Movies about/starring women. I originally started this list just as a reference for myself, but hopefully others will find it…
The Stepford Wives
The wives of Stepford have a secret.
What does it take to become a Stepford wife, a woman perfect beyond belief? Ask the Stepford husbands, who've created this high-tech terrifying little town, in a very modern comedy-thriller.
A watchable but bland remake of the '70s science fiction staple, Frank Oz's "The Stepford Wives" struggles to find its identity despite its concept, cast, and director. Starring Nicole Kidman as a high-powered TV executive forced into a program of robotic redomestication, the film flounders but has enough going on to moderately engage. It is all rather mediocre, but it may not be a complete waste of time.
Based on the 1975 film of the same name, Oz's reimagining follows its lead character's trajectory after she loses her entertainment job and moves to suburbia with her husband played by Matthew Broderick. There, she finds a vanilla world of structure and domestic duty with nefarious technology-based secret.
Leaving some of the…
Part of **No ReWatch November 2012**.
The original novel by Ira Levin and the 1975 film are both dark, frightening thrillers. They have something to say about the shifting gender roles of the Women's Lib era. And the ending of the film will chill you to your core.
In this version, Frank Oz has decided to dispense with a direct remake. Instead, he's aiming for a Tim Burton-esque farce. By upping the silly and yet still making the gender politics the centerpiece, he robs the story of its impact on both a psychological and political level. He's going for weird and funny, and it doesn't really succeed.
I have to applaud the attempt, though. Some aspects do work. Bette Midler's…
Add it up. All the women around here are perfect sex-kitten bimbos. All the men are drooling nerds. Doesn't that seem strange?
My first time re-watching the remake since watching the original Stepford Wives. I thought maybe I would get more out of it, but instead it's flaws are just that much more apparent. The original had something to say about men being scared of women's lib in the 70s, this one doesn't really have anything to say at all.
At first I thought I had a revelation when we first see Nicole Kidman (I always feel like I have a revelation when I see Kidman). She's Joanna Eberhart, an independent powerful business woman who makes insecure men…
I'm classing this is a rewatch, but in actual fact the previous time I attempted to watch this I gave up before the end because I thought it eas shit.
Second time around, and I once again gave up before the end, because it is even shitter than I remembered.
Whoever thought it would be a good idea to remake Bryan Forbes original film adaptation of Ira Levin's chilling novel and dispense with all the horror aspects to make an allegedly satirical fantasy comedy needs shooting.
The original was far more satirical than this piece of crap, and even better it was done subtly. No one on this film has ever heard of the word 'subtle' and as such, they…
i hate men
Not funny enough to be an effective comedy and not really thrilling enough to be an effective thriller. Close losing her shit was entertaining though and it is watchable.
This is one movie that I got to say that it was really terrible!
2004 sure doesn't seem like that long ago, but the pop culture of THE STEPFORD WIVES is a world away. The reality TV riff of the opening scene is incredibly flat, and too wink-y to be very effective as satire. And the character of Roger, who would have maybe seemed progressive in 2004 (?) struck me as a tone-deaf stereotype of a gay man today.
At any rate, this is the most careless movie I've seen in some time, in the sense that the filmmakers didn't seem to care at all about telling this story through the cinematic medium. There's no distinct style to speak of, either visually or tonally, and the decisions about where to place the camera…
halfway through watching I realized this was a remake and not the version my friend told me to watch :(
But Bette Middler (and maybe Nicole Kidman) saves it from being an absolute catastrophe
If you like being hit over your head with your social commentary.
I love Nicole Kidman
This review may contain spoilers. I can handle the truth.
This is a remake that manages to undo what few things the original got right. By the end of that film, there was a real sense of dread and the ending, while not happy, had some weight to it. Here, that ending is completely undermined (and reversed, in a way that manages to reinforce gender roles?) and given a twist that feels like bullshit, given the context of the original and the lack of characterization of the "real wife" in question.
This film never reaches horror film status, instead just barely managing "a little creepy". Very superficial, a pretty unnecessary remake. I think Nicole Kidman could have done very well in a more faithful remake.
Flawed but fun. Great cast. An absolutely amazing score from David Arnold.
I've never seen the original, so I may be missing something, but I don't see how the remake undermines the original message. I'd love to hear from a woman feminist fan of the film to actually drive the points home, but it seems all Frank Oz and Paul Rudnick's version does is modernize the story and acknowledge that the insidiousness of Stepford and sexism runs in people other than the usual subjects.
It's smart, it's funny, it's well-paced. The film score is great. The strangest thing is the complete disappearance of the children by the second act - they might as well not have introduced them at all. But I think it's a pretty good Feminsim 101 flick - again, would probably mean more coming from a woman.
All the films mentioned by name in Kim Newman's definitive encyclopedia of horror films, Nightmare Movies. Well worth a read.…
Some posters might change.
Requirement: only one character, a female character.
Work in progress.