A lady TV reporter (Sharon Gless) arrives in Stepford to hold a survey on its standing as the perfect American community. The concept of the 'makeover' is curiously (and implausibly) reworked here, events play out more like a straight thriller this time around and the look, as befits its small-screen origins, is even blander than before – if still somewhat surprising given the involvement of such a visual stylist as British director Fuest! Nevertheless, the end result proves reasonably effective, with the climactic uprising – against the returning Patrick O'Neal character from the original (here played by Arthur Hill) – agreeably riffing on "The Island of Dr. Moreau". The oddly battered print (for such a relatively recent movie) I watched not only bore hardcoded Dutch subtitles but also the abysmal and misleading video-generated re-titling of TERROR IN NEW YORK – a remnant of the VHS days that also deceitfully highlights the presence within of Don Johnson (then riding high on the success of TV's Miami VICE) in the role of an initially compliant but eventually rebellious cop on its videotape sleeve!

"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.

WARNING:SPOILERS THROUGHOUT!This WOULD have been great-had the movie followed the premise of the first stepford wives. It's fun to watch the nast stepford men get their due-at last!-but trouble is-if you've seen the first one-this doesn't make any sense-it's as if the writers forgot there evr was an original stepford wives! You can't take the original premise of a classic,make a sequel and just change the whole sequence of events of the first one-it's laughable, ridiculous and and just plain crazy! I am sure the writers could have come up with a plausible way to make a sequel in keeping with Stepfords' original ending-plus wouldn't it have been nice to have Joane and Bobbie back? If I could say what would have been the BEST it would have been to pick up the story with the THERAPIST Joane originally saw as the main character, maybe trying to contact her and realizing Joane was telling the truth-there IS something wrong in stepford.The therapist(can't remember her name)could then go on a quest to find out what's going on in stepford.I see this SO MUCH with sequels not living up to the original. But this was just a joke-while it WAS nice the way the movie ended who could take it seriously knowing it has almost nothing to do with the original? To bad too, this could have been great.

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.