Reviews/The Stepford Wives (2004) - Revision history

Spaz: Text replacement - "= "" to "=""

2020-12-30T01:34:26Z

Text replacement - "= "" to "=""

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:34, 30 December 2020
Line 18:		Line 18:
	Now, if you add that one tiny element into the plot - even if you don't "fix" ''anything'' else wrong with the flick, wouldn't the premise work much better? Yes, you could also give Christopher Walken the best line in the movie, milking the premise a bit longer; Joanna asks Mike "Why?" and he smugly retorts "Because ''WE'' can do better!" See what I mean?		Now, if you add that one tiny element into the plot - even if you don't "fix" ''anything'' else wrong with the flick, wouldn't the premise work much better? Yes, you could also give Christopher Walken the best line in the movie, milking the premise a bit longer; Joanna asks Mike "Why?" and he smugly retorts "Because ''WE'' can do better!" See what I mean?

	Well, the dodos responsible for this pile of crap obviously didn't get it. ''Their'' idea of "re-imagineering" amounted to a lame attempt at humor {among many many other things}. In the original 1975 classic, we get a brief glimpse of a newly-arrived black couple during the grocery store scene near the end of the flick {metaphorically speaking, "the end of the movie" = " the back of the bus"}. She's nagging at him, but he's only half-listening to her, a hint of a smile on his face as several Stepford Wives mechanically glide around them.		Well, the dodos responsible for this pile of crap obviously didn't get it. ''Their'' idea of "re-imagineering" amounted to a lame attempt at humor {among many many other things}. In the original 1975 classic, we get a brief glimpse of a newly-arrived black couple during the grocery store scene near the end of the flick {metaphorically speaking, "the end of the movie" =" the back of the bus"}. She's nagging at him, but he's only half-listening to her, a hint of a smile on his face as several Stepford Wives mechanically glide around them.

	This vignette was duly "re-imagineered" for the remake - the gay couple that "experiences the Change." Wow - after thirty years, we've progressed from one minority stereotype-clich`e {or three, if you count the subtle ones}, to celebrating yet ''another'' stereotype-clich`e? You've Come a Long Way indeed, Baby - but WHEN are you going to realize you're walking on a f*cking <u>''TREADMILL''</u>??!!??!!??		This vignette was duly "re-imagineered" for the remake - the gay couple that "experiences the Change." Wow - after thirty years, we've progressed from one minority stereotype-clich`e {or three, if you count the subtle ones}, to celebrating yet ''another'' stereotype-clich`e? You've Come a Long Way indeed, Baby - but WHEN are you going to realize you're walking on a f*cking <u>''TREADMILL''</u>??!!??!!??

Spaz: Text replacement - "Back to Reviews" to "← Reviews"

2019-12-30T22:36:45Z

Text replacement - "Back to Reviews" to "← Reviews"

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:36, 30 December 2019
Line 43:		Line 43:
	-----		-----

	[[Reviews\|~~Back to~~ Reviews]]		[[Reviews\|← Reviews]]

	[[Category:Baron]]		[[Category:Baron]]

Robotman: cat

2008-04-06T19:06:15Z

cat

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:06, 6 April 2008
Line 48:		Line 48:
	[[Category:Movies]]		[[Category:Movies]]
	[[Category:Reviews]]		[[Category:Reviews]]
			[[Category:The Stepford Wives]]

Robotman: style formatting

2008-04-06T18:45:23Z

style formatting

Robotman: header

2008-04-06T18:40:04Z

header

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:40, 6 April 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
			==Baron's review==
	'''In Review: Fried Turducken Leftovers'''		'''In Review: Fried Turducken Leftovers'''

Robotman: post review

2008-04-06T18:38:04Z

post review

New page

'''In Review: Fried Turducken Leftovers'''

'''{AKA "The Stepford Wives 2004."}'''

Yeah, I know - a week after the fact, and everybody's heartily sick and tired of TURKEY in any form. Myself, I'd even instantly shy away from one of Stepford Mary's nummy turkey CANolis or CANishes right about now............. [[Image:Icon twisted.gif]]

Well, it was this same exact feeling that washed over myself and many others a few years back when the much-ballyhooed "re-imagineering" of TSW was finally dumped on an unsuspecting {and as it turned out, uninterested} public a few years back. Since the final product was so lousy, and since nearly all of the flaws of the remake have been talked about in-depth here already, I'm going to depart from my "standard" review format {plot, characters, discrepancies, positives, negatives}, and just take potshots at my pet peeves.

For starters, let's talk about this "re-imagineering" thing a little bit. The original "imagineers" were of course, Walt Disney's creative staff. They were the ones who came up with the first workable animatronics {like the famous "Robot Abe Lincoln"}; the basic premise being subtly incorporated into Ira Levin's Stepford Wives novel, as well as the films. In the 1975 original film, Dale Coba, evil mastermind of the Stepford plot, is nicknamed "Diz" - because he used to BE a Disney "imagineer."

However, somewhere between '75 and 2003, when the remake entered production, everything had been compromised. "Imagineering" was no longer fashionable; rather, it was more chic to call it "re-imagineering," and hope that nobody noticed. That's fine if you want to take an old can and re-CYCLE it into a new can. But these particular dimwits were planning to recycle an old can into a new box!! Does this make sense to you? If so, stop reading right here - I don't want to spoil your fondness for TSW-'04. [[Image:Icon wink.gif]]

For the rest of us, well, the film reflects this state of mind most effectively!! I mean, it's one thing to shoot your mouth off, using the latest "trendy" terminology - but it's another kettle of fish if you actually try to use the terminology effectively. The powers-that-were behind the remake were obviously WAY out of their depth regarding their favorite "term-du-jour", and it shows throughout the film; from plot points, to casting, to editing, etc, etc. Hell, a room full of drunken chimps {temporarily on loan from Yahoo's tech department, natch} could have done a far better re-imagineering job IMHO.

Come to think of it, so could I!! For example, I'll "re-imagineer" ONE tiny plot point. We're all familiar with the disgruntled husband who was tempted {and succumbed} by one of Joanna's shows, which sparked off his rage, right? Well, what if he had TWO motives for his anger? The first one is the usual one - he was tempted by a phenomenally attractive {and lusty} woman, and lost his resolve. His second motive? Not only was she super-seductive - she was also a female robot, purpose-built to tempt men! Manufactured in STEPFORD, of course.

Now, if you add that one tiny element into the plot - even if you don't "fix" anything else wrong with the flick, wouldn't the premise work much better? Yes, you could also give Christopher Walken the best line in the movie, milking the premise a bit longer; Joanna asks Mike "Why?" and he smugly retorts "Because WE can do better!" See what I mean?

Well, the dodos responsible for this pile of crap obviously didn't get it. Their idea of "re-imagineering" amounted to a lame attempt at humor {among many many other things}. In the original 1975 classic, we get a brief glimpse of a newly-arrived black couple during the grocery store scene near the end of the flick {metaphorically speaking, "the end of the movie" = " the back of the bus"}. She's nagging at him, but he's only half-listening to her, a hint of a smile on his face as several Stepford Wives mechanically glide around them.

This vignette was duly "re-imagineered" for the remake - the gay couple that "experiences the Change." Wow - after thirty years, we've progressed from one minority stereotype-clich`e {or three, if you count the subtle ones}, to celebrating yet another stereotype-clich`e? You've Come a Long Way indeed, Baby - but WHEN are you going to realize you're walking on a f*cking TREADMILL??!!??!!??

Now for the cheese:
Poor Ferris Beuller makes Jon Lovitz look positively Shakespearean, in terms of acting ability - which doesn't say too much for either one of them!! Then again, Roger Bart and Chris Wlaken do the same, so there you go - thesis thoroughly proven!!! [[Image:Icon twisted.gif]]

Yoda Grover, Chris Walken, Roger Bart, Glenn Close AND "The Porcine Miss M" all on the same payroll together? Who gets to go on top? [[Image:Icon eek.gif]] Of whom??? [[Image:Icon twisted.gif]]

More "re-imagineering" done RIGHT: had I been calling the shots, I'd have cast Shania Twain instead of Faith Hill as the malfunctioning / over-functioning {the inflato-boobs gag} Sara Sunderson. And then I would have added her "Man, I feel Like A Woman" as a recurring theme in the soundtrack {watch Shania's video - would this WORK, or what?}

Finally, although it's hard to ensure everything will go smoothly, I take a dim view of ANY money-making venture that gets "re-imagineered" countless times in POST-PRODUCTION; if the ideas aren't sound from the outset, don't do it in the first place until as many corrections as can be made are done beforehand. I rather doubt the Mona Lisa would be so well-known today if Da Vinci had constantly "re-imagineered" his grand vision over and over and over................

I reluctantly give "The Stepford Wives 2004" one upward-pointing digit, out of a possible 10.

And it looks like THIS:

[[Image:SaguaroFinger.jpg]]

So Sayeth The Baron..................... [[Image:Icon twisted.gif]] [[Image:Icon mrgreen.gif]]

[[Image:Robot.gif]]

-----

[[Reviews|Back to Reviews]]

[[Category:Baron]]
[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Reviews]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:45, 6 April 2008
Line 2:		Line 2:
	'''In Review: Fried Turducken Leftovers'''		'''In Review: Fried Turducken Leftovers'''

	'''{AKA "The Stepford Wives 2004."}'''		'''''{AKA "The Stepford Wives 2004."}'''''

	Yeah, I know - a week after the fact, and everybody's heartily sick and tired of TURKEY in any form. Myself, I'd even instantly shy away from one of Stepford Mary's nummy turkey CANolis or CANishes right about now............. [[Image:Icon twisted.gif]]		Yeah, I know - a week after the fact, and everybody's heartily sick and tired of TURKEY in any form. Myself, I'd even instantly shy away from one of Stepford Mary's nummy turkey CANolis or CANishes right about now............. [[Image:Icon twisted.gif]]
Line 10:		Line 10:
	For starters, let's talk about this "re-imagineering" thing a little bit. The original "imagineers" were of course, Walt Disney's creative staff. They were the ones who came up with the first workable animatronics {like the famous "Robot Abe Lincoln"}; the basic premise being subtly incorporated into Ira Levin's Stepford Wives novel, as well as the films. In the 1975 original film, Dale Coba, evil mastermind of the Stepford plot, is nicknamed "Diz" - because he used to BE a Disney "imagineer."		For starters, let's talk about this "re-imagineering" thing a little bit. The original "imagineers" were of course, Walt Disney's creative staff. They were the ones who came up with the first workable animatronics {like the famous "Robot Abe Lincoln"}; the basic premise being subtly incorporated into Ira Levin's Stepford Wives novel, as well as the films. In the 1975 original film, Dale Coba, evil mastermind of the Stepford plot, is nicknamed "Diz" - because he used to BE a Disney "imagineer."

	However, somewhere between '75 and 2003, when the remake entered production, everything had been compromised. "Imagineering" was no longer fashionable; rather, it was more chic to call it "re-imagineering," and hope that nobody noticed. That's fine if you want to take an old can and re-CYCLE it into a new can. But these particular dimwits were planning to recycle an old can into a new box!! Does this make sense to you? If so, stop reading right here - I don't want to spoil your fondness for TSW-'04. [[Image:Icon wink.gif]]		However, somewhere between '75 and 2003, when the remake entered production, everything had been compromised. "Imagineering" was no longer fashionable; rather, it was more chic to call it "re-imagineering," and hope that nobody noticed. That's fine if you want to take an old can and re-CYCLE it into a new can. But ''these'' particular dimwits were planning to recycle an old can into a new box!! Does this make sense to you? If so, stop reading right here - I don't want to spoil your fondness for TSW-'04. [[Image:Icon wink.gif]]

	For the rest of us, well, the film reflects this state of mind most effectively!! I mean, it's one thing to shoot your mouth off, using the latest "trendy" terminology - but it's another kettle of fish if you actually try to use the terminology effectively. The powers-that-were behind the remake were obviously WAY out of their depth regarding their favorite "term-du-jour", and it shows throughout the film; from plot points, to casting, to editing, etc, etc. Hell, a room full of drunken chimps {temporarily on loan from Yahoo's tech department, natch} could have done a far better re-imagineering job IMHO.		For the rest of us, well, the film reflects this state of mind most effectively!! I mean, it's one thing to shoot your mouth off, using the latest "trendy" terminology - but it's another kettle of fish if you actually try to ''use'' the terminology effectively. The powers-that-were behind the remake were obviously WAY out of their depth regarding their favorite "term-du-jour", and it shows throughout the film; from plot points, to casting, to editing, etc, etc. Hell, a room full of drunken chimps {temporarily on loan from Yahoo's tech department, natch} could have done a far better re-imagineering job IMHO.

	Come to think of it, so could I!! For example, I'll "re-imagineer" ONE tiny plot point. We're all familiar with the disgruntled husband who was tempted {and succumbed} by one of Joanna's shows, which sparked off his rage, right? Well, what if he had TWO motives for his anger? The first one is the usual one - he was tempted by a phenomenally attractive {and lusty} woman, and lost his resolve. His second motive? Not only was she super-seductive - she was also a female robot, purpose-built to tempt men! Manufactured in STEPFORD, of course.		Come to think of it, so could I!! For example, I'll "re-imagineer" ONE tiny plot point. We're all familiar with the disgruntled husband who was tempted {and succumbed} by one of Joanna's shows, which sparked off his rage, right? Well, what if he had TWO motives for his anger? The first one is the usual one - he was tempted by a phenomenally attractive {and lusty} woman, and lost his resolve. His second motive? Not only was she super-seductive - she was also a female robot, purpose-built to tempt men! Manufactured in STEPFORD, of course.

	Now, if you add that one tiny element into the plot - even if you don't "fix" anything else wrong with the flick, wouldn't the premise work much better? Yes, you could also give Christopher Walken the best line in the movie, milking the premise a bit longer; Joanna asks Mike "Why?" and he smugly retorts "Because WE can do better!" See what I mean?		Now, if you add that one tiny element into the plot - even if you don't "fix" ''anything'' else wrong with the flick, wouldn't the premise work much better? Yes, you could also give Christopher Walken the best line in the movie, milking the premise a bit longer; Joanna asks Mike "Why?" and he smugly retorts "Because ''WE'' can do better!" See what I mean?

	Well, the dodos responsible for this pile of crap obviously didn't get it. Their idea of "re-imagineering" amounted to a lame attempt at humor {among many many other things}. In the original 1975 classic, we get a brief glimpse of a newly-arrived black couple during the grocery store scene near the end of the flick {metaphorically speaking, "the end of the movie" = " the back of the bus"}. She's nagging at him, but he's only half-listening to her, a hint of a smile on his face as several Stepford Wives mechanically glide around them.		Well, the dodos responsible for this pile of crap obviously didn't get it. ''Their'' idea of "re-imagineering" amounted to a lame attempt at humor {among many many other things}. In the original 1975 classic, we get a brief glimpse of a newly-arrived black couple during the grocery store scene near the end of the flick {metaphorically speaking, "the end of the movie" = " the back of the bus"}. She's nagging at him, but he's only half-listening to her, a hint of a smile on his face as several Stepford Wives mechanically glide around them.

	This vignette was duly "re-imagineered" for the remake - the gay couple that "experiences the Change." Wow - after thirty years, we've progressed from one minority stereotype-clich`e {or three, if you count the subtle ones}, to celebrating yet another stereotype-clich`e? You've Come a Long Way indeed, Baby - but WHEN are you going to realize you're walking on a f*cking TREADMILL??!!??!!??		This vignette was duly "re-imagineered" for the remake - the gay couple that "experiences the Change." Wow - after thirty years, we've progressed from one minority stereotype-clich`e {or three, if you count the subtle ones}, to celebrating yet ''another'' stereotype-clich`e? You've Come a Long Way indeed, Baby - but WHEN are you going to realize you're walking on a f*cking <u>''TREADMILL''</u>??!!??!!??

	Now for the cheese:		Now for the cheese:
	Poor Ferris Beuller makes Jon Lovitz look positively Shakespearean, in terms of acting ability - which doesn't say too much for either one of them!! Then again, Roger Bart and Chris Wlaken do the same, so there you go - thesis thoroughly proven!!! [[Image:Icon twisted.gif]]		Poor Ferris Beuller makes Jon Lovitz look positively Shakespearean, in terms of acting ability - which doesn't say too much for either one of them!! Then again, Roger Bart and Chris Wlaken do the same, so there you go - thesis thoroughly proven!!! [[Image:Icon twisted.gif]]

	Yoda Grover, Chris Walken, Roger Bart, Glenn Close AND "The Porcine Miss M" all on the same payroll together? Who gets to go on top? [[Image:Icon eek.gif]] Of whom??? [[Image:Icon twisted.gif]]		Yoda Grover, Chris Walken, Roger Bart, Glenn Close AND "The Porcine Miss M" ''all'' on the same payroll ''together''? Who gets to go on top? [[Image:Icon eek.gif]] ''Of whom''??? [[Image:Icon twisted.gif]]

	More "re-imagineering" done RIGHT: had I been calling the shots, I'd have cast Shania Twain instead of Faith Hill as the malfunctioning / over-functioning {the inflato-boobs gag} Sara Sunderson. And then I would have added her "Man, I feel Like A Woman" as a recurring theme in the soundtrack {watch Shania's video - would this WORK, or what?}		More "re-imagineering" done RIGHT: had I been calling the shots, I'd have cast Shania Twain instead of Faith Hill as the malfunctioning / over-functioning {the inflato-boobs gag} Sara Sunderson. And then I would have added her "Man, I feel Like A Woman" as a recurring theme in the soundtrack {watch Shania's video - would this WORK, or what?}

	Finally, although it's hard to ensure everything will go smoothly, I take a dim view of ANY money-making venture that gets "re-imagineered" countless times in POST-PRODUCTION; if the ideas aren't sound from the outset, don't do it in the first place until as many corrections as can be made are done beforehand. I rather doubt the Mona Lisa would be so well-known today if Da Vinci had constantly "re-imagineered" his grand vision over and over and over................		Finally, although it's hard to ensure everything will go smoothly, I take a dim view of ANY money-making venture that gets "re-imagineered" countless times in POST-PRODUCTION; if the ideas aren't sound from the outset, don't do it in the first place until as many corrections as can be made are done ''beforehand''. I rather doubt the Mona Lisa would be so well-known today if Da Vinci had constantly "re-imagineered" his grand vision over and over and over................

	I reluctantly give "The Stepford Wives 2004" one upward-pointing digit, out of a possible 10.		I reluctantly give "The Stepford Wives 2004" one upward-pointing digit, out of a possible 10.