I hate this movie - it completely ruined the original idea from the book. In this movie, it's a woman that wants things to go back to where they were in the 50's - come on, seriously?! That's the opposite from what the whole book was about!
And the ending of this movie is utterly stupid with that reverse sexism.
The original is better in every way, and I hate it that they are trying to make it some form of comedy. Watch the original 1975 version its its superior in every way.
Glad I didn't see this trailer it would have given everything away. I remember when I first saw this movie I wasn't really paying any attention to it but after awhile I was "what's going on in this movie???" eventually I sat down and really watched it later on and I was like. Oh! This movie is kinda weird. But very interesting. It's right up there with that one movie pleasantville and blast from the past.
Such a great movie. Definitely didn't see the twist coming at the end. I love movies with social commentary. Kidman has a new film coming out called 'Trespass' about post-9/11 security within the American family that looks pretty good. bitly. com/qN22Cm
Hi miskop7, I remember seeing this movie when it was released. I thought at the time it was quite a funny depiction of stereo-typing; which now had inspired me to make an animated serial of a similar theme - except this time, it's about role-reversal. I've uploaded that for you to review and share. I hope you enjoy it. Cheers
I saw the trailer for this when i was eight. A month ago, I remembered the trailer, but couldn't remember what movie it was from. Then a week ago, my mother was complaining to a friend about how the mothers from the school I used to go to were like the Stepford Wives. I asked her who they were and they told me about the movie. I looked up the movie and the poster looked familiar. now I'm watching this, like "It's that movie from when I was eight!"
@frakistan please show me the ayah in the Qur'an where Allah (swt) has noted that women may never leave the kitchen and must constantly make sandwiches for men too lazy to slap two pieces of bread together. Jazakhallahu khairan :)
I don't get why they call this the Stepford Wives when that movie was already done. Shouldn't they at least call it the Stepford Wives Remake or something?
@ThusFar777 It's more of a ideal dream land back of the conservative 50s and 40s. nowadays I'm fairly sure the average Christian would be against this sort of squeaky clean existence. Well the guys might not object for obvious reasons. Have you seen pleasantville? They both approach the same subject matter of how the past morales conflict with present ones.
@shadowhexogram certainly. However, this is actually the agenda that a specific circle of complementarian Christians are pushing. Christians like Driscoll, John Piper, as well as all those who make up the CBMW (Center for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood). It is truly disgusting!
maybe someone on here can help me im watching the movie the stepford wives the verson with nicole kidman and i remember seeing a bootleg copy of the movie when it was still in theaters with a few scenes that were in the movie but are now not there not even in the bonus stiff on the dvd does anyone now of these scenes one was of joanna at the day spa watching a video
Nicole Kidman looks like she was stepforded in real life. Seriously though, a shallow copy of what she looked like in the '90s. She mutalated herself with all the 'cosmetic stuff' she did, it's just not worth it in the long run.
Great movie! First time I saw it I thought it was funny also how the woman just dies and her "husband" or "family" is not there to take care of her... sad and great!
Siempre quise ser la fea pobre, mal vestida y peinada que siempre hace quedar peor al marido; sin piedad: le cobra hasta por respirar, le pone los cuernos sin disimulo, un hijo de cada padre y ninguno biológicamente de él, se larga con todo el dinero del él dejándole arruinado y con los hijos para que se los críe.
y si vuelve, él la reciba con los brazos abiertos: te hemos echado de menos, cariño...
Matthew Broderick is too sweet to play Walter. You aren't supposed to like any of the men in the story, not even Walter. But I *have* only seen the ending of this remake, so I guess I could be judging too soon.
"The women are smiling and have incredible sex with their husbands" - "It's not normal, Walter!"
Getting off topic here, but aren't people boxing themselves into thinking that any marriage that is "happy" is abnormal - that somehow, when there's a lot of quarreling and push-and-shove is what makes a marriage "normal?"
For the first five hours of June 2, 1981, I gave a woman a hundred—yes, honestly—SCREAMING orgasms with her windows open and son, 10, across the hall, with only two doors between us. Three days later on the phone she wailed "All you do [in bed] is fuck!" We were no more.
I now live on a forested Asian mountainside, because the United States could not fit me in anywhere. I had to emigrate to avoid eating out of garbage cans.
Daily, I see that Americans still have not mastered English.
@RedFoxAce what's not normal is the fact that the women do everything for the men and the neighborhood is completely run by men. the women have no place. i suppose the older film gets the point across better.
@RedFoxAce i think its because they create the image of perfection. no marriage is perfect, it's simply impossible. i get your point though. i just know that if i were there, i would find it rather disturbing as well. i think that line was kind of a comical interface, btw.
@RedFoxAce it's called irony, and then you can notice that those women were turned into robots so this kind of happiness is certainly abnormal, perfection can't be attained and you can be happy with some fights, it is abnormal to never fight in a marriage because we are human
@RedFoxAce I know! Everybody assumes that if you see an extremely happy couple, something must be wrong in their marriage at home. The fact is that we are so cynical and jaded that we think that fighting and bickering is what is the norm, but the norm results in divorce over half of the time, so why can't we just leave happy couples alone? Too many times I've seen happy couples wrecked because they believe that the happiness they felt on their honeymoon is transient and can't last,
@RedFoxAce Normal was a bad choice of words, natural would have been better. But there s certainly nothing wrong with striving for the ideal marriage as long as you dont think a less than ideal marriage is a failure.
@RedFoxAce I don't think so...if you ask me, it shows that if the marriage is "perfect", that's a good indication something is wrong. Nothing is absolutely perfect...if it were, it wouldn't be interesting. Just like the robots.
You have to admit though, the scene that revealed the "robot" Joanna in the original Stepford Wives was so creepy. I remember her eyes were all black. No whites in her eyes. Scary shit.
No. It isn't. I can't even begin to count how many remakes are far more successful and enjoyable than the originals. It may not seem like very many because there are a lot of movies that were forgotten by the mainstream public...for a good reason.
If you want a prime, though not extreme, example, take Peter Jackson's rendition of the Lord of the Rings compared to the gaggle of previous LotR films.
What a terrible example, the previous Lord of the Rings films were cheap late 70's/early 80's cartoons, you're comparing that to an expensive Hollywood epic from the new millennium? Shame on you.
If you can't even begin to count how many there are, at least provide a good example.
Jesus Christ, can you be any more touchy? The world of remake quality appreciation is subjective, but the old LotR went past the end of the book, and cut it short after that. I didn't want to spam, but fine: Scarface '83 Victor/Victoria '82 The Fly '86 Mutiny on the Bounty '62 Little Shop of Horrors '86 The Thing '82 Shaft '00 The Wizard of Oz '39 The Ten Commandments '56 The Man Who Knew Too Much '56 STAR WARS (pretty much a remake of The Hidden Fortress, only in space)
You clearly don't know the difference between remake and "based on...".
A lot of movies you mentioned there are not remakes, for something to be a remake it has to have the same characters and the same story. The original Little Shop of Horrors is not a musical, Scarface just borrows elements from the '32 film, but it's not remaking it. and I highly doubt you've seen the original Victor/Victoria and Wizard of Oz to say the new one is better.
Meh. First, changing the genre (LSoH to musical) does not change the fact that it is a remake. Second, the LotR films may be based on the same books, but in reality may still fairly be compared to one another. Once again, it's impossible to dismiss comparison due to gaps in budget or technical differences. If so, nobody could rightly complain about a flopped x-to-movie adaptation and not get trounced by someone like you.
Also, don't make any assumptions about what I've seen or haven't seen.
When you change the genre, you also change what the movie is trying to accomplish, if their plots are not trying to accomplish the same thing, then it is not a remake. That's like saying "Nine" is a remake of "8 1/2", it's not.
I already said they can be compared, it's an unfair comparison, but go ahead.
And lastly, I'd say it's a very fair assumption. The original Victor/Victoria is a very hard to find 30's German movie that hardly anyone's seen or even knows exists, who are you kidding?
Your assertion that obscurity invalidates comparison between an older film and a newer film is flawed. But if you want to reject the V/V comparison, I don't care. There are still others in the list, and I am not making another one.
"In films it is ALWAYS the case" is still a false statement. The rest of your posts are only skirting around this error.
I'm hardly being hostile, maybe you don't like when someone defies your views?
I never said that it invalidated the comparison, I just said that it is a very unfair comparison. Why? Because again, you're comparing a very modest cartoon adaptation from the late 70's to a big budget 2001 epic. If two things are not on the same playing field, then making any kind of competitive comparison between them is completely unfair.
Hardly, you're just trying to turn it around. You keep talking about comparisons, the fact remains, something has to be on an even playing field to be genuinely compared.
With ANY remake, you're going to be comparing the new with the old. Invalidating said comparison or dismissing a remake just because the budget and technology is different just ends possible film discussion altogether.
Forgot to add, book adaptations are numerous, specially with famous books, can they be compared to each other? Yes. Are they remakes of each other? No.
Don't act like the new LoTR movies are remaking the old cartoon ones, because I doubt the screenwriter even watched them to get ideas.
Lastly, why are you so adamant about this subject? Are you a movie historian? A film museum curator? A professional critic? Director? Producer? What ties you specifically to the world of movies that spurs you to such pissy overreaction to technicalities?
A remake is a remake is a remake. Even if you didn't mean to film your 'adaptation' to be compared with a previous adaptation, it is still going to be done.
You should go complain about real movie issues, like non-numbered sequels.
I am adamant about films in general. I didn't know that I had to be any of the things you listed to have an opinion.
Just because you don't take literary works into account when talking about films, doesn't mean they're not there. I stand by my statement, if someone adapts a book with just the book in mind then he is not remaking a previous film adaptation of that book, plain and simple. Find someone (other than you) who would call the LoTR trilogy a remake of the old cartoon ones.
1) Pay attention for a moment. I do take literary works into account when it comes to films. I just don't disregard previous 'x' book-film adaptations when it comes to looking at newer 'x' adaptations.
2) So if somebody made a Lion King live-action film, I'd have no reason to compare it to LK '94?
3) I didn't say you had to be in the film industry to have an opinion. I'm just puzzled as to why you're coming off so hostile about this whole discussion. My reaction is in defense.
Not disregarding previous adaptations doesn't mean any adaptations after it are remakes, which is what you stated. That even if someone makes an adaptation with just the book and not the previous film, it is a remake because it's still going to be compared.
Even with your list, I do not see a single DIRECT remake (same characters, same title, same story, same genre) in it that you can seriously say that it is better than the original. Try Psycho (1998) or Sabrina (1995), THOSE are remakes.
1) Even if a newer movie is an adaptation of a book an older movie is based on, *the comparison is going to be made.* It's an unavoidable side effect.
2) If you don't think something like The Fly or The Thing is a remake, your definition of the term is by far too picky. This discussion is over.
It's not picky, you think anything that's based on something previously produced is a remake and that's simply not the case. Unless a film carries the same plot and characters as the original version it is simply not a remake. That's why Scarface is not a remake, that's why Shaft is not a remake, etc. And unless a "remake" dramatically changes the elements of the original, it ALWAYS sucks.
My dad and my sister (big science fiction fans) told me the book was much better but I was never really one for science-fiction so I never picked it up. I still like the movie though.
I think this movie is fun if you just take it as a comedy... Kidman, Broderick and Midler have good performances... I understand that when compared to the original (which I really want to see) it could be a major letdown, but I think it stands on its own as a light comedic thriller. Just my opinion.
That's what I'VE been saying. It was a good comedy. There were contradictions, but I still liked it. I think it was a good idea to remake this as a comedy.
this movie is a mess because it cheats the audience and treats them like idiots. obviously it was meant to go the route of the original ending, but they cut it out for a "happy" ending. I'm not opposed to happy endings...but fix the rest of the movie to match it. Why are there physical robots? if they are just altering the minds of the wives? in the deleted scenes bette midler has go go gadget arms and gets stabbed...alter the mind isnt going to allow for those things. its insulting.
so unbelievably makes me a STRONG FEMINIST
LauraPuffyCloud 5 days ago
Absolute shit movie
oud315 2 weeks ago
One of the characters ripped of John McClains line in this film so I think it's crap. Only John McClain can use that line.
Kern1996 2 weeks ago
Saw this when I was younger. Gotta see it again NOW.
MusicEvryDay 1 month ago
Comment removed
darkknight302 1 month ago
I hate this movie - it completely ruined the original idea from the book. In this movie, it's a woman that wants things to go back to where they were in the 50's - come on, seriously?! That's the opposite from what the whole book was about!
And the ending of this movie is utterly stupid with that reverse sexism.
Rubbish.
jamieisnotstupid 1 month ago
@jamieisnotstupid I'll have to read this book :)
ddcatdo 1 month ago
@jamieisnotstupid ur soo right its like "a world of tusedos nd chiffon!" like that was definitley NOT in the book
volleycouture 1 week ago
complete shite.....the original movie was scary as fuck and creepy as hell...this was a joke
harveydents 2 months ago
LDS!
ChicaWolverina 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I saw the film just yesterday!^^ Spooky!
MonavomMars 2 months ago
just read the book for this yesterday, i love the ending. finally, something realistic and not cheezy
oh, and im in love with matthew brodrick
x0chrystinax0 3 months ago
@x0chrystinax0 was the ending in the book different that in the movie?
L8rBek 3 months ago
@L8rBek the ending of teh book is teh same as the first movie, they changed this one. i like this one too, just not as much :p
x0chrystinax0 2 months ago
The original is better in every way, and I hate it that they are trying to make it some form of comedy. Watch the original 1975 version its its superior in every way.
gemmakendall1523 3 months ago
Glad I didn't see this trailer it would have given everything away. I remember when I first saw this movie I wasn't really paying any attention to it but after awhile I was "what's going on in this movie???" eventually I sat down and really watched it later on and I was like. Oh! This movie is kinda weird. But very interesting. It's right up there with that one movie pleasantville and blast from the past.
shadowhexogram 3 months ago
Such a great movie. Definitely didn't see the twist coming at the end. I love movies with social commentary. Kidman has a new film coming out called 'Trespass' about post-9/11 security within the American family that looks pretty good. bitly. com/qN22Cm
CameronMarcusK 3 months ago
Hi miskop7, I remember seeing this movie when it was released. I thought at the time it was quite a funny depiction of stereo-typing; which now had inspired me to make an animated serial of a similar theme - except this time, it's about role-reversal. I've uploaded that for you to review and share. I hope you enjoy it. Cheers
LewisLuong 4 months ago
"good bye goodbye good bye *WACK!* See ya" lmao i love Bette Midler
Rebaneller1955 4 months ago
i think this movie did not succeed because it goes against 'american values'
carey579 4 months ago
someone should try to upload the movie
Trina9852 5 months ago
I saw the trailer for this when i was eight. A month ago, I remembered the trailer, but couldn't remember what movie it was from. Then a week ago, my mother was complaining to a friend about how the mothers from the school I used to go to were like the Stepford Wives. I asked her who they were and they told me about the movie. I looked up the movie and the poster looked familiar. now I'm watching this, like "It's that movie from when I was eight!"
iFenceU 6 months ago 17
@iFenceU
cool story bro
frakistan 5 months ago
@frakistan actuallyi'm a girl, but, thanks.
iFenceU 5 months ago
@iFenceU
Ohh then get off youtube and make me a sandwich
frakistan 5 months ago
@frakistan hahahahaha....no.
iFenceU 5 months ago
Comment removed
frakistan 5 months ago
@frakistan thanks for removing the comment
iFenceU 5 months ago
@iFenceU
yah since its ramadan and i'm fasting so i removed it, sorry for that.. but you do belong in the kitchen
frakistan 5 months ago
@frakistan please show me the ayah in the Qur'an where Allah (swt) has noted that women may never leave the kitchen and must constantly make sandwiches for men too lazy to slap two pieces of bread together. Jazakhallahu khairan :)
MDKmyfav 4 months ago
@MDKmyfav
I was Joking Hitler, Now go sue me
frakistan 1 month ago
@iFenceU hahaha i love how your mom talked about the moms from your school! thats hilarious!
TheSophiaFilms 6 days ago
I must have watched this a million times...
bsara1000 6 months ago
such an amazing idea for a film
mrinvincible2001 6 months ago
@imapiratearrr I am too. We should have wife modification software already.
DSXmachine 6 months ago
I don't get why they call this the Stepford Wives when that movie was already done. Shouldn't they at least call it the Stepford Wives Remake or something?
guyNbluejeans 6 months ago
@guyNbluejeans Since when have you ever seen a remake of a movie that was labelled a remake?
MrsLovett112 6 months ago
@MrsLovett112 Hmm I'm not certain I've ever even heard of a remake.
guyNbluejeans 6 months ago
@guyNbluejeans You're joking, right....
MrsLovett112 6 months ago
@MrsLovett112 No. However, I am getting up there in years.
guyNbluejeans 6 months ago
I love you but please die love it haha !
AnnaHellsing 6 months ago
That's rude Ruben I'm from Utah and I don't have a huge family at all. But other than that ass hole I love this movie :)
nihaokailan19 7 months ago
This looks like Utah or a typical Mormon family.
RubenHoyos82 7 months ago
This looks like Utah or a typical Mormon family.
RubenHoyos82 7 months ago
haha...the complementarian Christian dream land.
ThusFar777 7 months ago
@ThusFar777 It's more of a ideal dream land back of the conservative 50s and 40s. nowadays I'm fairly sure the average Christian would be against this sort of squeaky clean existence. Well the guys might not object for obvious reasons. Have you seen pleasantville? They both approach the same subject matter of how the past morales conflict with present ones.
shadowhexogram 3 months ago
@shadowhexogram certainly. However, this is actually the agenda that a specific circle of complementarian Christians are pushing. Christians like Driscoll, John Piper, as well as all those who make up the CBMW (Center for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood). It is truly disgusting!
ThusFar777 3 months ago
this place looks fratty as fuck!!!!! i'd love to live here!!
TheKoreanX 8 months ago
maybe someone on here can help me im watching the movie the stepford wives the verson with nicole kidman and i remember seeing a bootleg copy of the movie when it was still in theaters with a few scenes that were in the movie but are now not there not even in the bonus stiff on the dvd does anyone now of these scenes one was of joanna at the day spa watching a video
LipSync4U 8 months ago
It seems they gave away the whole surprise. Humph.
MrStillmans 9 months ago
1:01 was it sizzlin' or well-bosomed? I recall the dialogue differently (maybe its censored in the trailer?)
bloodfoxtrue 9 months ago
I wish I had one. No naggin, no nothing. just a kitchen slave and a sex slave
Cynicruss2 9 months ago
@Cynicruss2 the Japanese are very close, soon! j/k
Wolfsbane909 9 months ago
I think I just watch the whole movie in this trailer. Do I still need to pay for my movie ticket?
killerE92 11 months ago 5
@killerE92 it not exactly what you think. Little twist on the end for the original story.
jewelsthomas 1 week ago
I noticed this movie is only rated 5.1 on IMDB. I haven't seen it yet, but is it that bad? The trailer for it looks really good!
frantic1971 11 months ago
@frantic1971 it's not that bad, you could have a good time in 90 minutes, it's not a masterpiece but it is enjoyable!
akisevere 11 months ago
CONNECTICUT IN A NUTSHELL.
ohnoaperson543 1 year ago
wats the music from 1:27 to 1:32?
axeinthehead14 1 year ago
goodmovie
augustfairy1 1 year ago
This movie was funny as hell..............although I do wish it was a little scarier (like the original).
lurch321 1 year ago
"what was the book about the relationship with your mother called again?" "i love you but please die" hahahahaha
xoJanneke 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
there are many datig side for you naneedj.info
shakira20848 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have romance with sexy portly girls naneedj.info
mikaylwright 1 year ago
there was i high school play in my town, obviosly step ford wives, i loved it but it didn't have all the details ^^
MysticdogTamama14WP 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Search online Russian women gettop5.info
JeraldIrving 1 year ago
There should be more women like these...
tomperanteau 1 year ago
not gonna lie, this book really creeped me out.
xobrookie804 1 year ago
this could have been a good remake. if it managed to balance out the comedy and the creepiness better
vampireravefan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
chunky babies need online dating naneedj.info
britney3896 1 year ago
i loved your las book about your mother what was it called?
bette: i love you but please die :D !
lmfao!
NathanJesseMcCarthy 1 year ago
It was surprisingly good ...
CherryBlossomAna 1 year ago
DOSIDO, DOSIDO, DOSIDO, :P
CosmicD 1 year ago 14
haha me and my friend watched this4the 1st time last week......it was reeeaallly weird........but good! :)
luv4alwayz 1 year ago
i like Bette Midler in this movie. She's like that good friend that can be a bit snappy and is always fun.
mybigredlip 1 year ago
looks terrifying
invisiblejaguar1 1 year ago
i liked the little trio Roger, JoAnna & Bobby. :) i also really liked the overture in the movie, this is one of my favorite movies :)
xvrhernandez349 1 year ago
this film actully creeped me out, but im pretty sure this happens... just without robots..
Oldbluesock 1 year ago
Nicole Kidman looks like she was stepforded in real life. Seriously though, a shallow copy of what she looked like in the '90s. She mutalated herself with all the 'cosmetic stuff' she did, it's just not worth it in the long run.
MadTVNG 1 year ago
the outside of the house that the famly moves into is my aunt and uncles house :)
stopmeifyoucan22 1 year ago
If you want to watch a creepier version of this movie watch the 1975 version ;)
Xinoutorah 1 year ago
you put nicole kidman, bette midler, and faith hill in a movie and i'll watch it!!
faithfan98 1 year ago 2
Is this the real trailer? I mean the whole story is in it, what's the point to even watch it now?
jaimelessushis 1 year ago
I love this movie. Such awesome actors gathered in awesome sardonic society criticism. And I loove the fifties dresses.
keenoled 1 year ago
@keenoled same fifties dresses are soo pretty
Parfaitcupcake 1 year ago
I liked this movie. It SRSLY made me mad at parts though (sexist men....geesh.)
outrayjess 1 year ago
@outrayjess sorry lol
jaytech3000 1 year ago
goodbye, goodbye, goodbye *pats*, seya, seya xD
TheFalloutZard 1 year ago 2
Great movie! First time I saw it I thought it was funny also how the woman just dies and her "husband" or "family" is not there to take care of her... sad and great!
hameley12 1 year ago
es como DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES version oscura
TheCruelinventions 1 year ago
I'm sorry but they messed a classic up and turned it into a black comedy. The original 1975 version was WAYA better in my opinion.
whatsgud4ya07 1 year ago
@whatsgud4ya07
You can write that again!
SIngli6 11 months ago
Bueller...Bueller...Bueller...
Sorry. Whenever I see Broderick, that's all I can think of. ;)
matt484991 2 years ago
i just finished reading the book....it was rllly creepy and good lol
CrAzYbEaN777 2 years ago
i love this movie
IM2Cute1986 2 years ago
Bette Midler's character reminded me of one of my teachers.
xandirwasmylover 2 years ago
this seems cool... robotic wives...
villarealian99 2 years ago
Pretty inferior to the original 70s version based on a novel.
clashrogers 2 years ago
this movie was so weird...yet kinda good. it was funny yet really creepy in parts. i was thoroughly confused by the end of it.
mandapanda945 2 years ago
Siempre quise ser la fea pobre, mal vestida y peinada que siempre hace quedar peor al marido; sin piedad: le cobra hasta por respirar, le pone los cuernos sin disimulo, un hijo de cada padre y ninguno biológicamente de él, se larga con todo el dinero del él dejándole arruinado y con los hijos para que se los críe.
y si vuelve, él la reciba con los brazos abiertos: te hemos echado de menos, cariño...
TocinazoXXL 2 years ago
This is a kickass film if you hav'nt seemn it then i think you should watch it its awesome
Hally676 2 years ago
Whatt is the movie actually aboutt cos i nvr seen it??
TheTwiilightFan 2 years ago
It is about 2 hours too long...
DippShits 2 years ago
ummmmmmmmmm. htis movie was just um ha. but Nicole was amazing in this. {:
HotNCold161 2 years ago
i fucking love this movie!
kiddyman1925 2 years ago 6
watched the original.. and the ending creeped me out like hell. good remake. the first one was good too.
just2comment666 2 years ago 3
Matthew Broderick is too sweet to play Walter. You aren't supposed to like any of the men in the story, not even Walter. But I *have* only seen the ending of this remake, so I guess I could be judging too soon.
euphoriafish 2 years ago 4
christopher walkins.. looks creepy...
imconfusedenough 2 years ago 35
You're confused enough. (Christopher who?)
bangfarang 2 years ago
0.o, i dont know what you are talking about
imconfusedenough 2 years ago
I understand.
bangfarang 2 years ago
uh.. yeah... okay..
imconfusedenough 2 years ago
@imconfusedenough Wow! What a great observation you've made! Oh, and nice spelling of Christopher WALKEN, smarty!
bittersweetsunrise 1 year ago
@bittersweetsunrise what crawled up your ass and died.
imconfusedenough 1 year ago
@imconfusedenough he always does
empemitheos 1 year ago
@imconfusedenough He always looks creepy.
JayHyphenMichael 1 year ago
@JayHyphenMichael lol thats true.. but he wasn't so creepy in hairspray. :D
imconfusedenough 1 year ago
Bette Midler did a great clip in this film that was cut from the movie! It was so funny, I couldn't believe they cut it!
MamaMidler 2 years ago 2
"The women are smiling and have incredible sex with their husbands" - "It's not normal, Walter!"
Getting off topic here, but aren't people boxing themselves into thinking that any marriage that is "happy" is abnormal - that somehow, when there's a lot of quarreling and push-and-shove is what makes a marriage "normal?"
RedFoxAce 2 years ago 54
I agree, but most women love to complain anyway.
I went down on my woman for ages, gave her multiple orgasms and at the end of the night she still complained she missed Coronation Street on TV!
(It is repeated)
DippShits 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For the first five hours of June 2, 1981, I gave a woman a hundred—yes, honestly—SCREAMING orgasms with her windows open and son, 10, across the hall, with only two doors between us. Three days later on the phone she wailed "All you do [in bed] is fuck!" We were no more.
I now live on a forested Asian mountainside, because the United States could not fit me in anywhere. I had to emigrate to avoid eating out of garbage cans.
Daily, I see that Americans still have not mastered English.
bangfarang 2 years ago
@RedFoxAce what's not normal is the fact that the women do everything for the men and the neighborhood is completely run by men. the women have no place. i suppose the older film gets the point across better.
XbirthdayXmassacreX 1 year ago
@RedFoxAce It is the opinion of one character, not people in general.
EverVigil 1 year ago
@RedFoxAce i think its because they create the image of perfection. no marriage is perfect, it's simply impossible. i get your point though. i just know that if i were there, i would find it rather disturbing as well. i think that line was kind of a comical interface, btw.
AnithistYAY 1 year ago
@RedFoxAce it's called irony, and then you can notice that those women were turned into robots so this kind of happiness is certainly abnormal, perfection can't be attained and you can be happy with some fights, it is abnormal to never fight in a marriage because we are human
elgrosson 1 year ago
@RedFoxAce I know! Everybody assumes that if you see an extremely happy couple, something must be wrong in their marriage at home. The fact is that we are so cynical and jaded that we think that fighting and bickering is what is the norm, but the norm results in divorce over half of the time, so why can't we just leave happy couples alone? Too many times I've seen happy couples wrecked because they believe that the happiness they felt on their honeymoon is transient and can't last,
bellambini 1 year ago
@RedFoxAce Normal was a bad choice of words, natural would have been better. But there s certainly nothing wrong with striving for the ideal marriage as long as you dont think a less than ideal marriage is a failure.
ninetiesbaby10 1 year ago
@RedFoxAce I don't think so...if you ask me, it shows that if the marriage is "perfect", that's a good indication something is wrong. Nothing is absolutely perfect...if it were, it wouldn't be interesting. Just like the robots.
TheQuicksilverQueen 11 months ago
Lol I just watched the rest of it.
That chick was effing nuts!!
PrincessRodeoFan 2 years ago
Creepy much? A bunch of geeks who are scared of their more-powerful wives...
I think it shows how men truly feel around woman who have taken control and lead a successful life.
PrincessRodeoFan 2 years ago 2
I want to see this! The wives remind me of the wives from Desperate Housewives for some reason though.
SeeingStars1993 2 years ago
ironic how Nicole Kidman actually has been stepforded
faulconandsnowjob 2 years ago
You have to admit though, the scene that revealed the "robot" Joanna in the original Stepford Wives was so creepy. I remember her eyes were all black. No whites in her eyes. Scary shit.
kinglear 2 years ago
i want one!!!
DevBlazed 2 years ago
I haven't seen this, but I don't think this could compare to the original... The original was so haunting.
jadewuzlyke 2 years ago
The original is better.
corinthian93 2 years ago
The original is always better...
mandy0427 2 years ago
Not always the case, but mostly.
unnamednewbie13 2 years ago
In films it is ALWAYS the case.
deanriam 1 year ago
No. It isn't. I can't even begin to count how many remakes are far more successful and enjoyable than the originals. It may not seem like very many because there are a lot of movies that were forgotten by the mainstream public...for a good reason.
If you want a prime, though not extreme, example, take Peter Jackson's rendition of the Lord of the Rings compared to the gaggle of previous LotR films.
unnamednewbie13 1 year ago
What a terrible example, the previous Lord of the Rings films were cheap late 70's/early 80's cartoons, you're comparing that to an expensive Hollywood epic from the new millennium? Shame on you.
If you can't even begin to count how many there are, at least provide a good example.
deanriam 1 year ago
unnamednewbie13 1 year ago
You clearly don't know the difference between remake and "based on...".
A lot of movies you mentioned there are not remakes, for something to be a remake it has to have the same characters and the same story. The original Little Shop of Horrors is not a musical, Scarface just borrows elements from the '32 film, but it's not remaking it. and I highly doubt you've seen the original Victor/Victoria and Wizard of Oz to say the new one is better.
deanriam 1 year ago
Meh. First, changing the genre (LSoH to musical) does not change the fact that it is a remake. Second, the LotR films may be based on the same books, but in reality may still fairly be compared to one another. Once again, it's impossible to dismiss comparison due to gaps in budget or technical differences. If so, nobody could rightly complain about a flopped x-to-movie adaptation and not get trounced by someone like you.
Also, don't make any assumptions about what I've seen or haven't seen.
unnamednewbie13 1 year ago
When you change the genre, you also change what the movie is trying to accomplish, if their plots are not trying to accomplish the same thing, then it is not a remake. That's like saying "Nine" is a remake of "8 1/2", it's not.
I already said they can be compared, it's an unfair comparison, but go ahead.
And lastly, I'd say it's a very fair assumption. The original Victor/Victoria is a very hard to find 30's German movie that hardly anyone's seen or even knows exists, who are you kidding?
deanriam 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your assertion that obscurity invalidates comparison between an older film and a newer film is flawed. But if you want to reject the V/V comparison, I don't care. There are still others in the list, and I am not making another one.
"In films it is ALWAYS the case" is still a false statement. The rest of your posts are only skirting around this error.
unnamednewbie13 1 year ago
I'm hardly being hostile, maybe you don't like when someone defies your views?
I never said that it invalidated the comparison, I just said that it is a very unfair comparison. Why? Because again, you're comparing a very modest cartoon adaptation from the late 70's to a big budget 2001 epic. If two things are not on the same playing field, then making any kind of competitive comparison between them is completely unfair.
deanriam 1 year ago
It's still a valid comparison nonetheless. If you exclude it, you're being unfair to newer films.
unnamednewbie13 1 year ago
Hardly, you're just trying to turn it around. You keep talking about comparisons, the fact remains, something has to be on an even playing field to be genuinely compared.
deanriam 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Excuse me, who's turning it around again?
"In films it is ALWAYS the case." -you
If you'd accept that that statement was pretentious at best, we could all step away with some decorum. Beyond that, I see no reason to continue.
unnamednewbie13 1 year ago
With ANY remake, you're going to be comparing the new with the old. Invalidating said comparison or dismissing a remake just because the budget and technology is different just ends possible film discussion altogether.
unnamednewbie13 1 year ago
Forgot to add, book adaptations are numerous, specially with famous books, can they be compared to each other? Yes. Are they remakes of each other? No.
Don't act like the new LoTR movies are remaking the old cartoon ones, because I doubt the screenwriter even watched them to get ideas.
deanriam 1 year ago
Lastly, why are you so adamant about this subject? Are you a movie historian? A film museum curator? A professional critic? Director? Producer? What ties you specifically to the world of movies that spurs you to such pissy overreaction to technicalities?
A remake is a remake is a remake. Even if you didn't mean to film your 'adaptation' to be compared with a previous adaptation, it is still going to be done.
You should go complain about real movie issues, like non-numbered sequels.
unnamednewbie13 1 year ago
I am adamant about films in general. I didn't know that I had to be any of the things you listed to have an opinion.
Just because you don't take literary works into account when talking about films, doesn't mean they're not there. I stand by my statement, if someone adapts a book with just the book in mind then he is not remaking a previous film adaptation of that book, plain and simple. Find someone (other than you) who would call the LoTR trilogy a remake of the old cartoon ones.
deanriam 1 year ago
1) Pay attention for a moment. I do take literary works into account when it comes to films. I just don't disregard previous 'x' book-film adaptations when it comes to looking at newer 'x' adaptations.
2) So if somebody made a Lion King live-action film, I'd have no reason to compare it to LK '94?
3) I didn't say you had to be in the film industry to have an opinion. I'm just puzzled as to why you're coming off so hostile about this whole discussion. My reaction is in defense.
unnamednewbie13 1 year ago
Not disregarding previous adaptations doesn't mean any adaptations after it are remakes, which is what you stated. That even if someone makes an adaptation with just the book and not the previous film, it is a remake because it's still going to be compared.
Even with your list, I do not see a single DIRECT remake (same characters, same title, same story, same genre) in it that you can seriously say that it is better than the original. Try Psycho (1998) or Sabrina (1995), THOSE are remakes.
deanriam 1 year ago
1) Even if a newer movie is an adaptation of a book an older movie is based on, *the comparison is going to be made.* It's an unavoidable side effect.
2) If you don't think something like The Fly or The Thing is a remake, your definition of the term is by far too picky. This discussion is over.
unnamednewbie13 1 year ago
It's not picky, you think anything that's based on something previously produced is a remake and that's simply not the case. Unless a film carries the same plot and characters as the original version it is simply not a remake. That's why Scarface is not a remake, that's why Shaft is not a remake, etc. And unless a "remake" dramatically changes the elements of the original, it ALWAYS sucks.
deanriam 1 year ago
I thought it was good. I didn't know there was an original. But wasn't there a book?
Iamjustherek 2 years ago
yeh its based on a 70s book.. i just finished reading it.. and from thsi trailer the movie seems very different from the book.
tiffanibrusette 2 years ago
My dad and my sister (big science fiction fans) told me the book was much better but I was never really one for science-fiction so I never picked it up. I still like the movie though.
Iamjustherek 2 years ago
Try the original movie, instead. :D
mandy0427 2 years ago
good cast... but the original was better
terrier136 2 years ago
boring, the opposite of LOST in suspense and story-telling
selfhatredcreep 2 years ago
This movie is overblown crap... the original is an understated masterpiece. Didn't need a remake; it's flawless.
egglady 2 years ago
origional?
technologic6 2 years ago
Yeah... this film is a remake.
egglady 2 years ago
I think this movie is fun if you just take it as a comedy... Kidman, Broderick and Midler have good performances... I understand that when compared to the original (which I really want to see) it could be a major letdown, but I think it stands on its own as a light comedic thriller. Just my opinion.
RosaLui 2 years ago 4
That's what I'VE been saying. It was a good comedy. There were contradictions, but I still liked it. I think it was a good idea to remake this as a comedy.
KyliesMCJ 2 years ago
Comment removed
14Sonia14 2 years ago
Comment removed
14Sonia14 2 years ago
LOL what the fuck? A fem bot horror movie?
FlowingGeisha 2 years ago
hahahah.....weird
lashleyfanlesley 2 years ago
this movie was pretty cool i loved bobby and the gay guy the most
UnknownPsychoPath 2 years ago 4
this movie is the best
!
kevinkrn 2 years ago
the original is great and a classic and although this film is a comedy its still a great follow up/remake.
axeinthehead14 2 years ago 3
Re-making The Stepford Wives as a comedy was a big mistake. Completely ruined what made the original so great.
frantic1971 2 years ago
and to think that the original was creepy this one is just a dark comedy they were making fun of it on vh1!
samarafan17 2 years ago
this movie is a mess because it cheats the audience and treats them like idiots. obviously it was meant to go the route of the original ending, but they cut it out for a "happy" ending. I'm not opposed to happy endings...but fix the rest of the movie to match it. Why are there physical robots? if they are just altering the minds of the wives? in the deleted scenes bette midler has go go gadget arms and gets stabbed...alter the mind isnt going to allow for those things. its insulting.
Rypm25 2 years ago