DGlen1979

I'm usually not the most critical person as far as movies are concerned. I find that the vast majority of films are OK, just watchable, or average. Occasionally, though, I come across one that makes me think of all the other things I could be doing instead of spending $7.00 and two hours in a theater. This Stepford Wives remake was one of those times.

I really never thought it could have been as bad as it was. And it really was. From the ridiculous opening scene featuring Joanna Eberhart (Nicole Kidman) as the head of a TV network showing previews of outrageously over-the-top reality shows to a convention of shareholders, to the all-over-the-place and completely out of left field ending, this film was boring, uneven, unfunny and completely unsuspenseful.

Supposedly the unsuspenseful part was unintentional, though, as the filmmakers seem to have purposefully gone a completely different route than the makers of the original 1975 interpretation of the Ira Levin story. That film was a suspense thriller masking a dark satire. This remake appears to be a straight comedy. Only one problem: it's not funny! The laughs are few and far between, and the funniest moments are only remotely amusing.

The dialogue is shamefully cliché and self indulgent. Throw in a gaping plothole (involving a robot) and a cartoon-like mechanical dog and you've got a big ole' disaster of a movie. The new ending is unnecessarily complex and seems to have missed the point of Levin's original story completely.

Everyone involved is so talented, including director Frank Oz (The Dark Crystal, In & Out) and especially the cast, which includes Bette Midler, Glenn Close and Christopher Walken! And of course the fabulous Nicole Kidman! But it's not any of their faults, the movie just doesn't work. Perhaps the writers shouldn't have tried to change the material SO MUCH. The point of the movie just feels lost. Still, I don't see how this could have gone SO wrong.

Avoid at all costs.

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 premise

revealed 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.

This entry follows the events in H20, which is a sequel to Halloween 1 and 2. This is interesting for the fact that Rick Rosenthal directed this, and he was also the director of the original sequel, Halloween II. After that film, his feature debut, he received a lot of criticism for supposedly not being up-to-snuff, and having to have his work finished up by the original film's director, John Carpenter (this rumor was actually substantiated by Carpenter in a recent interview). So it was going to be interesting, going into Resurrection, to see if Rosenthal would go all out to show what he's learned directing TV and films for the last 20 years.

The result is an entertaining entry, but an overall average movie. The plot revolves around a group of college students being locked in the Myers house for a live internet webcast. Bianca Kajlich is the reluctant protagonist and Busta Rhymes is the web entrepreneur behind the whole thing. They are surrounded by the typical assortment of "slasher fodder" obnoxious teens. Inevitable, Michael Myers starts methodically killing people, and there are the tired slasher clichés of a person being pulled through a bathroom mirror and a decapitated head in the clothes dryer.

There are some redeeming qualities, including a subplot involving a group of kids at a high school party watching the webcast, who sort-of mirror the theatrical audience and provide comic relief. Also there is a funny scene where Rhymes, dressed as Michael Myers, encounters the real Myers and mistakes him for somebody else in a costume. Also they finally got the Myers mask to look like it did in the original (how did this take 7 sequels to get right?).

The most redeeming quality about this movie, however, is the attempt to use shadows and light to create atmosphere. This was what made the original Halloween so great- it was all about lighting along with atmosphere, slow ominous pacing and, of course, music. Carpenter has said over and over again that Halloween was an Expressionist film. Unfortunately, contemporary Hollywood does not know how or is not willing to support this format. It does not "gel" with the young, raised-on-MTV audiences that are accustomed to stereotypical, wisecracking characters, break-neck fast editing and contrived, predictable plots.

The result is a series that, since Halloween 4, feels uninspired. Where is the suspense? Halloween H20 was the exception, thanks to Jamie Lee Curtis's participation, and Resurrection is worth it, if for no other reason, than to see her cameo. Her character is given a dignified swan song, and Curtis plays it very well. I just wish the music during her scene didn't felt so un-Carpenter-like. But really, after her scene, there is no reason for the series to continue. It just seems pointless... Unless Myers goes after Josh Hartnett.

What makes this series so consistent is the fact that the same writer/director, Don Coscarelli, is responsible for all four entries. Some phans prefer the second film for its tendency to lean more toward being an action film, while others like the cartoonish, over-the-top aspects of the third entry. Personally, I think this one (IV) is the best sequel. I love the fact that it is more in the moody, psychological vein of the original, which is by far the best in the series in my opinion. IV uses some beautiful locations- a rocky beach, a desert with intricate rock formations, and a completely unpopulated downtown Los Angeles (I'm assuming that's what city it is). These serve as really interesting backdrops for Mike, Reggie, Jody and the Tall Man (all the original actors returned, too). All this is beautifully shot by D.P. Chris Chomyn, who did a great job. The plot is not completely clear, but also not complex. The Tall Man is after Mike with the intent to turn him into another "Tall Man" sort-of undertaker. Meanwhile there's a subplot where Reggie encounters a beautiful female on the road (as he does in both other sequels). The dialogue is sparse and much of the meaning is implied. One of the most impressive things about the film is the way they were able to incorporate so much unused footage from the original (19 years earlier) into the story. Despite the time difference, the new film and the old footage work together perfectly, and that is a really cool thing to behold. The film actually ends with a flashback- a poignant and subtle scene that is unlike the endings of the other three movies, leaving the series with what could be a perfect close. But if Coscarelli and Co. want to come back and do another one, what Phantasm phan is gonna dispute it?! Not me!

I was so excited that this film was going to be a sequel to the original Slumber Party Massacre, with Brinke Stevens reprising her role from the original. But even though flashback scenes from the original are shown during her cameo, the killer (who has apparently returned) has a different name and is played by a completely different-looking actor. Also the area that the killer returns to is snowy and mountainous, as opposed to the sunny southern California setting of Slumber Party Massacre.

Additionally, the film is shot on video and the cinematography seemed almost nonexistent. Director Jim Wynorski can't be all to blame, since he is responsible for fun, campy 80's movies like Chopping Mall and Return of Swamp Thing.

Regardless, every aspect of the film seemed amateurish (and not in an intentional, cheesy way), which made it hard to enjoy very much.