Revenge of the Stepford Wives

1980 "The Stepford Wives Return With a Vengeance..."
4.9| 1h36m| en| More Info
Released: 12 October 1980 Released
Producted By: Edgar J. Scherick Associates
Country:
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A TV reporter arrives in the quiet town of Stepford to launch an investigation into why the town has the lowest divorce and crime rates in America. However, she begins to notice some bizarre behavior in the women of the town, discovering that Stepford is not as clean-cut as it seems.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Edgar J. Scherick Associates

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

ThiefHott Too much of everything
HeadlinesExotic Boring
MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant
Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.
DGlen1979 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.
Moonlighting I just saw this film today and thought it was entertaining. I've seen the original Stepford Wives and read the book- and I'm a big fan, but I don't really take this film seriously. Some of the acting is bad- the Stepford Wives are nowhere near as great in this one than in the original- in this one the robotic acting isn't that good. But I still like the plot- and it's very entertaining, and unintenionally funny. I knew I recognised Julie Kavners voice- i checked IMDB and she sounds excatly like Selma from the simpsons in real life! Anyway- I wouldn't say it was a really bad film- and the ending was great!
tex-42 This very silly sequel basically rewrites the original premise of the original Stepford Wives, and now has it so the wives are simply taking pills to keep them in an obedient state, while telling anyone who asks that they have a mild thyroid condition. What makes it even sillier is that a whistle blows across the entire town every time they take a pill. The main question one asks is "How could any outsider not be suspicious with every woman having a thyroid and stopping in the middle of their actions to take a pill?" Unlike the first movie, the town basically puts up a sign that says something is wrong here. If you enjoyed the first movie avoid this one, the acting is marginal and the script is awful.
toddy-3 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.