Mother's Boys (1994)

Great Film overall

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

This was an interesting movie. Jamie Lee Curtis plays an unbalanced mom, who after leaving her husband and three children, decides to come back to take on the "mom" role once again. This time she has a competitive force, her husbands new fiancé. There was many oddities to this movie such as, the bathtub scene where the 12 year old was a little squeamish toward his mom being in the tub yet had a curious look as his mother walks around naked. Another thing is Vanessa Redgrave played Jude's mom but had her husbands last name. It seemed that Jamie Lee Curtis' character and her son had a strange, a little to close, relationship throughout the movie.

I vaguely remember seeing this in a theatre in 1994 and loving it. I saw it on a huge screen and, visually, it's impressive and I've always liked Jamie Lee Curtis. But seeing it on a TV screen the visuals don't work too well and, despite some good acting, this is a pretty lame horror film.Jude (Curtis) leaves her husband Robert (Peter Gallagher) and their three kids. Three years later she returns thinking she can restart where they left off--but Robert is divorcing her and marrying kind Callie (Joanne Whalley)and one of her sons named Kes (Luke Edwards) hates her. Jude slowly starts to go crazy when she realizes Robert doesn't want her back and tries to manipulate Kes into getting rid of Callie...for good! First off--the plot is old hat and a lot is left unexplained. We never find out why Jude left, where she was (she mentions Paris and New York...but WHAT was she doing there?) and why she becomes a psycho when Robert rejects her. Also there is a VERY sick sequence when she almost tries to get Kes into bed with her! The ending is disturbing (and pretty stupid) and doesn't anyone realize that Kes is going to have severe emotional issues over this? The few saving graces are some truly beautiful visuals and settings (check out Curtis' apartment and Gallaghers' house) and a powerhouse performance by Curtis. She looks incredibly sexy and goes all out in her role. Whalley (a good actress) has nothing to work with and Gallagher doesn't even try. Edwards was just OK in his role but he was only 14 when he did this. Vanessa Redgrave is very good in her too few scenes as Judes' mother.So, aside from visuals and Curtis this movie has little to recommend this. Also, why did Curtis pick this to do when she's made it clear that she hates horror films? A 6.

First it was the nutty radio jockey who made Clint Eastwood's life a misery in PLAY MISTY FOR ME. That in itself became a much more violent film called FATAL ATTRACTION and for the remainder of the 80s gave men a reason not to have affairs outside the marriage, especially with blonds with crazy tresses. Then we had two more nuts: Annie Wilkes in MISERY and Peyton Flanders in THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE. Both created havoc under the naked aegis of domesticity, both left behind a bloody path of destruction.Now, what does one do when one wants to create a domestic drama with thriller overtones? Well, how about splicing the elements of KRAMER VS. KRAMER and FATAL ATTRACTION with bits and pieces of BASIC INSTINCT thrown for good measure and see the resulting soup that ensues? That's, to my humble knowledge, what the producers, creators, and what-not behind this story must have done. Because God only knows crazy mothers who try to (physically and mentally) seduce their sons into behaving badly in the name of family are a hoot and a half! I can imagine that character motivation did not lead Jamie Lee Curtis, an erstwhile respected actress, to star as the baddie in this piece of dreck. Having been the Final Girl for much of her early career I don't hesitate to think perhaps reversing the role this time around would be a fun idea. Here's the thing: it would have. Just not here. Nothing in this story doesn't tell anything we haven't seen before, but it does one worse in telling it without a hint of taste and timed suspense. Every single character here is a cardboard figure going through the motions with the exception of Vanessa Redrgrave whose appearance here is more inexplicable than Curtis'. At least she brings more to the table with her acting, even when she is repeating the type of stuff Bette Davis did in her twilight: appear in horrible films as the kind grandmother who knows but gets caught in the trap. Only recommended to die-hard fans of both Curtis and Redgrave; otherwise, steer clear.

Jaime Lee Curtis is one of my favorite actresses, but this movie is truly terrible. I was all excited when I saw it was coming on cable, but I couldn't believe my eyes within only 20 minutes.In the movie, Curtis plays a woman who abandons her husband and children and comes back, hoping to be welcomed back into thier lives with open arms. But she soon discovers that her husband has moved on with a new woman and wants a divorce. Then the movie gets really stupid, with childish pranks, as when Curtis spray paints "whore" on the side of the other woman's car. She begins stalking the family and is even able to manipulate her oldest son into helping her. There is one awful scene where her son watches her walking around naked with "lust" in his eyes. The movie almost tries to imply incest between a woman in her late 30s and a child in his pre-teens. I won't spoil the ending for you, but it's so stupid that you'll wish I'd warned you first.