Remake of the Stepford Wives

[Grim]

The 1975 classic, THE STEPFORD WIVES, is going to be remade. What do you guys think?
http://us.imdb.com/Details?0327162

[mcchrist]

Never really cared for the book or the flick. I'm not too enthused.

[betterdan]

I liked the original. I am sick of these damn remakes already.:rolleyes:

[Paff]

Actually, this is one I think could work. The Stepford Wives is much more a social commentary than a horror movie. The original reflected the "women's lib" movement of the 70s. A remake could address the whole SUV/Women in the workplace/Soccer Mom thing we have today.

Done properly, it could be all right...

[John]

It has been on the shelf for a while. A remake wouldn't be a bad idea.

[Mattster]

I think I read that Glenn Close was going to be in it. She would be perfect as an android before the skin is added. The most horrific part of Fatal Attraction was seeing her have sex. Nicole Kidman? I'm skipping this. Maybe if it was only Joan Cusack I would consider it. She was great in Arlington Road.

[Grim]

Originally posted by Matt85
I think I read that Glenn Close was going to be in it. She would be perfect as an android before the skin is added. The most horrific part of Fatal Attraction was seeing her have sex.

I don't know, she was kind of sexy in that crazy psycho bitch sort of way.

[Hellbilly]

Teaser trailer is online now for those interested:


http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2004/STUVWXYZ/Stepford-Wives,The/trailer-page.html

[Luna]

http://images.ibsys.com/2004/0607/3392143_200X150.jpg

Controversial 'Stepford Wives' Ad Shows Hillary, Condoleezza
UPDATED: 12:04 PM EDT June 8, 2004

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Some people are saying the way Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice are portrayed in an ad for the new "Stepford Wives" film is distasteful, even outrageous.

The spot shows an image of Rice made to look nude from the waist up, and a picture of Clinton that morphs into what looks like a cookie-baking Stepford wife.

The pictures move across the screen very quickly, but they caught the eye of a Kansas City woman, who recorded the spot to make sure of what she was seeing.

Becky Reynolds said when she taped and watched the ad again, she "realized it was even worse" that what she'd suspected.

"It's just inappropriate, and it needs to be stopped," Reynolds said.


Read more...

http://www.local10.com/entertainment/3393039/detail.html

[Il Corvo]

The remake looks "ok" to me. Haven't seen the original yet though.
Could someone confirm this to me. Apparently, Dee Wallace appears in the original movie, I would like to know because she's one of my favourite actresses and that would push me big time to see the original.

[betterdan]

Yes she does appear in it. You should see the original it is a pretty cool little flick.

[Il Corvo]

Yes she does appear in it. You should see the original it is a pretty cool little flick.

Thanks.
Believe me, I will see it :p .

[Deus Ex Machina]

I"m for this...

It looks like their making it a comedy rather than a thriller.

I just don't like that they give away the ending in the trailers.

[Latency]

It looks more like a very dark comedy actually. I can't wait, looks great!

[RyanPC]

The remake looks "ok" to me. Haven't seen the original yet though.
Could someone confirm this to me. Apparently, Dee Wallace appears in the original movie, I would like to know because she's one of my favourite actresses and that would push me big time to see the original.

She's on screen for what... all of five seconds? She plays Charmaine's maid and comes out to clear the table while the three women talk. Either way, I'm pretty sure it was her first film.

Anyway, I'm also very much for this remake, it's looks like it's gonna be excellent. Hopefully I'll get to see this opening night. :)

[Deus Ex Machina]

Sometime you wanna shake these film makers and show them what they're really making:

from the imdb:
Oz Slams The Idea of 'Stepford' Cameos


The Stepford Wives director Frank Oz refused to invite any of the original film's stars to make cameo appearances in his remake - because it would have damaged the credibility of the film. Oz - whose version stars Nicole Kidman and Matthew Broderick - always feared giving 1975 stars Katharine Ross and Paula Prentiss screen time would damage the seriousness of the central relationship. And now Oz has completed work on the remake, he's delighted he opted against the idea. He explains, "I'll tell you what cameos do. As opposed to strictly comedic high- comedy movies - where they can work, and I've done those also, and I've had a lot of cameos in those - with a movie like this you're invested in Matthew and Nic, and there's an emotional core. Any cameo is just going to take you out of the movie. You'll be saying, 'Hey, that's such and such, ' when I'm going for the honesty of this relationship. And so that's the reason I didn't do any."

I don't think he realized that a remake can't be as much an emotional thriller as the original. That any movie that has Jon Lovitz nude (which apparantly he is in the film) can't be anything but a comedy, black comedy of course.

[Paff]

I saw that too. Kinda pisses me off, as I think cameos in remakes is a nice touch. There's the obvious example of the recent version of Dawn of the Dead, but even Chicago features a member of the original Broadway cast.

If you do it RIGHT, it's not that difficult.

[Grim]

I like how in the Dawn credits they even put : "CAST FROM THE ORIGINAL DAWN OF THE DEAD" above the three cameo's names.

[RyanPC]

As opposed to strictly comedic high- comedy movies - where they can work, and I've done those also, and I've had a lot of cameos in those - with a movie like this you're invested in Matthew and Nic, and there's an emotional core.

But isn't this supposed to be a comedy anyway? It is, from the looks of the trailer and previews.

[Paff]

I like how in the Dawn credits they even put : "CAST FROM THE ORIGINAL DAWN OF THE DEAD" above the three cameo's names.

Oh, they did that? (I still haven't seen the remake)

In that case, I retract my praise. That's stupid, and defeats the purpose of a cameo. A cameo should be an inside joke to the more knowledged film fans, not something you have to spoon feed to the audience.

[Cujo108]

The previews to this film annoy me, and it has several people in it that I dislike. I've also heard that the production was very troubled, and I think this is one remake I'll pass on.

[Grim]

Oh, they did that? (I still haven't seen the remake)

In that case, I retract my praise. That's stupid, and defeats the purpose of a cameo. A cameo should be an inside joke to the more knowledged film fans, not something you have to spoon feed to the audience.

That's odd. I kinda feel the opposite, I thought it was kinda their way of telling the audience that there was an original, and it is not an entirely new film. But to each their own. You should efinitely see the remake, although the board is pretty split on it.

[Andrew]

Interesting, because Frank Oz had a cameo in AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON right as the main character was coming to a horribly dramatic conclusion - that his best friend is dead.

[Deus Ex Machina]

The plus with having the cameos is that Katherine Ross and Paula Prentiss are now both in their 60's and look much different than they did in their 30's....they could've been in the film and no one would've recognized them right away.

[RyanPC]

Saw this earlier today and wrote a review for my journal, here it is for anyone who's interested (out of four stars):

The Stepford Wives (2004) *1/2

Ahh, here we have the beloved remake - a device that Hollywood seems to depend on nowadays to get its box office draws. And yet, some remakes have been successful; perhaps not at the box office, but with the fans: The Thing, Night of the Living Dead, and the profitable Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Dawn of the Dead remakes come to mind. The Stepford Wives is a remake of the classic 1975 film starring Katharine Ross and Paula Prentiss, which was in turn based on a novel by Ira Levin. With all the changes in technology, it was inevitable that they would plan to redo this one as well, but do all the fancy-schmancy technological updates make this a better film? Absolutely not.

I hope I don't have to tell you what this film is about, unless you've been living in your basement with the light turned out all your life. But just in case you haven't heard about this film or the original, it is about a woman's struggle to live in a society dominated by men. Joanna Eberhart and her family move to the country to get away from the city, but get more than they bargained for when they find out the men of Stepford have been turning all the women into robots who cook, clean, and spend their whole day smiling and being happy. It turns out that the Men's Association is behind it all, but Joanna doesn't know that just yet. Her eyes open, however, when two of her closest friends in the community turn into one of those robots, and then she knows there's going to be trouble for her as well. Will she escape before she is forced to become one of the Stepford wives?

First, if you haven't seen the original film you must understand that it was more horror-oriented; sure, it did have some darkly satirical elements, but it wasn't really meant to be classified as a comedy. This film, directed by Frank Oz, certainly is. As a fan of Oz's Little Shop of Horrors remake and of the original The Stepford Wives, I was hoping he would be able to blend the right ingredients to make a satisfying moviegoing experience. It certainly did have some good elements and inspired casting choices, but the whole thing just didn't gel with me. It was interesting and kept me awake for all the hour and forty minutes I spent in the theater, but I cannot count how many times I was rolling my eyes; not at how the wives themselves were acting, but instead at how stupid the whole thing really was. Nicole Kidman was not the right choice for the lead - I'm sure she can act when she really needs to, but here she seemed very distant. Also, when I first laid eyes on her, I couldn't help but think she was a Stepford wife from the beginning because of her eccentricness. Katharine Ross's portrayal of the Joanna character was more laid back and natural, whereas Kidman is not. Matthew Broderick was OK, but this isn't his kind of role, either. Christopher Walken, however, is right at home in his role as the evil ringleader of Stepford. Most of the funny lines come from the great Bette Midler as Bobbi, who besides Walken is the only one worth watching in this mess. Even Glenn Close is wasted, and instead of being funny she turns out to be plain annoying. In fact, she's one of the many annoyances in this flop. Most of the jokes were very unfunny and while most of the people in the audience were howling, I just sat there with a blank look on my face half the time.

I hate how movies in today's time love to go for the cop-out ending, which is exactly how this movie concludes. The original film had a bleak and unhappy ending, but the ending to this remake is so over-the-top that I just don't know what to think or how to describe it. I kept hoping they wouldn't take the easy way out, but I was wrong. In all seriousness, I think this film should have ended about ten minutes early.

Reality shows, the internet, and gay couples. None of those elements are necessarily harmful to a film (well, maybe the first one), but most of the time they don't make a very good one. The Stepford Wives is a bomb and a film that never should have been made: it might have worked had it been handled more carefully, but it doesn't. However, I'm sure it will please people who thought the original film was boring.

[IGotsNewShoes]

I can't believe you gave this film 1 and a half stars...I'd give it half a star and that's being kind.

It's great that Paramount decided to remake this as a comedy, that doesn't have one decent joke in it.

[RyanPC]

I can't believe you gave this film 1 and a half stars...I'd give it half a star and that's being kind.

It's great that Paramount decided to remake this as a comedy, that doesn't have one decent joke in it.

The half star was only for the presence of the always reliable Bette Midler... if she hadn't been in the movie, well it would definitely be on my worst list. :)

[Tuzotonic]

The book is pretty good but I have not seen the original and I'm not sure if I want to see the remake. I usually have a very sour response to remakes but maybe this one will be good.

[Mattster]

Katharine Ross doesn't look that much different. Check out Donnie Darko. I don't see how their cameos would fuck up the movie considering the whole thing is so ridiculous. It's a comedy for fuck's sake. No one really cares about Walter and Joanna's relationship.

I saw the film a few days ago and I could easily tell that the ending was tacked on. The editing was good in some places, but sloppy in others. I guess in order to not have a ridiculously short running time (which is why the credits are so long) they left some scenes in that conflict with the theatrical ending (such as the ATM scene and the robotic bodies lying on the slab). The theatrical ending leads us to believe that the women were simply implanted with mind control devices and then everything is fixed in the end.

In the workprint that I saw it's clear that the women's brains have been placed in robots with the chips. Bobbie gets stabbed by Joanna and short circuits. She starts shooting out all kinds of machinery and ends up as a lawn mower.

In the workprint's ending Joanna and her family drive away as the de-Stepfordized wives (and Roger) wave goodbye. Bobbie shorts and repeats "Goodbye," and Roger extends an Inspector Gadget-ish hand to slap the back of her head so she'll say something else.

You can see quite a few of the workprint scenes in the tv spots. There are also some subplots that were cut out: Walter had an affair with Joanna's secretary, Stepfordized Roger and his partner adopted twins, and we see how the women are replicated (they're placed in a spa that scans their bodies and asks them to repeat phrases). The workout scene at the spa is extended (and much better with the added footage in my opinion).

Overall the workprint is much better than the theatrical cut and it just goes to show that test audiences have no fucking idea what they're talking about and shouldn't be trusted.

[IGotsNewShoes]

Katherine Ross was lucky to have been left out of the piece of shit...I've never been so disappointed with a movie. I should have known when the trailer looked like complete garbage that I was in for nothing.

[Deus Ex Machina]

I bought the new DVD release of the original today and I gotta say...there's no way to top it. I saw absolutly no flaws. At least with other recent re-makes you could argue that the originals were low budget and they're getting a chance with higher budgets (and their plots were pretty basic). But with Stepford Wives it's not a zombie or gore filled story so a larger budget isn't neccessary to improve effects and the story is suchy a story from the 70's (women's rights and equality) that you really can't bring it into the 21st century. Katherine Ross' Joanna was a photographer who put her aspirations aside to have her family but tries to keep herself active in photography whereas Kidman's Joanna is a TV exec who was fired? I think the main theme in the story was lost.

[IGotsNewShoes]

Katherine Ross' Joanna was a photographer who put her aspirations aside to have her family but tries to keep herself active in photography whereas Kidman's Joanna is a TV exec who was fired? I think the main theme in the story was lost.

I agree with that 100% and that's where they lost me within the 1st five minutes of the film.

[Mattster]

Well I have to ask why you even saw it if that was a huge disappointment for you. Almost all of the TV spots and trailers set up the movie by explaining who Joanna is and why she moves to Stepford.

[IGotsNewShoes]

Because I thought the comedic aspects of the movie would make up for the lameness of the new plot, I was wrong. That wasn't the main thing that disappointed me anyway it's just what kept me shaking my head in disgust throughout the movie.

[shift]

Is it worth owning? I meant the original version (of course)?

[IGotsNewShoes]

The original version, hell yes, it's one of my favorite films.

[Katatonia]

I was very disappointed in the remake, which I caught at the theater few nights ago. I'm a big fan of the original movie, which is infinitely superior.

[RyanPC]

Is it worth owning? I meant the original version (of course)?

It's certainly not for everyone (my dad and his girlfriend thought it was boring and one of the worst they've seen... grrr :fuck: ) but even though the pace is slow I think it's one of the most interesting films out there and endlessly quoteable.

In fact, Shoes and I spent practically a whole chat quoting lines from the movie. See my sig for an example. ;)

In fact -gasp- I think the original Stepford Wives just might be my new favorite movie of all time! (At least for the moment).

[dwatts]

Myself and two beers sat down last night to watch the remake.

Going in I kept one thing straight in my head: This is NOT a horror film, it's a comedy. So I was not expecting to be scared (and I wasn't disapointed).

There are many scenes from the original in this, but since the tone is much more light-hearted, they felt as different as they were the same.

I think much of the time we're unfair toward comedies, if they don't have us falling out of our chair in hysterics, we consider they weren't funny enough. This remake is a "Black-comedy", and I don't think it was ever meant to have us rolling in the aisles. As far as the humor went, it was exactly what I expected, a sideways glance at the stupidity of supressing women as a lifestyle. We get to laugh at ourselves, but that's about it.

The GOOD: Some nice humor, and unexpectd bashing of some American Businesses "He works for AOL", "Really? Is that why it's so slow?" Nicole Kidman looks gorgeous, I could watch her all day long. The main characters drive the same car as I do

The BAD: Without menace, treading a well worn path (the story is well known) is problematic. Why are we watching? A stupid CGI dog. Also, the tacked on ending (which goes beyond the original) is truly lame. The people that made this film just didn't have the balls to give us a downbeat ending, so we get this lame Avengers rip-off.

Worth owning? For most of you, probably not. Worth renting? For most of you, probably not. Forgive me, Kidman is just too cute for me to complain too much

As a film - 4.5 out of 10
As a HORROR film: 0 out of ten.