Pretty Good

Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

An absolute waste of money

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

I never saw the movie as a remake more like a new version just for the laughs. I think is really funny, the kind of comedy that were good. People forget the movie is not to make an exactly or same genre as the original, it was made to be ridiculously funny. Let's pretend that the first movie does not exist, is this one still bad? Of course not, because the story would be 100% original, although it is ridiculous in certain aspects. But because there is an original version people can not avoid comparing them. Which I find stupid. As I said, the idea of this new version was not to be the same as the first one. Go watch the movie and enjoy it because is good.

The first time I watched this movie I thought it was a cheesy movie with big name actors. I hated the characters and found it to be too unbelievable even for a fictionalized movie. I was annoyed by it and thought the storyline had potential, but just fell flat. However, the second time I watched it, I realized a lot of subtle things that I missed the first time around. Johanna developed TV shows that destroyed people's marriages and ruined particularly the men's lives when their wives would choose the hunks over their spouse. Stepford was just like that, but for men to have the upper hand. The men had the power over the women in a 50's TV show-like community. Johanna did not care about the men's lives that she ruined or even about how she was playing the role of God in people's marriages. Stepford was like her being in one of her shows. It was like a parallel universe. I noticed the character development of how Johanna really tried to fix her marriage and cared for her husband over being in control, which was different from Claire who couldn't stand not being in control that she changed the mindset of everyone in Stepford. If you hated this movie, give it a second watch. There will be a lot of things that you may have missed.

I like how men behave in the film. Unlike many other films, men in this film are weak, selfish and to some degree quite true. The idea of robots does not make too much sense to me but it looks like a practical way to solve the problem of men. I also like the way how tradition is presented in the film and the AOL joke.

Sometimes, while watching a film that has great potential, it is difficult to understand or believe some of the inexplicable choices that film-makers decide upon. In "The Stepford Wives", a great kernel of a story is turned into almost a complete and utter farce that could have been oh so much better.For a basic plot summary, "Stepford Wives" tells the story of Joanna Eberhart (Nicole Kidman), an extremely driven career women who suffers a nervous breakdown. Husband Walter (Matthew Broderick) decides to move her and the family to the gated community of Stepford, managed by Mike Wellington (Christopher Walken). In Stepford, however, Joanna and newfound friend Bobbie (Bette Midler) try to unravel the mystery behind the "always-smiling, just-a-little-too-perfect" Stepford wives and their odd husbands.I would give a spoiler alert here (and it still stands if you know absolute nothing about this movie), but the trailers and film itself do a pretty good job ruining that department. To be blunt, it is so obvious that the Stepford wives are robots (based on a few incredibly stupid scenes and some really bad special effects) that it pretty much kills the ending. It's almost like director Frank Oz was trying to mock the original film instead of crafting the taut masterpiece that could have been.And that truly is what is so sad about "The Stepford Wives". The social concepts behind the film are very, very interesting for both men and women to think about, but this effort makes a mockery for them. It plays serious issues for sight gags and farcical humor. Heck, a movie like this would have worked better even as horror or suspense, but the comedy sinks it like an anchor.Basically, the only reason I can give the movie even two stars is because that "kernel of story" is interesting. My exact rating would be about 1.5 stars, because I can't remember the last time I saw a movie that "screwed it up" this bad in the story-interpretation department.