 1/10 · 9 April 2000]

This very silly sequel basically rewrites the original premise of the original Stepford Wives, and now has it so the wives are simply taking pills to keep them in an obedient state, while telling anyone who asks that they have a mild thyroid condition. What makes it even sillier is that a whistle blows across the entire town every time they take a pill. The main question one asks is "How could any outsider not be suspicious with every woman having a thyroid and stopping in the middle of their actions to take a pill?" Unlike the first movie, the town basically puts up a sign that says something is wrong here. If you enjoyed the first movie avoid this one, the acting is marginal and the script is awful.

No suspense or surprises

[hollywoodshack · 3/10 · 3 August 2017]

I can't help but notice the subtlety of the original movie is completely lost in this sequel. What gave the original all the good scares and chills was the events creeped up on you slowly by surprise. In the Revenge movie, Arthur Hill has an exact plan every few minutes on how to eliminate anyone who wants to escape from Stepford or disrupt the rigid control of the Men's Association. For example, the warm up shows a man and his wife want to move to California. Bam! They make his station wagon crash in five minutes. Sharon Gless plays a reporter doing a story on the nation's most perfect community. But the fact something is wrong just hits her in the face from the very start..Any idiot would leave town in ten minutes to alert the world. The air of mystery has been completely eliminated.

Dispensable!

[stefaniehartmann · 3/10 · 11 March 2018]

How ridicilous! Especially when you watch this movie under the German title "Terro in New York". There is neither terror nor New York. It's just Stepford. And we all know the better movie with Nicole Kidman, Glenn Close... Dispensable!

Terror in New York? Maybe.

[BandSAboutMovies · 6/10 · 6 April 2018]

Ira Levin's 1972 novel, The Stepford Wives, and the 1975 movie that was based on it are both cultural phenomena. Even the phrase "Stepford wife" has entered into our lexicon. So why did things have to stop after one movie? Luckily, NBC aired this sequel on October 12, 1980.

Whereas the original Stepford wives were androids, the new ones are controlled by drugs and hypnosis. That's why the town of Stepford has the lowest divorce and crime rate in the U.S. And it's also what brings reporter Kaye Foster (Shannon Gless, TV's Cagney and Lacey) to town.

The town is against outsiders, who enjoy the quiet surroundings they live in. And oh yeah, the fact that others than 4 sirens a day to tell them to take their pills, they don't have to tell their wives to do anything. They've become the perfect wives - complaint in all ways.

Kaye meets two other outsiders, Megan Brady (Julie Kavner, Marge Simpson!) and her policeman husband, the dim-witted Andy (Don Johnson, singer of "Heartbeat." Oh yeah and Miami Vice, A Boy and His Dog and The Magic Garden of Stanley Sweetheart). Unlike the other women in town, Megan is sarcastic (and near caustic at times) to her husband. She becomes Kay's research assistant.

The Stepford Men's Association, run by Dale "Diz" Coba (The Andromeda Strain), is in charge of town. They even send Barbara Parkinson (Audra Lindley, Mrs. Roper from Three's Company) to run her down with her car. Afterward, all she can do is repeat the same words and appears to be controlled.

Meanwhile, Wally the hotel manager (Mason Adams, God Told Me To) confesses that he wants to leave his wife but can't. She's been programmed to be someone he no longer wants her to be.

Meanwhile, Andy gets the job with the Stepford Police and we see his wife got through the Stepford process. Soon, she's wearing a frilly dress, as well as cooking and cleaning with no complaint. As long as she takes her pills and doesn't drink, all will be well. Kaye sneaks in to watch their initiation ritual and barely escapes with her life.

Kaye then frees Megan by boozing her up. They try to use Wally to escape town, but even though they had already planned on him betraying them, they are still caught. Kaye manages to get a gun and hold Diz at gunpoint while Megan continually rings the siren. As the Stepford Wives overdose on pills, they become violent and attack their men.

Andy returns to help save the day as the women of the town push Diz off a balcony and tear him to pieces as Kaye leaves.

This was directed by Robert Fuest, who also brought us The Abominable Dr. Phibes, Dr. Phibes Rises Again and The Devil's Rain! It's not a bad effort, but a lot of his quirkier touches are absent. Genre vet James MacKrell also shows up (he played Lew Landers in both Gremlins and The Howling).

One of my issues with this movie - and any of the Stepford stores - is that it's a really simplistic view on feminism. At the risk of mansplaining, I think that women can choose wherever they want to be - in the workforce, at home raising a family, not raising a family, doing all of the above. Or none! By placing the battle between liberated career women and drones who only exist to cook and clean, these stories simplify the very complicated battle of the sexes.

That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy this, though! It has some great tension throughout and makes me miss when movies like this would air regularly. This was released on VHS in the 1980's after Don Johnson's Miami Vice fame and even retitled Terror in New York when released internationally. In fact, the version I watched on YouTube has a really poor computer graphics title for this that is just dubbed in!

PG Rating ?

[james1-494-826857 · 5/10 · 14 May 2020]

I'm sorry anytime I see a movie that's rated PG I just don't know about. Except for maybe Sherlock Holmes smarter brother, car wash and a few other movies.

This is a huge step down from the original but is still a fun viewing

[kevin_robbins · 6/10 · 24 February 2022]

Revenge of the Stepford Wives (1980) is a movie I recently watched on YouTube. The storyline follows a magazine that wants to write an article on the amazing town of Stepford that has no crime and once people move there no one wants to leave. Shortly after the newspaper reporter arrives she quickly finds her life at risk as she gets to see how people behave in the unique town.

This movie is directed by Robert Fuest (The Abominable Dr. Phibes) and stars Sharon Gless (Cagney & Lacey), Don Johnson (Miami Vice), Julie Kavner (Click), Audra Lindley (The Relic), Mason Adams (Son in Law) and Arthur Hill (The Andromeda Strain).

The reporter angle was a good plot for a sequel. I will say this does have a lower budget feel and cinematography. You can tell this was a made for television movie. The men in this are more apparent on how they execute their plans and use the community for help than the previous picture since the cat is out of the bag. The costar, Meg, has a annoying voice that drove me crazy all movie. 😂 The Stepford women are well depicted and the kills and action are more fun than good.

Overall this is a huge step down from the original but is still a fun viewing. Don Johnson was entertaining in this role. I would score this a 5.5/10 and recommend seeing it once.

Lacked the Suspense and Intensity of Its Predecessor

[Uriah43 · 4/10 · 13 November 2022]

This film essentially begins 10 years after its predecessor left off with all of the women living in Stepford completely docile and totally committed to their husband's interests above all else. So much so that, after the manager of a particular television show reads about the low crime and divorce rates in that town, he decides to send an investigative journalist named "Kaye Foster" (Sharon Gless) to check it out. Sure enough, she is amazed at how incredibly dull and domesticated the women appear to be. Fortunately, there is one particular young woman by the name of "Megan Brady" (Julie Kavner) who doesn't quite fit that mold and she is quickly hired by Kaye to help with her research. What neither of them realize, however, is that there are people within the town who are extremely concerned about having their devious secrets exposed and will do anything necessary to prevent that from happening. Now, rather than reveal any more, I will just say that this made-for-television sequel deviates somewhat from the original film concerning the manner in which the Stepford wives were subjugated against their will. If anything, I found it to be a bit more plausible to a certain--albeit quite limited--degree. Be that as it may, I didn't find this movie to be nearly as good as its predecessor due in large part because it lacked the same level of intensity and suspense. No doubt its made-for-television format had something to do with that, but in any case, I didn't quite capture my interest all that much and for that reason I have rated it accordingly. Slightly below average.

Another great movie with Don Johnson :)

[mistymountain · 10/10 · 11 September 2020]

First of all, yes i also saw this on youtube with the dutch subtitles, although i dont speak dutch. And what's up with this new title called "Terror in New York"? I first saw this when I rented this movie back in 1987 from Blockbuster Video. Yes little boys and girls, back in the days, we did have a Blockbuster store to go rent movies for the weekend. So anyway, the original cover had Don Johnson on the phone. So anyways, the cast was allstar including Sharon Gless, who played the reporter, Kay, Julie Kavner, who played Andy's (Johnson) wife, Megan, as well as Audra Lindley from 3's Company, and legendary actors, Arthur Hill and Mason Adams. Andy was at first suspicious when meeting with Diz, (Hiller) who told him that in order to receive full insurance benefits, that his wife would need a physical. Megan becomes injected with a tranquilizer, then sent to a "beauty parlor" where she becomes a "robot" housewife, dependent on taking pills each time the siren sounds, like all the other robotic wives in Stepford. Its up to Kay to get Megan and Andy out of Stepford. Great movie.

An undiscovered TV classic!

[superstar49 · 11 September 2000]

So here I am changing the channels on my expanded all digital channel line-up late one night, and I find the lovely Sharon Gless trying to escape being knifed by Julie "Marge Simpson" Kavner in total late 70's fashion, AND I LOVE IT! Just when it couldn't get any better, in walks Don Johnson and Audra "Mrs. Roper" Lindley (who deserved that Oscar nomination for "Desert Hearts" years back) and I am on the floor!! This movie has got to be the latest undiscovered "gem" in the last 25 years! Who cares how bad the story is. This is CLASSIC!!!

Lame plot but great fun!

[siderius · 28 July 2001]

OK, so the plot is far-fetched, lame and offensive - the movie is a hoot! Keep in mind that I would watch anything with Sharon Gless - but she and Julie Kavner are a good team. A young Don Johnson appears as bland and clued-out Kavner's cop husband. Sharon, the reporter, arrives to do a story on the perfect town of Stepford. She hires Julie as an assistant who promptly gets nabbed by the Stepford gang. Her husband is in on it, of course. Sharon sets out to save Julie - Don and the whole town set out to stop her. Lots of chases, peril and the bad guys get what they deserve. Save it for a rainy day when you want a taste of some familiar TV faces in their early years.

Entertaining

[Moonlighting · 10 October 2003]

I just saw this film today and thought it was entertaining. I've seen the original Stepford Wives and read the book- and I'm a big fan, but I don't really take this film seriously. Some of the acting is bad- the Stepford Wives are nowhere near as great in this one than in the original- in this one the robotic acting isn't that good. But I still like the plot- and it's very entertaining, and unintenionally funny. I knew I recognised Julie Kavners voice- i checked IMDB and she sounds excatly like Selma from the simpsons in real life! Anyway- I wouldn't say it was a really bad film- and the ending was great!

Nothing good about it

[toddy-3 · 1 November 1998]

Maybe if I had never seen the original or read the book, I might have been mildly amused, but I doubt it. The fact is the husbands were killing their wives and replacing them with robots. An idea scarier today than it may have been then because it seems more possible that it could happen in the near future. But this movie's premise that the wives are servants because once a day when a big horn sounds, they all drop everything and take a pill is pretty stupid. If I were Ira Levin, I would've sued.

Definitely Worth Checking Out

[richard.fuller1 · 28 May 2004]

With the recent remake of the original Stepford Wives, this time as a comedy with Nicole Kidman, Bette Midler, Christopher Walken, Glenn Close and Matthew Broderick, there may be interest in in the original with Katherine Ross and Paula Prentiss, as well as this 1980 sequel with Sharon Gless, Don Johnson and Julie Kavner, yes, she who does the voice of Marge Simpson.

I would see this version first before I would see the original 1975 movie.

Normally I do not care for women vs. men programs done in such a moralistic light, but I am aware of sexism in society and that there is beliefs and opinions that women "should be more supportive, obedient and submissive" to their men, with the men not having to reciprocate.

Having since seen the original, which seemed more like a spoof on tv commercials to me than anything else, this one did seem to delve more into women being doting housewives.

Gless was a single woman who came to town. That alone upsets this whole cart. I wonder how Stepford handled that? Does someone get a concubine in the process?

We did glimpse an unnamed couple attempting to flee at the very beginning. They don't make it. I was misled to think this was a couple shown in the original, which they weren't.

Also, this one did take the approach that the women aren't replaced with robots, they are drugged.

The first Stepford was more of a Twilight Zone movie as well. This one sought to give the wives their revenge. Granted, had the robots of the first one rebelled, it might have been interesting, but then it could also have simply been "Westworld, the Women."

Nevertheless, nothing failed in this sequel. The siren going off for the women to take the medication could have been absurd, but it was kept low-key, as was the women in the lacy outfits and aprons.

I only truly grasped there was something impractical about the dresses when Kavner commented to Gless about it in the car.

Yes, Revenge was nearly a totally different movie from Stepford Wives, different motives, different outcome, but there has been sequels that pretty much follow the same path as the original and those are no fun.

Want to see the women lose? See the 1975 movie.

Want to see the men lose? See the 1980 sequel.

There is a third, horrendous movie, called Stepford Children, with Barbara Eden, Don Murray and Tammy Lauren. Avoid this one at all costs. It doesn't add anything further to this concept.

I got a kick out of this version!

[leahbbk · 12 April 2004]

It's so darn-tootin' silly it will make you larf. Esp. Julie K.'s part! Very campy -- I would recommend it to all who enjoy simple mindless entertainment! Sometimes you gotta watch movies that arn't so dark and stressful. After saying that, I have to admit that Monster is one of my favs and you can't get any darker than that! So, I guess moderation is the key.==I liked the original Stepford Wives, however, she seemed too helpless and I think they should have developed more about her relationship with her kids so you could feel how much she loved them. There seemed to be an empty space left in their absence. I loved the drawings one of the men would sketch right before each woman's "transformation" -- they were haunting and be

What the hell?!

[Stepfordlife · 19 December 2007]

Good Lord! The only reason to watch this is possibly Sharon Gless. And if you haven't seen the 1975 original (which was even better than the book)…possibly this would have been a mildly entertaining movie. But for the true Stepford fan it's just so damn frustrating to watch. The 1987 "Stepford Children" while still a bit silly was a truer sequel in keeping with the original plot. I'm not sure how they could have called this one a sequel. Stepford really never got it's due in the sequel or remake departments (including the confusingly edited and equally frustrating 2004 version). I was so excited to see that one but the editors took so much out and even had the nerve to tease us with a trailer which was full of "cut-outs"…

See the 1975 version.

Invasion of the women snatchers.

[ulicknormanowen · 1 February 2022]

Much to my surprise, in the cast and credits of my copy , Ira Levin is not mentioned (nowadays, Pierre Boulle's name is not mentioned in the new franchise of "planet of the apes" either ) However , the screenplay borrows his best moments from the author of "Rosemary's baby"!

These moments are to be found in the first part: the journalist ,arriving in Stepford town and discovering the old-fashioned clothes of the female inhabitants ; the books in the bookshop dealing with home , the crash and the woman repeating the same lines ; the never-to-be- found hospital; the scene in the chemist's where the injured woman acts like she never met the heroine .

This latter scene and the meeting with the man who begins to get tired of a pure housewife are less derivative : "make her change" the journalist says "it can't change" the desperate man answers.

The men's association has pushed the envelope :the women are no longer killed and replaced by robots ; now it's a siren which forces the housewives to take some pills-under a ridiculous pretext- after they undergo a special operation .

The heroine, a bachelor , does not possess Katherine Ross 's charisma ;besides ,the latter was married and thus was a potential victim .The women are too robotic, the macho speech against woman's lib of the villain -here again not as scary as deadpan Patrick O'Neal - is overkill :all was implicit in Levin's book .

A curio for people who enjoyed the book and the first MTV film.

"She's Not Programmed For Flexibility!"...

[azathothpwiggins · 3 July 2021]

In REVENGE OF THE STEPFORD WIVES, it's been ten years since the events of the first film.

A resistant resident of the oddly idyllic suburb meets with an unfortunate fate.

Enter TV reporter, Kaye Foster (Sharon Gless), who's in town to investigate Stepford's unusually low rates of crime, divorce, etc.

Meanwhile, the secret, male cabal, led by the sinister Dale "Diz" Corbett (now played by Arthur Hill), uses their army of mindless fembots to keep a watchful eye on Kaye.

For her part, Kaye catches Stepford's crazy vibe right away, as she observes the creepy, somnambulistic wives going through their daily routines. Not surprisingly, the deeper Kaye digs into this bizarre mystery, the more danger she finds herself in, and anyone who attempts to help her doesn't fare very well.

While never approaching the sublime, satirical terror of the original film, REVENGE does have its moments, some of which are quite suspenseful. The wives are convincing, especially Barbara Parkinson, played brilliantly by Audra Lindley. Her "remote control" scene is a classic!

One of the better made-for-TV movies of the period. Watch for the magnificent grrrl power finale!

Co-stars Don Johnson as a police officer with a particularly rebellious wife...