On one hand, The Stepford Wives is just a So So movie. It’s definitely is not a thriller. And, it doesn’t quite work as Camp. The convoluted script just seems to miss. By the end of the movie, you don't really care very much how it ends.
On the on the other hand, I’m glad I saw this film in the theater. If you are into the visual, see this one on the Big Screen. Otherwise, you can probably wait.
The visual is VERY important to me. If the film is visually pleasing, I can often accept less than perfect acting or script. So when this movie comes to TV, I might watch it again with Pete. The look is a delight to the eye. And, that counts a lot to this Mom.
But... This isn't really a very good film. I think my problem was Nicole Kidman. She generally leaves me cold. Unlike almost everyone else, I am not a big fan. She always seems to be acting … even when she’s playing herself.
I can never quite suspend my disbelief when Kidman is onscreen. Her red eyes and more ready tears are just a tad too false to touch me. I know that sounds mean, but there it is....
I’d like to blame a poorly written script, or the director, for Glenn Close's failure in this one, but I’m not sure. She can usually make anything work. And, I'd like to give her the benefit of doubt. So, I’m blaming this on the writers and director, because I just like this actress too much to blame it on her. But, what do I know...
The rest of the main actors did very good jobs. Bette Midler, Christopher Walker, and Matthew Broderick were able to get you involved. In my opinion, the cinematography and Bette pretty much saved the movie from complete failure.
On a scale of one to five, I guess I give The Stepford Wives a 3.2.
Are you confused yet?
Posted by Judi at June 14, 2004 4:53 PM | TrackBackHi Judi,
thanx for the Stepford Wives review; i know what you mean about Nicole Kidman; actually, i do think Kidman is a very good actor (she was great in the very depressing "The Hours", although, i frankly thought both Meryl Streep and Julianne Moore were and are far superior to her.)
However, when Kidman appears as herself on any tv promo appearances on Letterman or Leno etc., she leaves me cold; there is a studied distance she wears and imposes and although she illicits bursts of giggles or laughs as she covers her mouth in a feigned modesty, it all comes across both forced and false;
it's as if we never really get a sense of who she really is -- and that's definitely the way she likes it.
p.s. can't wait for your Fahrenheit 9/11 review! ~ i'm not sure Toronto will be getting it on the 25th like the rest of the U.S.; cross my fingers.
Posted by: voxpopgirl at June 15, 2004 7:05 AMHave you seen the original or read the book? I probably won't see either, but I'm always curious to know how people feel about remakes.
Posted by: Mister P. at June 15, 2004 9:59 PMYes, I read the book. A a pretty scary cautionary tale at the time. I also saw the original movie.
I would love to hear what you think when you see this movie. I don't usually mind remakes. The story was changed in this one. At least, I don't remember the ending being the same. I think this remake was meant to be a comedy.
I'm pretty sure that the book and the movie came at the start of the 'Feminist Revolution'. I would look it up, but our DSL is down, and I am making this comment on my very slow old Mac with a modem connection.
Darn SBC. I just talked with someone in the Philipines (where it is Tomorrow) but nothing can be done till i talk to the local people in LA after 8:00 AM. #^%^&**
Posted by: Mom at June 16, 2004 11:43 PM