Hollywoodshack I can't help but notice the subtlety of the original movie is completely lost in this sequel. What gave the original all the good scares and chills was the events creeped up on you slowly by surprise. In the Revenge movie, Arthur Hill has an exact plan every few minutes on how to eliminate anyone who wants to escape from Stepford or disrupt the rigid control of the Men's Association. For example, the warm up shows a man and his wife want to move to California. Bam! They make his station wagon crash in five minutes. Sharon Gless plays a reporter doing a story on the nation's most perfect community. But the fact something is wrong just hits her in the face from the very start..Any idiot would leave town in ten minutes to alert the world. The air of mystery has been completely eliminated.

Vomitron_G "Revenge of the Stepford Wives" was in some countries unimaginably released & re-titled as "Terror in New York". What? Yes, this film doesn't even take place in New York. And the 'terror' part? Well,..."Revenge of the Stepford Wives" is the first in a series of three '80s made-for-TV sequels to the terrific theatrical original, "The Stepford Wives", from 1975. While this is more or less a direct sequel - albeit a very inconsistent one - to the first film, parts 3 & 4 ("The Stepford Children" and "The Stepford Husbands") are more like spin-offs. Naturally, the great - and at times terrifying - concept from the original film gets a bit unintentionally sillier in "Revenge of the Stepford Wives". Since we know from the start what's going on in the town of Stepford, the mystery simply isn't there anymore. All scenes take place during the day and the made-for-TV look & feel doesn't exactly help things either. Meaning, things never get creepy or suspenseful. Even the involvement of cult genre director Robert Fuest (from the "Dr. Phibes" movies, starring Vincent Price, and everybody's favorite melt-movie "The Devil's Rain", featuring Ernest Borgnine as a cross-eyed devil goatman) didn't do anything to uplift the bland production values. But that doesn't mean the film doesn't manage to entertain.Sharon Gless (as the investigating reporter Kaye Foster, arriving in Stepford with the intent of possibly making a TV program about the town's way of life) is a capable leading lady and it's applaudable she managed to walk through this movie with a straight face, seeing how she often found herself in rather ridiculous situations (like Julie Kavner 'short-circuiting' in her kitchen, then picking up a knife trying to kill Gless). A pre-"Miami Vice" Don Johnson is also walking around in it as the fresh cop in town, eventually agreeing with the Men's Association for his wife to become Stepfordized. You'll also have to wait until the very end of the film for the Stepford wives to actually take revenge (in a laughably appropriate manner). Things might have been dumbed down a lot in this implausible script which takes the original concept of the first film and runs the wrong way with it. But perhaps just because of all this, "Revenge of the Stepford Wives" turns out a rather amusing watch.

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.

siderius OK, so the plot is far-fetched, lame and offensive - the movie is a hoot! Keep in mind that I would watch anything with Sharon Gless - but she and Julie Kavner are a good team. A young Don Johnson appears as bland and clued-out Kavner's cop husband. Sharon, the reporter, arrives to do a story on the perfect town of Stepford. She hires Julie as an assistant who promptly gets nabbed by the Stepford gang. Her husband is in on it, of course. Sharon sets out to save Julie - Don and the whole town set out to stop her. Lots of chases, peril and the bad guys get what they deserve. Save it for a rainy day when you want a taste of some familiar TV faces in their early years.