This movie is like a decent lifetime movie. It isn't really horror, more like a hitchcock style of horror or mystery. A woman and man basically move to a town and at the end of the movie discover that all of the wives have been turned into robots. Thats literally all there is to the storyline, a very basic and simple storyline. The movie is also fairly simple but what carries it along is the dialogue, it is feminine and has an ASMR quality.. Not a bad movie.

British director Bryan Forbes is the man behind this subtle sci-fi chiller that's widely regarded as a classic – and for good reason. Based on the book by Ira Levin, this is very close in look and feel to Levin's other famous novel-turned-movie ROSEMARY'S BABY. It's a film that focuses on realism throughout, with slow-burning subtlety the key, and those expecting WESTWORLD-style robot chills will be sorely disappointed. Indeed, the sci-fi elements in this movie are so underplayed as to be almost unnoticeable, albeit in a couple of highly effective scare scenes.Speaking of scares, this isn't exactly what you'd call a frightening film. The chills have been diluted over the course of time, and the dodgy wardrobes hardly make the characters feel identifiable; that's perhaps the reason that they did a remake with Nicole Kidman. Still, a literate script goes a long way in making this effective and slightly disturbing at the same time and the satirical aspect of the proceedings is very well done. Gender roles are treated with the same level of sophisticated wit as we found in George Romero's take on consumerism in DAWN OF THE DEAD. The cast is generally effective, especially the actresses playing the titular wives; in fact they're better than their human counterparts. Katharine Ross I found to be quite irritating for the most part, although she gets better as the film progresses, displaying fear rather than histrionics. Paula Prentiss is intensely annoying as her bubbly, zany friend but once the 'change' happens she's actually very good, making you laugh at the same time a chill runs down your spine.The film is slightly overlong and the slow-moving scenes of the first part may put some viewers off, but by the time we reach the climax, this reaches the heights of similar alienation horror as the more explicitly themed INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS from 1978 and THE THING from 1981. Inevitably, lesser sequels followed.

The film charged, indirectly, to the invasion of technology and chemicals to be creating new -adaptables- human beings. This was thought in 1975. Today -2015- the discussion is virtually closed : the technological dictatorship and large laboratories already have created a new customizable humanity. Not only that discussion is closed: also the "liberating weapon" -embodied in the film by the intervention of a psychoanalyst- is prohibited (no university in the world has courses on Freudian psychoanalysis). Unfortunately, the film ends poorly, avoiding giving these ideas to the public.I wonder if the director Bryan Forbes or the film's producers were afraid to express these ideas clearly. Anyway this is the best version of the three that have been made (not even worth mentioning "The Stepford Children" ... a horrific stupidity).

Based on the novel of the same name by Ira Levin, The Stepford Wives film begins when Joanna Eberhart (Katherine Ross) moves with her husband and children from New York City to the small village of Stepford.Joanna finds that nearly all of the wives in Stepford are placid drones whose only ambition is cooking and cleaning. The Stepford Wives is very much a 1970's film with overtones of environmental pollution,powerful corporate conspiracies,sexuality, and of course feminist dogma.I disagree with the heavy-handed feminist message of the film which is that most men would prefer their wives to be obedient maids rather then equal partners.There are a few good moments in The Stepford Wives though. Tina Louise does very well with a small role and it's hard not to feel pity for her when she confesses that her husband never really loved her.