Talk:The Stepford Wives (2004 film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Neutrality
The changing of the ending definitely shows POV using weasel words like "gross". Personally, I thought it was a decent movie. Then again, I think Nicole Kidman is to acting what milk is to Corn Flakes, so I might be a little biased. I agree, the article needs cleaning up to reflect a more neutral POV. DonMEGÄ‚|60645 12:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Removed the following blurbs, they appear to be nothing more than the opinion of the author:
This film is a departure from other versions of The Stepford Wives in that it is a comedy although the feminist themes are still present. The only real moral to be gleaned from this film is perhaps that both gynoid superfeminism and old-fashioned male chauvinism are inappropriate extremes. [citation needed]
The movie was mostly criticized for departing too far from the underlying feminist message of Ira Levin's original novel and the 1975 adaptation. [citation needed]
- Bantosh 21:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia is Not a Movie Review
This "article" hardly reads like an encyclopedia entry! Rather, it sounds like someone's personal opinion. As a movie review it's fine; but wikipedia is not a soapbox to present your opinions. The following sentences strongly smell of POV and Film Review to me:
- "Motivated by what they surely hoped would strike audiences as a witty twist, this movie's abandonment of the original film's feminism leaves it without a clear message"
- "the end ... is preachy, politically correct, and unsatisfying to those who have read the novel or seen the 1975 film"
- "the entire message of Levin's work is lost due to the Disney-fying of the ending"
- "This tenor is a full pendulum-swing away from the original message of Levin's novel, and is an overcompensating bow to political correctness and the sensitive-man movement"
This article needs a big cleanup to establish neutral POV. Remember: we're here to write an encyclopedia, not to preach opinions or warn audiences about box office bombs. Keep it neutral. 66.17.118.207 15:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Plot Inaccuracy?
The plot synopsis says the real women were trapped underground, but in the movie I saw (and I am currently watching it on cable as I type this), that never happens. Matthew Broderick deactivates the computer chips and all the people at the party begin acting normally again, as if they were never robots, just being controlled. This has led many critics to dislike the movie because it's not certain whether they are robots or not.
Okay I just read the rest of the synopsis, and it says Glen Close's character dies at the end - but that never happened either? WTF? Did whoever write this even watch the movie?!? 24.196.83.29 23:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)rglong
[edit] Expand
As some of the posts above indicate, this article reads like a film review and is lacking a general synopsis of what the film is. I would expand it myself but I have not viewed the movie. -Rolypolyman 22:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Type of movie
Perhaps Dark Comedy would be a better description of the type. Afterall, The topic would be horrific (people replaced by robots) if it wasn't made light of so much. Jon 04:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Formatting
Am I the only one seeing errors in the page's formating with Clean up and straying boxes bleeding into the sidebar with the information on the film? Dragonranger 20:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I see it too, the formatting is horribly effed up. I don't have the skills to fix it, though. Hopefully someone who does will stumble upon it and tweak it. Captain Infinity 02:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)