How ridicilous! Especially when you watch this movie under the German title "Terro in New York". There is neither terror nor New York. It's just Stepford. And we all know the better movie with Nicole Kidman, Glenn Close... Dispensable!

"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.

I just saw this film today and thought it was entertaining. I've seen the original Stepford Wives and read the book- and I'm a big fan, but I don't really take this film seriously. Some of the acting is bad- the Stepford Wives are nowhere near as great in this one than in the original- in this one the robotic acting isn't that good. But I still like the plot- and it's very entertaining, and unintenionally funny. I knew I recognised Julie Kavners voice- i checked IMDB and she sounds excatly like Selma from the simpsons in real life! Anyway- I wouldn't say it was a really bad film- and the ending was 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.