INFO
REVIEWS
MAP
OPEN FORUM
PHOTO ALBUM
 Chris' Review: *Sigh* Once again I have to admit that I have neither read the book nor seen the original 1975 version (nor "The Revenge of the Stepford Wives", "The Stepford Husbands", "The Stepford Children"... I'm not making this up, people!) Keeping that in mind, I'm going to only review this movie on what I noticed on the big, bright, shiny screen. I liked this movie, but for the most part, I can't figure out why. I remember laughing (moreso I remember one very obnoxious lady in the audience laughing). I remember the plot. I remember some of the jokes. But it really felt like it was lacking the stuff that makes a movie memorable. Before I begin, I'm telling you that I did enjoy this film; but I'm now going to try to pick it apart in hopes of finding out why I have as much trouble remembering it as I do trying to remember the taste of water. I think one of the major flaws of this film was the misuse of actors. For instance, Matthew Broderick: He was given the part of a downtrodden husband. He played his part well. He played someone that perpetually looked tired and run down, someone squashed under the heel of his mate. I'm sorry, but it's a waste of Matthew Broderick! He is great at playing high energy, youthful characters. He's great at playing comedic roles, and while he has a couple snippets of funny... he plays them as the tired husband. Way to go, Matthew. You did a good job playing your part of the wallflower. I almost didn't realize you were in the movie. Seriously, big waste of a Broderick. Another big waste was Christopher Walken. He again lent his creepiness to the film, but wasn't given that much to do. He did get a couple short monologues, but they were lackluster. Give Mr. Walken something to work with, folks! Still, even with as dry a part as he received, he did a good job. He's still my hero. All the other actors gave fine performances. Bette Midler was manic as she ever is. Nicole Kidman was passable. Glenn Close gave another beautiful performance. Even the child actors did a swell job. So why, with such a wonderful cast, was this film so vanilla? Why didn't it make me jump out of my seat and applaud? I really couldn't tell you. One bright spot would be Roger Bart who was just entertaining as a hot pink tuxedo. He was flamboyant without overdoing it (which often seems the goal when playing a gay man). Wonderfully funny to watch. Then there is the direction. Everything was done in a fun 1950's style, from the opening credits to the exercise class. It was just infused with 50's charm. So why did I keep thinking of other movies that had done it better? Why did my suspension of disbelief jump out the window? There was even a hefty amount of symbolism in "Stepford"...and it wasn't heavy handed. Nice 'n' subtle so that if you look for it you can find it. The references to midlife crisises, to geekdom, to the societal sway of empowered (or over-empowered) women. Not to mention a healthy dose of the original satire that was intended. So why did I feel like I was eating a rice cake? All in all, the best I can surmise is that "The Stepford Wives" was just over-polished, like some pretty geode that after too much smoothing looks like it was manufactured and starts to lose it's appeal as, well, a rock. It seems silly that I'm comparing a work of witty satire to a rock, but that's just what it is. An overpolished, weight that shines and looks pretty and in the end is just as fake and manufactured feeling as the Stepford wives in the movie. Now, don't get me wrong. It's a wonderful way to kill a few hours. You WILL laugh. It has some very funny bits in it. But you're left wondering if you've gained anything by it. Or if you're like me, you'll just walk out the theatre and notice all the bright shiny marquees and completely forget that you just saw a film. I give it 3 thumbs up. Funny and worth the effort to watch, but even though it has Christopher Walken AND Matthew Broderick, I still won't be buying the DVD.   Jim's Review: Sorry to sound like a broken record AGAIN this week, but...blame Hollywood. The only reason I'm forced to repeat myself about the evil of retreads is because Hollywood insists on repeating ITself WITH the evil of retreads. "The Stepford Wives" is the latest in a series of ill-conceived remakes of film classics. I'll admit to having never seen the 1975 original version of this film, but I imagine there's a reason it's still talked about...So, I'm sort of at a loss. I'm just not sure what movie studios are thinking when they create films like this. No matter what their goals, creators of redux films are destined to fail. If it's homáge they're after, the argument can be made that any film deserving of it is likely strong enough to stand on its own. If the attitude is "we can do that better", it's just hubris, and it's going to annoy the audience. If it's parody, you run the risk of playing it too safe, or not safe enough. And, if it can't decide between the three and tries to go for all of them simultaneously, you have "The Stepford Wives." Nicole Kidman is Joanna Eberhard, a high-powered, ball-breaking TV executive. When her latest reality TV show goes badly awry (a jilted husband on a dating show pulls a gun, and a Jenny Jones), she is relieved of her duties, and has a nervous breakdown. Her nebbishy husband Walter (Matthew Broderick) leaves HIS position at the network out of protest, and suggests a remedy to their shared woe: Now that they're both completely unemployed, and with no visible income to support them, he reasons they ought to pack up the family Benz and move to an enormous, palatial mansion in a gated community. Must be nice to live in the movies. Stepford, Connecticut, through no fault of its own, winds up being the most thickly-drawn character in the film. Gently sloping landscaping, impossibly huge, gorgeous homes, and communities yanked directly from 50's postcards. Even the men's club on the hill is dripping with ascots, felt-covered poker tables, leather furniture, cigar smoke, and wood-paneled walls. The location scout and production designer ought to get Oscar nods. However, they're the only ones. If only the occupants of Stepford were as well-defined as their surroundings... By now, everyone's had thirty years to grok the plot, so I hardly feel as though I'm spoiling anything when I take it to task. The idea that men would rather live with vacuous, domestically-inclined sex-kitten drones over real, live women with complexities and depth is insulting to those of us who wouldn't. So the film needs to be strong in other areas to compensate. And there are problems. To begin with, the plot holes, dropped story threads, and inconsistencies are nearly too much to bear. SPOILER ALERT: There's a subplot introduced far too late whereby Joanna discovers that most of the Stepford women were once extremely successful like herself. Why is this relevant? What does it mean? What significance does it have to the overall plot? It's danced around but never QUITE explained fully. Also open to question is why a strong-willed woman like Joanna would willingly get on the elevator to the laboratory with her husband, given the suggestion of what the outcome would be. By getting on the elevator in the first place, she's halfway to being a subservient android already. It's completely out of character for her. And why do the couple's children disappear 1/3 of the way into the film, never to be heard from again? All of these questions arise within the context of a confused film that can't decide if it's an allegory, a comedy, or a relationship drama. And to top it off, it's too bloody short. I know that complaining that a crummy movie is too short is like complaining to your waiter that the food was not only awful, but the portions were too small, but I can't help but feel as though a few of the plot holes might have been better addressed had the editor not been too scissor-happy. The resolution is simply far too swift and uninspired. I get the sense that there's a good deal of story exposition on the cutting-room floor. Speaking of exposition, this film is mighty long on at least the verbal variety. In the "grand" tell-us-don't-show us tradition of films that would rely on monologues rather than action and story development to advance the plot, this film has more speeches than a political convention. The only redeeming quality I can pluck from "The Stepford Wives" is the high quality of the supporting performances. Glenn Close is note-perfect as the cookie-cutter first lady of Stepford. Bette Midler may be typecast as a cynical yenta, but it's because she plays the part so well. Roger Bart brings just the right tone of bitchy girlishness to Stepford's lone male "wife", and NOBODY plays Christopher Walken like Christopher Walken can. But for all of their charm and sparkle, the cast works a script that's like a diamond with a flaw: Shiny on the surface, but harboring serious problems at the core. I'm going to give "Stepford Wives" three thumbs up. There were some genuine chuckles to be had, but the whole experience left a less-than-pleasant aftertaste in my mouth. BackHome - Info - Reviews - Map - Message Board - Photo Album |
|
IMDB.com answer all your movie questions! RottenTomatoes.com Get more reviews here! Hollywood.com Find showtimes at your local theatre, order tickets online! |