Revenge of the Stepford Wives (1980)

I enjoyed this movie for two reasons. One: I am a huge fan of the original 1974 film to which this is a sequel, and Two: I love 70's- 80's tv horror movies. The original Stepford Wives is often criticized for being an inferior adaptation of the Ira Levin story. Since I've never read the book I can only say that the movie is ominously moody, spooky and effectively suspenseful. It really manages to create a feeling of uneasiness and Katharine Ross and Paula Prentiss are fantastic as the female leads (played by Nicole Kidman and Bette Midler in the 2004 remake). This sequel does a really bold, unexplained thing and foregoes the premiserevealed in the surprise ending of the original, giving a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT reason for why the women of Stepford are always so "perfect." Sharon Gless (Cagney from "Cagney and Lacey" and Debbie from "Queer as Folk") is a tv reporter who travels to Stepford to do a report on the ideal community. She quickly befriends another outsider, played by Julie Kavner (the voice of Marge on "The Simpsons"), who is the wife of a cop (Don Johnson from "Miami Vice" and "Nash Bridges"). From there the story pretty much follows that of the original, with Gless in the Ross role and Kavner very much in the Prentiss role. The exception is that Gless's character actually attempts to save her friend and free the women of Stepford, as would not have been possible in the original for obvious reasons. If you're like me and you love 70's and 80's horror tv movies, this is a must. The basic tenets of the horror genre seem to contrast completely with the medium of television during this time, since anything remotely gory or intense would have been censored, most tv horror movies aren't scary at all. In fact, often they come across as cheesy and unintentionally funny. This can be a whole separate, even addicting, genre in itself (see Wes Craven's "Invitation to Hell"). Spielberg's "Duel" and Dan Curtis's "Trilogy of Terror" are real exceptions to this rule, however. So don't go into "Revenge of the Stepford Wives" expecting a masterpiece. Although Gless is very good, the material is just... cheesy. Still, if you're a fan of the original or cheesy tv horror, you should definitely check this one out. I've seen it way too many times. Now I have to go take my pill.

With the recent remake of the original Stepford Wives, this time as a comedy with Nicole Kidman, Bette Midler, Christopher Walken, Glenn Close and Matthew Broderick, there may be interest in in the original with Katherine Ross and Paula Prentiss, as well as this 1980 sequel with Sharon Gless, Don Johnson and Julie Kavner, yes, she who does the voice of Marge Simpson. I would see this version first before I would see the original 1975 movie. Normally I do not care for women vs. men programs done in such a moralistic light, but I am aware of sexism in society and that there is beliefs and opinions that women "should be more supportive, obedient and submissive" to their men, with the men not having to reciprocate. Having since seen the original, which seemed more like a spoof on tv commercials to me than anything else, this one did seem to delve more into women being doting housewives. Gless was a single woman who came to town. That alone upsets this whole cart. I wonder how Stepford handled that? Does someone get a concubine in the process? We did glimpse an unnamed couple attempting to flee at the very beginning. They don't make it. I was misled to think this was a couple shown in the original, which they weren't. Also, this one did take the approach that the women aren't replaced with robots, they are drugged.The first Stepford was more of a Twilight Zone movie as well. This one sought to give the wives their revenge. Granted, had the robots of the first one rebelled, it might have been interesting, but then it could also have simply been "Westworld, the Women."Nevertheless, nothing failed in this sequel. The siren going off for the women to take the medication could have been absurd, but it was kept low-key, as was the women in the lacy outfits and aprons.I only truly grasped there was something impractical about the dresses when Kavner commented to Gless about it in the car.Yes, Revenge was nearly a totally different movie from Stepford Wives, different motives, different outcome, but there has been sequels that pretty much follow the same path as the original and those are no fun.Want to see the women lose? See the 1975 movie.Want to see the men lose? See the 1980 sequel.There is a third, horrendous movie, called Stepford Children, with Barbara Eden, Don Murray and Tammy Lauren. Avoid this one at all costs. It doesn't add anything further to this concept.

It's so darn-tootin' silly it will make you larf. Esp. Julie K.'s part! Very campy -- I would recommend it to all who enjoy simple mindless entertainment! Sometimes you gotta watch movies that arn't so dark and stressful. After saying that, I have to admit that Monster is one of my favs and you can't get any darker than that! So, I guess moderation is the key.==I liked the original Stepford Wives, however, she seemed too helpless and I think they should have developed more about her relationship with her kids so you could feel how much she loved them. There seemed to be an empty space left in their absence. I loved the drawings one of the men would sketch right before each woman's "transformation" -- they were haunting and be

Maybe if I had never seen the original or read the book, I might have been mildly amused, but I doubt it. The fact is the husbands were killing their wives and replacing them with robots. An idea scarier today than it may have been then because it seems more possible that it could happen in the near future. But this movie's premise that the wives are servants because once a day when a big horn sounds, they all drop everything and take a pill is pretty stupid. If I were Ira Levin, I would've sued.