Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Stepford Wives (2004)

This is topic Stepford Wives (2004) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000786

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-10-2004, 04:06 AM:

So this is a remake...why? I mean really, why? This movie is just plain stupid. Maybe the original was better. No wait, it would've had the same stupid plot as this one. What were they thinking???

This is literally a waste of time and filmstock.

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 06-10-2004, 01:39 PM:

Maybe you got a print without the material from the re-shoots? The screening here this week was cancelled due to them reshooting at the last minute.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-10-2004, 05:39 PM:

The original version of "THE STEPFORD WIVES" has been a favorite of mine since I saw it when it was first released. Beside myself, everyone I know who has seen the film also enjoyed it very much. The only thing that concerns me about the remake is the fact that it will be a comic drama compared to the original which was a very serious horror drama. film. I am planning this see it this weekend along with a film about my favorite cat , "GARFIELD"

-Claude

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 06-10-2004, 06:11 PM:

Is the US trailer more like a thriller?
The international trailer just released views more like a comedy

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-11-2004, 05:48 AM:

I'll be interested in reading your comments since you've seen the first Wives, Claude.

In general though, Stepford Wives and Garfield??? DAMN what a bad week in movieland! [Razz]

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 06-11-2004, 08:56 AM:

I was unfortuanate enough to watch this film last night. Somewhere towards the end (last two reels)something gets majorly 'f'ed up. I read an article where Frank Oz said he changed the ending because of poor audience reaction. Maybe he should have left it alone (it would have still sucked -but it least it would be whatever he intended).

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 06-11-2004, 10:03 AM:

There's an extremely funny chapter on THE STEPFORD WIVES (1975) in William Goldman's (screenwriter) book ADVENTURES IN THE SCREEN TRADE.
When Bryan Forbes, the director decided that his wife Nanette Newman should play the female leading role, they had to "downscale" the attractiveness of all actresses playing the "cyber-bimbo" housewives, which kind of takes the bite out of the story.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-12-2004, 05:12 PM:

Brad,

I was looking forward to "THE STEPFORD WIVES" and "GARFIELD" this weekend but my mother' is in a hospital and I am in no mood to see any movies until she is home again and fully recovered from her bone fracture. So far, the reviews I have read in the press has not been too bad. "GARFIELD on the other hand is getting good notices.

-Claude

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 06-13-2004, 10:16 AM:

Man, the pickings are getting slim! Instead of hiring talent to come up with original ideas, Hollywood takes the easy way out by remaking everything. The creative end of the business has degraded such that it's now being run by a bunch of no-talent punks who are simply providing jobs for their buddies.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-13-2004, 04:56 PM:

quote: Tim Reed
Hollywood takes the easy way out by remaking everything

Nothing new here. This has been done since the silent era. Cecil B. DeMille directed THREE versions of THE SQUAW MAN. The first two were silents, only two years apart. THE MALTESE FALCON had two sound versions, GASLIGHT two versions, etc. THE WOMEN was remade into a musical in the 50's. Sequels and film series/franchises abounded. It's the nature of the industry. As far as THE STEPFORD WIVES is concerned, the original is probably hard to adapt today. It is definitely a product of the times it originated in.

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 06-14-2004, 07:21 PM:

I've heard this version of The Stepford Wives mentioned as not a remake of the original film, but an adaptation of the novel on which the original film was inspired by. I saw it this afternoon, and I didn't like it. At 90 minutes, it seems rushed, and the characters don't get proper development. Even if you don't go by that, and focus on the story then I still didn't get much satisfaction. The plot gets going quickly, and gets fairly sluggish when it goes through all of its resolutions at the end. Nicole Kidman seemed to look the part, and was well in tune with most of her costars, save Matthew Brodderick who, without Nicole's rep with Tom Cruise, might seem below her character's standards...

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 06-18-2004, 10:10 AM:

quote: Paul Linfesty
Nothing new here. This has been done since the silent era. Cecil B. DeMille directed THREE versions

It's not too much of a cheat to remake your own picture. But movies have never been remade to the degree that they are today. Since the silent days, how many pictures in a given year were remakes? Compare that to recent years. That's what I'm on about.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-18-2004, 08:03 PM:

quote: Tim Reed
Since the silent days, how many pictures in a given year were remakes?

Quite a few more than you seem to be aware of. The studio system was constantly recycling scripts (and even songs). They held the same principle as recycling sets and costumes.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 06-19-2004, 05:11 AM:

I inadverdently got my wife excited about seeing this film, as I thought it to be an update of the original thriller. To find out it is a lame comedy, well she is mad at me for not wanting to see it now, and she refuses to understand that it is not the movie I thought it to be.

Should I just bitch slap her or what? [evil]

Ciao

Dave

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-01-2004, 11:34 PM:

Dave,
I thought you WERE married to one of the Stepford Wives.......?

Mark

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 07-20-2004, 11:39 AM:

2 of 4 stars...