Watch
The Stepford Wives

The Stepford Wives

2004
Comedy
Sci-fi
1h 33m
Stepford has a secret. All of the wives are far too perfect, and all of the husbands are way too happy. The Stepford Wives is a sophisticated and comic re-imagining of the 1975 suspense classic. Welcome to Stepford -- the American way of love. (Paramount Pictures)
Your probable score
?

The Stepford Wives

2004
Comedy
Sci-fi
1h 33m
Your probable score
Avg Percentile 23.07% from 3778 total ratings

Ratings & Reviews

(3778)
Compact view
Compact view
Rated 23 Mar 2020
39
9th
This is one of those movies I should really rewatch before commenting on, but honestly, that will not be happening. It wasn't great when I saw it in the theater which was well before I'd seen the original. Matthew Broderick was in another movie I saw in the theater that came from a time when I would see terrible movies on dates. At least that one had Meg Ryan, the American Nicole Kidman.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
10
4th
TERRIBLE REMAKE!!! So many plotholes, cheesy humor and bland acting from the entire cast. The original film is much better.
Rated 11 Aug 2009
62
14th
OK FINE I KIND OF HAVE A HOUSEWIVES THING
Rated 14 Aug 2007
40
26th
The Stepford Wives should not be a shitty comedy with a lighthearted ending. It should be a suspenseful film like the original.
Rated 22 Oct 2022
46
9th
Watchable waste of a great deal of talent, but when the talent is this good, it’s difficult to be completely dismissive; all of the performances are pretty much pitch-perfect, but stuck in a movie that has no idea what to do with them – toothless and obvious as satire, and not an especially funny comedy (though Bart’s delivery of “She’s fabulous!” is almost worth sticking around for). At its best with Kidman, Midler and Bart indulging in FIRST WIVES-style shenanigans, but overall a damp squib.
Rated 19 May 2008
69
32nd
Slowish, I've never seen the original, but in the year 2004, this is not a very entertaining idea or a very original one at that.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
50
4th
Really stupid - misses the point of the book, has few laughs and no scares. Why was this made?
Rated 14 Aug 2007
15
7th
Utter. Crap. Ola.
Rated 11 Apr 2008
20
10th
A colossal misfire. What was a great short story with loads of potential for adaptation within a contemporary context, becomes a film that instead goes for hackneyed gender comedy, slapstick and outright farce.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
1
5th
Why are Matthew Broderick and Nicole Kidman slumming in this unfunny shit? Then again, this movie is so bad that I can't think of a single actor who wouldn't be slumming here. Rob Schneider would be slumming here. Yoda directed this movie.
Rated 17 Jan 2009
7
12th
I never really realized how many movies I disliked until I came to this site.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
37
25th
Punchless satire, never certain if it's sci-fi or comedy.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
18
5th
Not all remakes are crappy, this one is.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
45
4th
The city of Stepford has a terrible secret: It doesn't make sense and the characters are dull.
Rated 05 Apr 2008
25
4th
The original film is a classic of horror and to be honest, it totally creeped me out. So, with a cast like Kidman, Walken, Broderick and Close, I was expecting something decent. This remake is literally a joke and more of a parody of the original than anything else. There is nothing particularly subtle about the humor and the horror is all but gone. Not worth anyone's time, not even for a laugh.
Rated 21 Sep 2018
1
3rd
Boy that sure was a satire of something or other, or it was a comedy of some other sort. Where're the jokes?
Rated 01 May 2009
32
6th
Not good.
Rated 04 Oct 2023
81
18th
1
Rated 26 Apr 2009
40
9th
Remake!
Rated 14 Aug 2007
40
14th
What was the reason for making this movie???
Rated 04 Jun 2008
70
28th
There wasn't much to work with here... It's basically the same as before, only this time there's a gay couple. I wish there would have been more substance to the same old story, but the truth is that there wasn't. Still, it was a good movie and it's worth watching once or twice.
Rated 09 Jan 2009
45
4th
The original is better in every way.
Rated 17 Aug 2009
2
16th
Butchered.
Rated 01 Jul 2007
75
35th
Guilty pleasure
Rated 14 Aug 2007
38
2nd
Awful remake of the original, can't decide if this was a black comedy, a satire, general comedy, etc. At times overly campy, and then simply nothing funny happens. The plot is very hard to decipher and the film seems jumbled past the halfway point. Talend is wasted all around.
Rated 30 Aug 2007
40
6th
Why ?? Whyyyyyy???
Rated 14 Aug 2007
30
0th
Dreadful. Had this been a real update, it could've been great. But this comedy take is just nasty. Bette Midler is the only watchable thing about it.
Rated 23 Aug 2015
40
8th
Such an interesting concept but such a terrible film
Rated 14 Aug 2007
40
7th
No. No, no, and more no. You might consider it worth watching once... it was a well-glossed film. But... *shudder*
Rated 14 Aug 2007
76
10th
Bad, but bad enough to be good.
Rated 22 Sep 2010
35
9th
The original is no masterpiece, but I guess it is compared to this.
Rated 30 Nov 2007
20
4th
So many continuity flaws it really detracts from the film
Rated 15 Oct 2008
65
41st
It's okay.
Rated 15 Oct 2008
65
40th
Very bizarre.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
40
24th
plot sucks
Rated 14 Apr 2008
65
5th
Such potential - wasted! A cross between a social satire and a comedy, and succeeds at neither. (and I'm a huge Frank Oz fan, BTW)
Rated 06 Dec 2008
40
13th
After liking the original I thought I'd give this one a try. Big mistake. The acting was mediocre and the mysterious ending of the orignal was completly hollywoodized. Although this one was awful, I would highly recommend seeing the 1975 version.
Rated 20 Feb 2007
45
17th
A missed opportunity, a waste of actors, writers, plot and budget.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
75
51st
nice to see an evil female scientist for once.
Rated 19 Aug 2009
70
9th
Watch the original
Rated 27 Dec 2008
89
68th
Makes you think of your life again and again.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
55
23rd
Not sure what it was trying to accomplish, and I don't know if it ever did.
Rated 12 Nov 2007
85
26th
A rather light-hearted humerous take on the classic 1975 film.
Rated 04 Nov 2010
21
10th
#00s#, story, Nicole K!, C Walken
Rated 14 Aug 2007
15
10th
Are they robots, or are they not robots? Enough confusion and plot holes to make self-mutilation seem like an OK option.
Rated 22 Dec 2009
40
1st
An inept, unfocused remake.
Rated 18 Oct 2007
50
29th
Very disappointing. Was worth it to see Bette Midler though.
Rated 28 Jul 2008
73
20th
Worth watching if there's nothing better on.
Rated 13 Sep 2007
39
31st
Engaging. Well-acted. Interesting. More sophisticated and believable than the original.
Rated 28 Dec 2006
75
24th
could have been better but still pretty neat. i've yet to see the original.
Rated 13 Nov 2008
70
41st
don't remember much about it because i got it confused with desperate housewives
Rated 06 Aug 2013
25
9th
So much potential, but artistically abandoned. No purpose this version, a shame too.
Rated 21 Jan 2013
37
8th
Taking the original story and turning it into a comedy for this remake doesn't add up, and the entire film feels wrong. Nothing clicks.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
75
40th
not as good as the first one, but ok
Rated 14 Aug 2007
50
1st
B A D
Rated 14 Aug 2007
89
89th
Interesting to say the least. Could've used to some work. It's more geared for the unhappily married people (who AREN'T in denial) so I guess that makes most people feel alienated because they're insecure.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
44
6th
Ugh -- someone please tell Paul Rudnick that when you actually AIM for camp, you just end up with an awkward mess.
Rated 16 Jun 2012
66
28th
Not unwatchable but what the Hell's the point
Rated 08 Aug 2023
13
4th
all of these points are for the opening scenes with the fictional reality tv shows, the rest of the movie is boring and confused
Rated 14 Aug 2007
75
51st
Interesting remake.
Rated 23 Mar 2011
0
15th
A remake that has only its title in common with the original movie, substituting broad and rarely funny comedy for the paranoia that fuelled the story the first time around.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
53
5th
A trip back to the 1950s, but not too much fun.
Rated 11 Mar 2009
75
73rd
A very good cast and a nice plot. I haven't seen the original yet, but this is a very well-written sarcasm-filled drama comedy. The effects are up-to-date and well-dosed. Most of the make-overs are brilliantly done in a creepy way.
Rated 01 May 2007
6
7th
One would think the premise would work better as a comedy but it doesn't. It does, however, make a fine blunt instrument to beat someone with.
Rated 06 Nov 2022
65
39th
Funnyrealityshowslool+somefunnylines+BMlooksgreat/whenshechangestoo+nicewhenheconfrontshernoigottoholdyourpurse+stepfordhusband-diescuzkissedrobohead
Rated 27 Dec 2008
80
81st
Wish I had one of them... Stepford Wifes od course ;]
Rated 30 Aug 2010
30
5th
This is a lifeless piece of trash and a huge insult to the original film adaptation, which handled the clever comment on the extremes of patriarchal society with genuine creepiness. Which idiot decided to rewrite that message into a comedy? Now THAT decision in itself is creepy and begs the question, are we going backwards or becoming stupider as a movie audience? If this kind of trash is acceptable then we surely must be.
Rated 22 Aug 2007
34
33rd
ok
Rated 26 Aug 2008
10
1st
This remake was absolute shit compared to the original. Burn the reels; this sucked.
Rated 24 Nov 2021
50
37th
Had potential but the ending was a sloppy mess & Matthew Broderick was rather insufferable.
Rated 18 Nov 2008
25
25th
Bette Middler's character scored some points at least.
Rated 13 Mar 2009
33
19th
Misguided remake of the 1975 movie substitutes broad comedy for the eeriness that made the original so effective. What's more, the concept was fresh back then; now the term "Stepford wife" has entered the vernacular and there's no suspense at all.
Rated 09 Oct 2009
40
24th
funny
Rated 14 Aug 2007
92
78th
Pretty good movie. It was worth the time.
Rated 26 May 2007
35
12th
Bleh.
Rated 21 Oct 2008
77
92nd
ger
Rated 19 Jul 2008
45
4th
The performances were good, and it is entertaining, but it gets tiring after the first viewing.
Rated 17 Aug 2008
80
84th
The 1974 original's a horror flick and this version is a black comedy. Surprisingly, it actually works
Rated 23 Jan 2017
1
2nd
One of the worst movies ever made, the continuity errors from scene to scene are astounding and abundant. The plot is erratic and poorly thought through. The visual effects are bafflingly abysmal, as if they ran over budget and had to made do with a $10 VFX dog. I think it was supposed to look like an actual dog, not the monstrosity they ignore having. From the disappearing children (WHEN did they go to camp?), to the overdone performance by everyone involved, this is a nightmare to watch.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
71
13th
A fast reader can probably devour the book in less time than it would take to watch this lifeless adaptation.
Rated 04 Jan 2012
60
5th
I can remember leaving the movie theater incredibly pleased after seeing this, but it really has not lasting appeal. In fact, all I can really remember is Christopher Walken dancing around.
Rated 24 Feb 2008
40
25th
Ok not too bad just to watch on a Sunday afternoon
Rated 04 May 2008
33
8th
This film gets a special point deduction for failing to live up to its potential. Such an incredible story could've surpassed previous attempts with modern filmmaking abilities, but the characters sucked and the writing sucked. This film is a shameful mark on the book and the original film.
Rated 27 Oct 2011
15
21st
"Substituting horror for hilarity, this satiric jumble of half-baked social commentary and hit-or-miss jokes is an exercise in meta self-consciousness." - Nick Schager
Rated 14 Jul 2015
45
16th
Anyone who isn't a flamboyant gay stereotype, an obnoxious Jewish slob or an uptight selfish career woman isn't a real person apparently.
Rated 19 Mar 2011
5
1st
If you haven't lost respect for Nicole Kidman already, all you have to do is watch this.
Rated 27 Nov 2015
10
13th
This is a logic free zone so be prepared to leave your brain behind. While the original film was sort of creepy this one has a dog that was kidnapped and changed into a robot that looks like a robot and women that look like women but are really robots. Or they were but now they're not because magic happy ending. Confused? Get in line. Also if the creators wanted us to believe in their story, even a little, they shouldn't have cast Broderick as a human. We all know that's not real.
Rated 19 Feb 2007
35
13th
Poor.
Rated 24 Mar 2008
66
36th
I expected this to really be bad but was pleasantly surprised. It's not nearly as shallow as it would seem; it actually had some real substance to it. Serious social commentary can be found if you pay attention. No, it's no Citizen Kane, and if you're a male chauvanist you aren't going to like this at all, but it's not the dreck other reviewers have made it out to be.
Rated 03 Apr 2010
40
12th
4-4-2010 plot is nice for a while, but the comedy element hurts the drama part and the end feels over-done. Want to watch the original, to see how they f*cked up the original into something hollywoodized. *sigh*
Rated 14 Aug 2007
45
29th
Not half as bad as I expected, but never standing up to the original film.
Rated 02 Apr 2009
67
40th
magicland...:)
Rated 14 Aug 2007
42
32nd
A perfect definition of a guilty pleasure movie.
Rated 23 Oct 2008
40
12th
creative but stupid
Rated 28 May 2010
5
4th
This film was released 14 years after the 80's ended and it stars Matthew Broderick. Need I say more?
Rated 14 Jun 2008
17
10th
bad movie
Rated 14 Aug 2007
88
65th
I liked it.
Rated 07 Jun 2007
15
3rd
I generally love Nicole Kidman's work, but this movie was a real dud. All of the suspense of the original is gone, replaced by total hokey-ness. The 15 points are all because of Christopher Walken, who plays the Stepford mastermind just like you imagine he would play it.
Rated 03 Oct 2009
30
13th
Can't say I'm a fan of this
Rated 10 Sep 2009
35
9th
It starts nice, but the ending is absolutely dreadful. Good acting, but the irony is lost somewhere along the way.

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...