Stepford Wives - Franco Goes To The Movies

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

I thought I had a seen a thread mentioning this movie but could not locate one on the web. We just went to see a matinee and this is what I thought, with a few comments from my friends at the end:

 

The movie is very rushed; there are some amusing set pieces at the start which are essentially used to provide a basis for the move to Stepford for the characters played by Nicole Kidman and Matthew Broderick. However, it felt rushed to me and, as short as it was, they may have just eliminated them. Some of the "fake" reality shows were somewhat amusing, but given the previous work of Mr. Rudnick, I was somewhat surprised at how weak the script was. Adams Family Values and Jeffrey both had a great deal more humor and originality, which was sorely lacking in Stepford Wives. The plot was very predictable with a great many number of unexplained holes, such as how quickly a network president who was a top success for a number of years, would be fired over one incident. Given that some corporate leaders in Hollywood hang on well past their "good till" date, that seems the most far fetches thing of all, but there are also other, more significant holes, such as how the switch towards the end with the Kidman and Broderick characters was carried out without the knowledge of the other characters. (I am trying not to spoil the plot for anyone else....) Another "hole" is why a candidate for senator would still do the grocery shopping.

 

The art direction, production values, sets and costumes were really very good. Bette Midler did a good job but her character was one of the most predictable of all. The acting was fairly good, although somewhat two dimensional for both Glenn Close and the two gay characters and some of the actors were hardly used at all.

 

Based on studio desires to keep movies to 90 minutes, I assume there was a lot of chopping and cutting. Overall, the movie is probably a C+ but I would have waited to rent a DVD were it not for my friends. Overall, while not disappointed, most would have preferred more humor in this movie.

[mmk]

I never saw the original but I did read the book and remember it to be suspenseful. I know the original has been released on DVD this week with commentary from the original cast. Definitely would like to catch it

 

Did anyone see the made for tv movie sequels to the original Stepford Wives. The first was called Revenge of the Stepford Wives and I believe it had Sharon Gless and Audra Lindley in it. I think that Julie Kavner was in it as well. It was a few decades since I saw it so I do not remember thedetails but I do remember that it was just a basic made for tv movie thriller.

 

The second "sequel" was called the Stepford Children with Barbara Eden. Basically it was the same plot except the children of the town were being reprogrammed and Barbara Eden was the heroine of the movie. (As Barbara should be) I do recall this one being a little more suspenseful and better than the average movie of the week fair.

[Ignoto]

>>a great many number of unexplained holes, such as how quickly a network president who was a top success for a number of years, would be fired over one incident.<<

 

I think what you're saying is that you would have liked the plot to have switched from believable to incredible, later in the show. I thought they could have taken even less time to explain the move to Stepford, but if anyone has a watch, let me know -- is it really more than five minutes into the show?

 

>>Another "hole" is why a candidate for senator would still do the grocery shopping.<<

 

But it didn't bother you that everyone else was still doing their own grocery shopping, in this Greenwich-style enclave of the wealthy?

 

I agree that there were a lot of unexplained activities and non sequiturs in the plot, but as I said to my young escort friend who saw it with me, trying to point them out reminds me of the letters to Superman comics, back in the 1950s, in which someone would point out that what happened in Issue 413 was inconsistent with something that happened in Issue 238. (He said the same thing happens now with Star Trek fans.)

 

There was a long article in the New Yorker a few months ago, about how the writer who gets Oscar nomination credit for a script may have only written 20 percent of the final product -- waves of writers are brought in to punch up a script, before and during filming. I think that's obviously what happened with this movie.

 

Nevertheless, I liked it. I thought the acting by all the major characters was stellar, and there was enough humor to appeal to a variety of people in the audience. The addition of a gay couple to a remake of a movie targeted at straights is enough reason to go see it. If you have never spent much time in NYC, geographically or attitudinally, you won't enjoy it as much as someone who has.

[Guest showme43]

even so i still found it entertaining on a rainy monday afternoon...pure fluff

[+ Hoover42]

In my opinion, they took a mediocre thriller and turned it into a mediocre farce.

 

It was still interesting--I loved the gay architect--but I was disappointed that they didn't take the movie in a darker and more ominous direction. A story, say, involving terrorism, The Patriot Act, and a secret government experiment in population control.

 

Now, that would have been interesting.

 

...Hoover

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

This Explains Everything

 

>i still found it entertaining

>on a rainy monday afternoon

 

It was 80 degrees and totally sunny Monday afternoon when we went.