Mother's Boys

Mother's Boys

On paper, this might seem to be just another predictable, formula thriller - the "mother from hell", after the "nanny from hell" ("The Hand That Rocks The Cradle") and the "temporary secretary from hell" ("The Temp"). But the screenwriters have managed to set up some psychologically complex situations and interesting character conflicts, and the French director, Yves Simoneau, shows a distinctive flair in his camerawork that makes the familiar material look much better than it should. Unfortunately, there are a few too many contrivances near the end ("freak accidents", cars with no brakes, etc), but the three main stars are all very fine and keep us involved in the story. (**1/2)

Well acted (Jamie Lee Curtis does a great job) and with a plot (and jump scares) that will leave you grabbing your sit, this thriller may be a bit too much for some people, specially considering that incest and pedophilia are among its themes. A disturbed woman returns to her family after being gone without any explanation for 3 years. She now wants her husband back while using her oldest son (the only one she seems to connect with) to achieve her goals. Manipulative, violent and cold as ice Curtis plays that disturbing role of this mother who seems she couldn't care less about her kids, only wishing to get back into bed with her husband. Not wanting to reveal too much here, I'll just say that I didn't find the ending completely predictable (was expecting worse, from the direction the movie was going). All in all, this was a very tense and at the same time entertaining movie. I'd advise any thriller fan to give it a try, always keeping in mind that it was done in the 90's.

source: Mother's Boys

It seems the late 80s/early 90s really thrashed the 'attractive woman from hell' storyline to death, from Fatal Attraction, Poison Ivy, Misery, Single White Female, The Hand that Rocks the Cradle etc., MOTHER'S BOYS was chronologically one of the last in the cinematic phase and quite frankly shouldn't have been made in the first place. The whole story has been done to death, This time instead of a one night stand or a new roommate, it is the abandoning mother (Jamie Lee Curtis) who wants her family back and will stop at nothing to get her way, especially when her ex (Peter Gallagher) is dating the assistant principle (Joanne Whalley) of the school their sons are going to. So Curtis's character initially plays the wholesome, reformed mother who has learned from her mistakes and manages to gain time with her sons, managing to manipulate her eldest son against the new woman in their dad's life. Vanessa Redgrave rocks up in a few scenes as the grandmother, and she not only looks out of place but is just too good of an actress to be in such a crap film and part. Jamie Lee Curtis, looking amazing, is a great actress and really tries but fails as the script lacks any development for her character or any character to interest the audience. The film flopped big time at the box office when it was released and was soon welcomed to VHS/late night TV screenings where it belonged. Give it a miss.

This movie is a great example of why a guy who's gone through a bitter divorce should not try to make a Fatal Attraction-style erotic thriller. I don't know if it was the writers, the director or some studio executive, but I know that somebody vital to this production was really ticked off at his ex-wife. It's the only possible explanation for this misfire. Robert (Peter Gallagher) is a successful architect with a girlfriend (Joanne Whalley-Kilmer) and three sons. He also has a wife who left him three years ago and is only now returning because Robert has finally started divorce proceedings. Why he waited three years to do that is a whole 'nother story that isn't even touched on in this film. Judith (Jaime Lee Curtis) is fairly intense and everyone, including her own mother (Vanessa Redgrave), acts like there's something wrong with her. However, for the first 45 minutes of Mother's Boys, Judith more or less behaves like a normal woman who made a terrible mistake and wants her family back. After that first 45 minutes, Judith goes from 0 to crazy in less than 45 seconds and the rest of the story is about how she tries to turn her favorite son Kess (Luke Edwards) against Robert and his new girlfriend as part of a Rube Goldberg-esque plan to kill the girlfriend. The problem is that after that first 45 minutes, the movie could have revealed that Robert was crazy, his girlfriend was crazy, his sons were crazy or Judith's mother was crazy and it would have made as much sense as what actually happened. Mother's Boys automatically assumes the audience is going to identify Judith as the bad guy and sympathize with Robert and his hot girlfriend, so it does nothing in its first 45 minutes to establish or validate that dynamic. Characters react negatively to Judith without any justification for those reactions presented to the viewer. And while she does go eventually crazy and retroactively prove those reactions accurate, it feels arbitrary and forced. Only if you're inherently biased against the mother in divorce proceedings will you connect with the outlook in this film. Now, there's a bunch of other garden variety dumb stuff here, like Robert letting Kess spend the weekend with Judith AFTER she fakes a violent attack on herself and blames Robert's girlfriend. Judith takes a broken piece of glass and cuts her own face, yet Robert has almost no hesitation in sending his son to be with such a psycho. And Robert's the one we're supposed to be rooting for? There's also the fact that both Robert and Judith apparently thought it was okay for their very young children to play around with real handcuffs. Who lets kids play with real handcuffs? Fundamentally, though, it's the prejudice against the wife/mother character than dominates this movie and warps it into something silly and superficial. This could have made a good story but only if it was told by somebody that wasn't already angry at his ex-wife. There is some female nudity here, but mostly from an obvious body double with only a nip slip from the sensual Jamie Lee Curtis. An oddly oblique incest reference also crops up. Mother's Boys might have some use as a Rorschach Test for women dating a recently divorced guy. If he thinks this is a great film, he's probably still got a lot of rage to work out. As general purpose entertainment, it's a failure.

Imagine a drama about a woman who abandoned her husband and children. The husband rebuilds his life with a good new woman. Then, years later. the errant wife returns with no warning, expects life to continue as it had done before, and takes it extremely badly when the husband makes it clear that she has no place in his new life. Imagine this scenario presented on screen as a fine, gripping drama. And now forget it, because that that's not what you're getting here. No, what Mother's Boys gives us is the most lurid melodrama imaginable, topped off with a performance of hysterical malevolence from Jamie Lee Curtis. The whole thing is so overblown, particularly the climax (which can, with justification, be called something of a cliffhanger), that hindsight encourages one to view it as, perhaps, something of a comedy - whether deliberate or inadvertent is open to debate. Overall, it's rather fun. But it's not subtle.

Strike one - JLC as a blonde. Strike two - JLC in Burberys, bleh. Strike three - that nauseating if predictable bath scene should have been left on the cutting room floor. Totally inappropriate and gratuitous; the viewer quite unwillingly becomes voyeur, resulting in a feeling of "horror" likely very different from what the filmmakers intended. The ONLY merits of this flick are the lush, detailed interiors and cinematography. Ms. Curtis also gives life to this one-dimensional psychomommy as only she is able, and Redgrave offers up a creepy Clytemnestra to Curtis' irretrievably damaged, traumatized Electra. Let's put it this way: the $4.95 I spent on this perverted Used Bin pablum wasn't really worth it. But then, that all-black number on Curtis in the seduction scene between she and Gallagher...that'll keep it off the sell-back pile for the time being. Two stars just for that.

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.

While it has its moments, this is not a very good movie. The story is not believable, the acting is spotty, the direction is formula, the "climax" is more amusing than suspenseful and the denouement is unfulfilling. The best parts are the sudden imaginary shots, giving you a rush of adrenaline before you realise that it's just the character's imagination playing tricks.