The Stepford Wives
|
Our Price: $19.95 Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $4.74 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of The Stepford Wives
Movie Review: Unforgettable 70's Sci-Fi Horror!
Summary: 5 Stars
Katharine Ross plays Joanna Eberhart, a young wife who moves with her husband Walter and their two children to the idyllic community of Stepford, Connecticut. But not long after the move, Joanna begins to notice how strange the local women are; obsessed with cleaning and keeping their husbands satisfied in every way, and responding bizarrely to simple questions and personal injuries. She is somewhat comforted when she makes friends with an even less organized and submissive female than herself, Bobbie Markowe (Paula Prentiss), and the pair soon begin playing detective to try and figure out what is going on with the local women and what is up with the mysterious and creepy men's club that Walter has recently joined. What they eventually discover is too terrible to be believed.
Now, if you haven't seen or heard about Stepford Wives and the truth about what is happening in Stepford is something you wish to keep a surprise, you may want to check this fantastic movie out for yourself and not read on.
For those of you who sorta know what the movie is about but haven't seen it yet, it is well worth your time. From 1975 and directed by Bryan Forbes (based on the novel by Ira Levin), this film wasn't all that well received largely because feminist groups didn't "get it" and the fact that it is actually a film with a feminist message (just, thankfully, not so bluntly in your face). Many people completely failed to read between the lines, which seems amazing to me, as it probably would to most modern viewers. There is no doubt that the men in this film were not being represented as "good guys" or "in the right". And, in fact, while this movie is fascinating, exciting, creepy, etc..., what they were doing in all honesty really didn't even make sense. I mean, why kill your wife (which is essentially what they were doing) and replace her with a robot when you could just leave her and THEN marry a robot if that's what you want? Perhaps they needed their bodies in some way, but that point wasn't really made. Even more baffling is that I hear there is a sequel where the men start doing the same thing to their kids, too? What's the point of robot kids at all? I just don't get it.
Nevertheless, this film is highly entertaining and great fun as horror films go! A great example of how excellent a horror film can be without CGI or gore. A couple of the creepiest scenes are simply unforgettable. I so wish I could find a way to see the three sequels made to this film, though they're probably weak copies. I even greatly enjoyed the comedic remake starring Nicole Kidman from a few years back, though that one was even more confusing on the issue of robots vs. brain implants or whatever. They revealed a robot body in that one, and yet it seemed through the course of the film that they didn't actually use them... Puzzling, but still fun and entertaining, just like this one, the original cult classic!
The DVD has some nice interviews, the theatrical trailer, radio spots, bios, and a nice enhanced widescreen presentation. It's a must have for a respectable horror film collection, and if you like this one, I also recommend checking out the remake and other classic film with similar themes, "Westworld", "Futureworld", and "Deadly Friend". You might also enjoy these other exercises in justified paranoia, "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", "The Orphan", and "The Faculty" as well. And for something lighter, there's Disney's "Not Quite Human" film series, if you can find it. As for the made for TV sequels, which I have yet to see, they are "Revenge of the Stepford Wives", "The Stepford Children", and "The Stepford Husbands". Perhaps by the end of the series everyone was a robot?
Movie Review: EVERY MAN'S FANTASY?
Summary: 5 Stars
First, despite the passing of 30 years this well made film is still a very good suspense thriller with excellent acting and pacing. The climatic scene is still a major creep-out, and the resolution scene is still a hoot-and-a-half.
The Stepford Wives touches on many issues popular in America in the early and mid 1970s and even today: the battle of the sexes (Katherine Ross's husband wants her to give up the career she had in New York City before they moved to Stepford), the feminist movement (The heroines don't wear bras but put them on after they've been "turned"), the sexual revolution ("My only tennis partners are two teenage boys with permanent erections." "Oh, really? Send them over to my place."), liberal versus conservative lifestyles, environmentalism ("Maybe these companies are polluting the water and tranquilizing the women in this town."), man's innate desire to create life without the help of women (The president of Stepford's Men's Association--Peter Lawford--is called 'Diz because he used to work for Disneyland where they build humanoid robots.), and the blandness or sameness of American suburbs (Everyone in Stepford drives a big station wagon. For you younger readers, the station wagon was the mini-van of the 1950s, 60s and 70s.)
The premise of this movie isn't silly but serious, and here's why: True, life-like androids aren't the stuff of science fiction but of pure fantasy. However, there are real methods of turning people into automatons involving surgery, drugs and social conditioning which should allow us to cut the makers of the film a little slack, although a story using these methods might have made for a more horrific and serious movie....I haven't read the book.
Since this movie was originally released in 1975 most people seem to agree that the male characters are portrayed as evil (although the men don't give up their wives lightly they do all go through with it in the end.) Feminist activists, leaders, etc. didn't and still don't like the film because the men do prevail and the women are powerless to stop them. They see the movie as more of a male fantasy full of negative stereotypes of women. However, when you see the film it's clear that these sterotypes were played for laughs.
Now, is this movie every man's fantasy? Well, yes, it is. But if you take a moment to think about it, isn't it true that when we realize our fantasies we often discover that the reality doesn't measure up? We men often fantasize about what life would be like if our wives didn't have "issues" or PMS, didn't gain weight or grow old, and never said no in the bedroom because we drove them wild with lust. But the fact is that a quiet, subserviant wife would sadden and disappoint most American men. We don't just want a lover, housekeeper or nanny; we want a partner and best friend. And that's what I came away with from The Stepford Wives. The film is an entertaining examination of American society and some of its more controversial issues, but more importantly it contains themes that left this viewer with a greater respect for the yin & yang relationship of men and women and the very American desire for freedom and the free will to take full advantage of it.
Movie Review: an effective thriller; a good social commentary
Summary: 5 Stars
This movie has usually been reviewed as an effective thriller--which it is. And slow-moving--which it is, too, but in terms of this Pre-Rambo era, this was normal. Many features of the time were slow moving--The Conversation, The Parallax View, Soylent Green, and most notably, Picnic at Hanging Rock, were all excellent movies that took quite a while to get moving. You're supposed to absorb everything that's going on.
The Stepford Wives, however, is underrated as a social commentary of the times. It's probably the only good movie that deals with Feminism, which was a cultural war very much on our minds at the time.
Many of the references will probably bewilder those younger than 35. For example, the scene with Joanna and Bobby on the steps. Talk is made of "the Women's Lib thing in New York" "a Maidenform [bra] bonfire", a "consciousness-raising group". Concerning the "bonfire", burning bras was a big thing in the early 70s--it symbolized freedom from feminine restraints.
Watch the scene of the men's party at Joanna's house--the camera dwells on Joanna's feminine curves, very obviously both bra-less and pantiless. This is a visual allusion to the "bra-burning" trend. At the end of the movie, there's a scene with "Joanna", bra-less, and much better endowed than before. There's a scene with pantyhose--a vital scene--too revealing to give away here. Pantyhose, widely worn in the 70s, was that most feminine, that quasi-sexist garment that can be said to strangle Joanna's sensibilities, her independent ambitions. Our sensitivities have been numbed by a generation of mindless, Rambo-type movies. This is why many of the reviewers have looked at this movie with too literal an eye.
Some of the feminists allusions are too obvious to go into here. Suffice it to say they're numerous. As an example, one of the wives used to be the head of a women's group. Joanne and Bobby hear of this, and want to know more.
Listen closely to the dialogue. Much of the time, it's revealing. Bobby refuses to "squeeze the goddamn Charmin" or "become one of those 'pot-scrubbers'". The gossip talks about "the first black couple to move in town--is it a good thing"? Later on, in the supermarket scene, the new black couple is arguing. Listen closely--the wife's unhappy, and wants to leave Stepford, and we viewers can see the cycle starting all over again.
The only criticism I can land on this movie is that the editing is flabby in spots. Establishing shots, in particular, seem too drawn-out, even for the era. But overall, I highly recommend this movie, both as a thriller and as a social commentary of the times.
Movie Review: Great DVD feature
Summary: 5 Stars
I couldn't beleieve someone was brave enough to make a remake of this film because I have an impression that this movie has attained a cult like status. Okay, so if you're gonna remake this film, couldn't you at least make it more interesting. The Nicole Kidman update was just god awful. I am basing my 5 star review on the DVD extras and just because I really like this movie. It is so memorable and funny in many ways. The DVD extra was neat. Apparently there was rancor between the English director, Bryan Forbes, screenwriter William Goldman and lead actor Peter Masterson. Forbes altered Goldman's script which Masterson didn't appreciate because he is a close friend of Goldman's. Excutive producer Edgar Shcerick wanted Brian DePalma to direct but Goldman refused. Also, Diane Keaton was the first choice to play Joanna Eberhart but backed out at the end. And as a footnote, Mary Stuart Masterson appeared as the Eberharts' seven year old daughter in her film debut. Overall everyone got along enough to make a real neat film. There's also interviews with Katharine Ross and Paula Prentiss on their prespective in making the movie. I like the DVD extra as much as the film itself. I did not read the book, but now interested in doing so just to see the comparisson. I think a reviewer based his opinion on the translation of the book to film, which I think is unfair because the book is always better. The movie itself is a hoot. There were loads of funny lines.. Like the exchange between the Ross and Prentiss characters "I dabbled in Women's Lib back in New York" "Yeah didn't we alll." (at least in college, anyway.) And the husbands are kinda pathetic because they all seem like a bunch of jeeks and nerds who grew up to be old professional bores scheming to build a super wife who will always be in the mood and will keep a clean house. They should have been replacing themselves. I didn't really see it as a feminist's movie even though it was made during 1975 when the ERA movement was gaining momentum. This movie holds up in many aspect because it is well made and the suspense build up was well paced and got real scary toward the climactic end. I am glad Ross ended up playing Joanna. She projected an innocent frailty just by her mere appearance. She has the most melancholic pair of camel eyes on screen, almost haunting. If you haven't seen this movie in a while, I encourage you to get the DVD, I think you'll like the extras as much as I did specially if you're a fan of this movie.Movie Review: I'll simply die if I don't get this recipe!
Summary: 5 Stars
THE STEPFORD WIVES was a unique film. It set out to make a horror film where clean spotless sunlit kitchens were just as scary as rainy spooky old mansions at midnight. Made in the mid 1970s during a wave of feminism and controversy over the ERA Ammendment - it never got the acclaim it deserved for it's building creepiness and Sci Fi twists. The remake is what it is, but here's where most people first glimpsed Stepford - a very real suburb where homemaking is a science. Katharine Ross(in an EXCELLENT turn)plays Joanna Eberhard who moves from NYC to Stepford with her husband and two daughters. She's a photographer and homemaker who's dabbled in the women's movement but never really taken up the cause. She begins to realize the women of Stepford are all obsessed with housework, and worse ... subservient and servile to their husbands. She joins up with another woman who finds this all strange, Bobbie -- played oustandingly by Paula Prentiss. Together they find out a string of clues that maybe not all is well in Stepford, and the seemingly benign suburban bliss may be MANUFACTURED by the creepy Men's Society that every husband is a part of.
Bryan Forbes took over this project after speculations Brian De Palma should film it. He made a very effective treatment of the novel, but added his own touches. His wife Nannette Newman influenced the costumes by demanding rather than proposed Playboy bunny outfits the wives should look Victorian with hats and gloves and long dresses - creepy and sexy. Tina Louise (Ginger on Gilligan's Island) also makes a great cameo as Charmaine - one of Joanna and Bobbie's radical friends who transforms to a Stepford Wife by startingly ripping up her tennis court for a pool her husband wants.
You get the film in widescreen, and the transfer is passable for a movie of this age. Colors are 1970s soft and there is grain, but it looks fine. You get a 12 minute featurette with all the principle players, and they explain how the movie was made and what it was like. Some people say the pacing was slow, but this was the 1970s! I think its suppposed to develop slowly like the novel, and you get to know the characters. The last ten minutes are completely shocking, and no test audiences made them whimp out (cough cough - the remake's ending was reshot). This was a politically relevant well-crafted film with great acting! Superb in every way! Check out the source novel by Ira Levin as well.