What's this? Jamie Lee Curtis is the bad guy, not the victim? Yes, she really can act (not just scream). This movie can be summed up in one word: predictable. If you've ever seen Fatal Attraction, The Hand That Rocks the Cradle, or any other film of that ilk, then you've pretty much seen this one, too. Still, it's worth watching, if for no other reason than to see Jamie Lee in the role of the psychopathic killer.
38 Reviews
Diobolic!. Sexy Jude comes back around.
michaelRokeefe3 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Yves Simoneau directs this thriller. MOTHER'S BOYS actually is better than I thought it would be, in spite of not being a fan of Jamie Lee Curtis. Curtis plays a very unstable wife and mother, Jude Madigan, who turned her back on her husband, Robert(Peter Gallagher), and their three sons. After three years absence, Jude suddenly appears and wants her family back. However, Robert has moved on and has fallen in love with Callie(Joanne Whalley), an assistant principal at the Madigan boy's school. A true psychopath, Jude, goes all out to bust up Robert's romance and even puts some unscrupulous moves on her oldest young son(Luke Edwards) to carry out violence targeting Callie. She wants her sons back and Robert may just be collateral.
Have to admit that Curtis comes off sexy, jealous and crazy. Also in the cast: Vanessa Redgrave, Paul Guilfoyle, Joey Zimmerman, Colin Ward and Joss Ackland.
Have to admit that Curtis comes off sexy, jealous and crazy. Also in the cast: Vanessa Redgrave, Paul Guilfoyle, Joey Zimmerman, Colin Ward and Joss Ackland.
Tries too hard to shock
JamesHitchcock3 July 2008
This is one of the numerous "
..from Hell" movies which came out in the late eighties and early nineties following the success of "Fatal Attraction" (one-night-stand-from-Hell). Others in the genre include "Pacific Heights" (tenant-from-Hell), "The Hand that Rocks the Cradle" (nanny-from-Hell) and "Single White Female" (flatmate-from-Hell). "Mother's Boys" controversially presents us with Jamie Lee Curtis as the mother-from-Hell.
Robert Madigan is a single father with three young sons. The reason he is single is that three years ago his wife Judith ("Jude") left him without explanation and disappeared from his life and that of the boys. Robert now has a new girlfriend, Callie, whom he intends to marry as soon as his divorce from Jude can be finalised. Jude, however, has other ideas. She reappears in Robert's life as abruptly as she disappeared from it and wants to resume their life together. When Robert makes it quite clear that he wants nothing more to do with her, Jude reacts with fury, mostly directed against Callie. Although Callie did not come into Robert's life until after Jude had abandoned him, Jude irrationally blames her for breaking up her marriage and comes to see her as the only obstacle standing between herself and her husband. Jude tries hard to win back the affections of her sons as part of a scheme to get revenge on Callie, even posing naked in front of her eldest boy, eleven-year-old Kes. (This tasteless scene, with its implications of paedophile incest, has come in for much well-deserved criticism. I understand, however, that in Bernard Taylor's source novel the incest was more than just implied. It will not be anywhere near the top of my list of required holiday reading this year).
The first part of the film is reasonably interesting, and could have been the basis of a much better film. The two female adversaries are well characterised. (Robert, the main male character, is little more than the prize the two women fight over). Callie, played by the kitten-faced Joanne Whalley-Kilmer, is the cute girl-next door type, far more motherly than the boys' biological mother. (She works as the assistant principal at their school). The home she and Robert intend to share when they are married (the film makes it clear they are not cohabiting before marriage) is a spacious, comfortable house in the country, made of solid wood and stone. Jude, by contrast, is played by Curtis as a seductress, all high heels, tight mini-skirts and bleached-blonde hair, glamorous but hard and brassy. By contrast to Callie and Robert's Country Living style, Jude is a metropolitan type, living in an expensively over-decorated city apartment in an Art Deco block. Her talent for alienating people is such that even her own mother takes Robert's side against her.
Whalley-Kilmer was at one time tipped for Hollywood stardom, especially after her fine performance in "Scandal", but never quite seemed to make it. Appearing in too many films like this one was probably the main reason. Jamie Lee, however, quickly bounced back from this setback; her next film was the highly successful "True Lies", in which she once again got to show us just what a fine body she had for a woman in her mid thirties. Peter Gallagher, as Robert, makes a rather bland hero, and Vanessa Redgrave, as Jude's mother, looks as through she can't really understand why she signed on for this film in the first place.
From about halfway, however, the film starts to deteriorate and declines into lurid melodrama. I won't set out all the plot turns, but can say that they become progressively nastier and more implausible. Anyone familiar with the moralistic vice-punished-and-virtue-rewarded conventions of this particular genre will be able to work out the broad outlines of the ending. If you want to know the full gory details you will have to watch the film itself, but I doubt if you will find them very edifying. Like several unsuccessful " .from Hell" movies (the more recent "Swimfan" is another example) "Mother's Boys" fails because it tries too hard to shock. 4/10
Robert Madigan is a single father with three young sons. The reason he is single is that three years ago his wife Judith ("Jude") left him without explanation and disappeared from his life and that of the boys. Robert now has a new girlfriend, Callie, whom he intends to marry as soon as his divorce from Jude can be finalised. Jude, however, has other ideas. She reappears in Robert's life as abruptly as she disappeared from it and wants to resume their life together. When Robert makes it quite clear that he wants nothing more to do with her, Jude reacts with fury, mostly directed against Callie. Although Callie did not come into Robert's life until after Jude had abandoned him, Jude irrationally blames her for breaking up her marriage and comes to see her as the only obstacle standing between herself and her husband. Jude tries hard to win back the affections of her sons as part of a scheme to get revenge on Callie, even posing naked in front of her eldest boy, eleven-year-old Kes. (This tasteless scene, with its implications of paedophile incest, has come in for much well-deserved criticism. I understand, however, that in Bernard Taylor's source novel the incest was more than just implied. It will not be anywhere near the top of my list of required holiday reading this year).
The first part of the film is reasonably interesting, and could have been the basis of a much better film. The two female adversaries are well characterised. (Robert, the main male character, is little more than the prize the two women fight over). Callie, played by the kitten-faced Joanne Whalley-Kilmer, is the cute girl-next door type, far more motherly than the boys' biological mother. (She works as the assistant principal at their school). The home she and Robert intend to share when they are married (the film makes it clear they are not cohabiting before marriage) is a spacious, comfortable house in the country, made of solid wood and stone. Jude, by contrast, is played by Curtis as a seductress, all high heels, tight mini-skirts and bleached-blonde hair, glamorous but hard and brassy. By contrast to Callie and Robert's Country Living style, Jude is a metropolitan type, living in an expensively over-decorated city apartment in an Art Deco block. Her talent for alienating people is such that even her own mother takes Robert's side against her.
Whalley-Kilmer was at one time tipped for Hollywood stardom, especially after her fine performance in "Scandal", but never quite seemed to make it. Appearing in too many films like this one was probably the main reason. Jamie Lee, however, quickly bounced back from this setback; her next film was the highly successful "True Lies", in which she once again got to show us just what a fine body she had for a woman in her mid thirties. Peter Gallagher, as Robert, makes a rather bland hero, and Vanessa Redgrave, as Jude's mother, looks as through she can't really understand why she signed on for this film in the first place.
From about halfway, however, the film starts to deteriorate and declines into lurid melodrama. I won't set out all the plot turns, but can say that they become progressively nastier and more implausible. Anyone familiar with the moralistic vice-punished-and-virtue-rewarded conventions of this particular genre will be able to work out the broad outlines of the ending. If you want to know the full gory details you will have to watch the film itself, but I doubt if you will find them very edifying. Like several unsuccessful " .from Hell" movies (the more recent "Swimfan" is another example) "Mother's Boys" fails because it tries too hard to shock. 4/10
Mediocre and not terribly well acted
lorenellroy27 December 2001
Jamie Lee Curtis established her career playing the victim of homicidal maniacs,now in "Mother's Boys"she gets a chance to play the killer She plays a mother who walked out on her husband and children and now wants them back.The problem is that her husband is petitioning for divorce and is having an affair with a local teacher,played by Joanne Whalley-Kilmer. She sets out to try to re-capture the affections of the kids,virtually flaunting herself at the elder child and seeking to poison their minds against Dad and his new paramour. The film is predictable and the performances curiously lacklustre,even from artists of some quality. Redgrave steals the movie as the kids Grandmother but even she seems on cruise control
Nothing special and for Curtis completists only
Nothing special and for Curtis completists only
The psycho version of "Kramer vs. Kramer".
Boba_Fett113826 July 2007
Just imaging "Kramer vs. Kramer" gone extreme and you've got "Mother's Boys". The movie uses exactly the same concept of "Kramer vs. Kramer", of a mother who abandoned her family for 3 years but has now returned to reclaim her kids from the father. It was someone was simply saying; Hey that "Kramer vs. Kramer" movie is a good one, lets turn it into a thriller!
It's not like the concept of the movie is a terrible bad idea but however the execution of it is. The movie offers too little big surprises and the movie surely could had used some more tension and other thriller elements. The movie is filled with some missed opportunities, they could and should had made the mother character far more psychotic and evil. She basically now gets too little psychotic to do in this movie, which causes the tension and mystery of this movie not to work out.
Surprising to see how big the cast of this movie is. It's perhaps also the only reason why this movie still remains a watchable one. The actors still make the movie interesting and worthwhile to watch. Although Jamie Lee Curtis and Peter Gallagher aren't even in the same league! Jamie Lee Curtis totally outclasses Peter Gallagher so much, that at almost becomes embarrassing to watch. Jamie Lee Curtis plays a great role and she handles it just right. Joanne Whalley also pulls off alright and there are some fine supporting actors such as Vanessa Redgrave, John C. McGinley, Joss Ackland and Paul Guilfoyle but their roles are unfortunately all way too small.
It's not a terribly bad movie but it's also not really one that ever surprises or leaves a big impression on you. A real lackluster and filled with many missed opportunities and wasted potential. Therefor I also can't really recommend this movie to anyone.
5/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
It's not like the concept of the movie is a terrible bad idea but however the execution of it is. The movie offers too little big surprises and the movie surely could had used some more tension and other thriller elements. The movie is filled with some missed opportunities, they could and should had made the mother character far more psychotic and evil. She basically now gets too little psychotic to do in this movie, which causes the tension and mystery of this movie not to work out.
Surprising to see how big the cast of this movie is. It's perhaps also the only reason why this movie still remains a watchable one. The actors still make the movie interesting and worthwhile to watch. Although Jamie Lee Curtis and Peter Gallagher aren't even in the same league! Jamie Lee Curtis totally outclasses Peter Gallagher so much, that at almost becomes embarrassing to watch. Jamie Lee Curtis plays a great role and she handles it just right. Joanne Whalley also pulls off alright and there are some fine supporting actors such as Vanessa Redgrave, John C. McGinley, Joss Ackland and Paul Guilfoyle but their roles are unfortunately all way too small.
It's not a terribly bad movie but it's also not really one that ever surprises or leaves a big impression on you. A real lackluster and filled with many missed opportunities and wasted potential. Therefor I also can't really recommend this movie to anyone.
5/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
disturbing thriller
susana-c-fernandes7 December 2016
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.
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.
Yuck
Theo Robertson26 September 2005
Be warned if you're one of those people who looks at the cast credits of movies and says " hmm some fairly well known names there I think I'll watch this " then you don't know what you're letting yourself in for . On the surface the cast list is good with well known names like Jamie Lee Curtis , Joanne Whalley , Josh Ackland and Vanessa Redgrave along with a few familiar faces like John C McGinley and Peter Gallagher but it's vital to remember that good casts don't always make good films
MOTHER'S BOYS does get off to a highly entertaining start . Notice I said highly entertaining start and not a good start . It's down to the incompetence of director Yves Simoneau where we see a biology class full of children being asked to dissect frogs , so one young lad decides to give Mr Frog a damn good stabbing which causes his class mates to run around screaming . Remember the bit in NAKED GUN where OJ Simpson gets shot then he starts crashing into things ? Well we see a similar situation here where children knock things like mice cages over which contributes to even more panic . I was expecting someone to bang into a cage housing giant dinosaurs thereby letting loose a brontosaruas but sadly this doesn't happen . It's still very amusing though . As the story continues we eventually find out ( After about 40 minutes which is never a good sign ) that the plot involves divorcée Robert Madigan being stalked by his ex-wife Jude . So it's basically one of those psycho thrillers from the mid 1990s that we've seen far too many times
I should warn you though that my utter distaste for this movie isn't because it suffers from a worn out premise , I saw FEAR the previous week and enjoyed it immensely , no my problem with MOTHER'S BOYS is that it contains a scene where Jude walks around naked in front of her 12 year old son then asks him to bring the phone to her as she sits in the bath . Again I refer to the incompetence of director Yves Simoneau because this scene comes across as downright objectionable since it looks like Jude is trying to seduce her son and it's this one scene more than the clichéd hackneyed plot and poor storytelling that makes this a film to avoid
MOTHER'S BOYS does get off to a highly entertaining start . Notice I said highly entertaining start and not a good start . It's down to the incompetence of director Yves Simoneau where we see a biology class full of children being asked to dissect frogs , so one young lad decides to give Mr Frog a damn good stabbing which causes his class mates to run around screaming . Remember the bit in NAKED GUN where OJ Simpson gets shot then he starts crashing into things ? Well we see a similar situation here where children knock things like mice cages over which contributes to even more panic . I was expecting someone to bang into a cage housing giant dinosaurs thereby letting loose a brontosaruas but sadly this doesn't happen . It's still very amusing though . As the story continues we eventually find out ( After about 40 minutes which is never a good sign ) that the plot involves divorcée Robert Madigan being stalked by his ex-wife Jude . So it's basically one of those psycho thrillers from the mid 1990s that we've seen far too many times
I should warn you though that my utter distaste for this movie isn't because it suffers from a worn out premise , I saw FEAR the previous week and enjoyed it immensely , no my problem with MOTHER'S BOYS is that it contains a scene where Jude walks around naked in front of her 12 year old son then asks him to bring the phone to her as she sits in the bath . Again I refer to the incompetence of director Yves Simoneau because this scene comes across as downright objectionable since it looks like Jude is trying to seduce her son and it's this one scene more than the clichéd hackneyed plot and poor storytelling that makes this a film to avoid
Crikey
neil-47628 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
If you're dating a divorced man, watch this movie with him.
MBunge23 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
A nice psycho thriller worthy of VHS
tagdaze26 November 2005
As some people view this movie as "horriable" because it doesn't compare to blockbusters such as Scream - which is excusable, seeing as to who is the sociopath here - let's view this on its own merits, and not compare it to the "good" movies which score a 7 out of 10 on IMDb anyway.
The story is deliciously freaky. Jamie Lee Curtis as a sociopath mom who returns after three years, and tries to squirm her way into the life of what used to be her family. With plenty of Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot moments, such as the forehead-scene and the bathtub scene, people who will look no deeper than the superficial outer layer will, as clearly demonstrated before, mistake this movie for a flick of the same level as Nemesis III. The trick to understanding what it is about, is paying good attention to the actors, which brings me to my next point.
Acting is nice. Luke "Kes" Edwards, gives a great performance, writing whole books with his eyes. His behavior throughout the movie is excellent. The bath-scene shows how uncomfortable he is being lured in by his mother. Colin Ward and Joey Zimmerman are kids. They don't act as good as the teenagers/adults do, but hey, at least it's not Jake Lloyd, right? Jamie Lee Curtis. Let's set her apart. Let's not make remarks about "how she was better in movie x" or how bad blonde looks on her. Let's talk about how she performs in this movie specifically. To be short: her sociopath role bleeds out of her. She's doing just fine. In the beginning she's appearing a little odd at best, but as the movie progresses, she's just getting creepy, in a way you're looking for in this movie.
Atmospheres are set fine by the lighting and camera-work. The "creepy" parts are set by dark blue lighting and closeups, so you can read the maniacal tension from the eyes. One scene where the boys are secretly conferring among each other, is put down quite nicely as well. On their height, and up close, as if the viewer is part of the select group. These little touches make it nice. The music doesn't have a lot other than scary music. What's there is good, but it's not much, and that's something one can certainly miss.
In short, if you feel like being freaked out over someone's behavior, this is a nice movie to see. The ending consists of something unexpected in the plan of the bad girl, which gives it a nice twist, although the final part of the ending is a little anti-climactic. The final shot does it, though. It's those eyes again that will leave it up to your fantasy what will happen in a few years.
Even though the story is well acted out, it is still kind of old, and you just know how it's going to end. Nevertheless a nice movie to rent if you coincidentally to bump into it.
The story is deliciously freaky. Jamie Lee Curtis as a sociopath mom who returns after three years, and tries to squirm her way into the life of what used to be her family. With plenty of Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot moments, such as the forehead-scene and the bathtub scene, people who will look no deeper than the superficial outer layer will, as clearly demonstrated before, mistake this movie for a flick of the same level as Nemesis III. The trick to understanding what it is about, is paying good attention to the actors, which brings me to my next point.
Acting is nice. Luke "Kes" Edwards, gives a great performance, writing whole books with his eyes. His behavior throughout the movie is excellent. The bath-scene shows how uncomfortable he is being lured in by his mother. Colin Ward and Joey Zimmerman are kids. They don't act as good as the teenagers/adults do, but hey, at least it's not Jake Lloyd, right? Jamie Lee Curtis. Let's set her apart. Let's not make remarks about "how she was better in movie x" or how bad blonde looks on her. Let's talk about how she performs in this movie specifically. To be short: her sociopath role bleeds out of her. She's doing just fine. In the beginning she's appearing a little odd at best, but as the movie progresses, she's just getting creepy, in a way you're looking for in this movie.
Atmospheres are set fine by the lighting and camera-work. The "creepy" parts are set by dark blue lighting and closeups, so you can read the maniacal tension from the eyes. One scene where the boys are secretly conferring among each other, is put down quite nicely as well. On their height, and up close, as if the viewer is part of the select group. These little touches make it nice. The music doesn't have a lot other than scary music. What's there is good, but it's not much, and that's something one can certainly miss.
In short, if you feel like being freaked out over someone's behavior, this is a nice movie to see. The ending consists of something unexpected in the plan of the bad girl, which gives it a nice twist, although the final part of the ending is a little anti-climactic. The final shot does it, though. It's those eyes again that will leave it up to your fantasy what will happen in a few years.
Even though the story is well acted out, it is still kind of old, and you just know how it's going to end. Nevertheless a nice movie to rent if you coincidentally to bump into it.
Bottom-of-the-shelf b-movie nonsense... !
Howlin Wolf14 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
... Not only is it offensively bad; it's also mind-numbingly obvious and poorly-paced. In the traditional three-act structure; the movie's plot should work something like this: Mother re-enters lives; Mother goes mental; problem is in some way resolved. Here, there's no gradually escalating tension, it's quite obvious that Jude is already 'barking', from the very first shot in which we see her... ! Some scenes are so sickeningly contrived it's quite obvious they've only been inserted to advance what little plot there is... Why teach your son to drive, for example, unless he's going to be in mortal danger by another 40 minutes running time??! Oh, and responsible stepmothers ALWAYS willingly allow themselves to be manacled by their young charges, just to raise the dramatic stakes... ! Rarely have I seen writing in even the cheapest of productions be so simplistic and ludicrously unbelievable...
"Mother's Boys" can best be characterised as a third rate knock-off of such pulp-genre reliables as "The Hand that Rocks the Cradle"... It's amazing to think that capable actresses like Curtis and Whalley were suckered into this derivative slop - and regrettably Peter Gallagher's abject performance tarnishes their reputations almost as much as it does his!
"Mother's Boys" can best be characterised as a third rate knock-off of such pulp-genre reliables as "The Hand that Rocks the Cradle"... It's amazing to think that capable actresses like Curtis and Whalley were suckered into this derivative slop - and regrettably Peter Gallagher's abject performance tarnishes their reputations almost as much as it does his!
Thriller
franksiegle30 December 2011
I quite agree with positive reviews. Apparently they were not among the majority. This appears to be a movie you either love or you hate. Jamie Lee Curtis turns in a fine performance, not over the top more than necessary, full of quiet menace that explodes with enough underneath to make her psychopathy believable. On the surface, she seems in the beginning a normal person. A tic here, a turn of the lip, a set of the eyes, betrays the sickness inside her. The rest of the cast is quite good, though Peter Gallagher is less than stellar, but basically competent. Joanne Whalley is quite believable as was Lynn Redgrave.
The one big problem I have is that Luke Edwards as Kes is turned to Jamie's side too quickly. His role is key, but isn't sufficiently developed. It's sketched instead, which is too bad because, in a sense this is as much his movie as Jamie's. For once, perhaps, a film was under rather than over written.
The movie deserved better than it got.
The one big problem I have is that Luke Edwards as Kes is turned to Jamie's side too quickly. His role is key, but isn't sufficiently developed. It's sketched instead, which is too bad because, in a sense this is as much his movie as Jamie's. For once, perhaps, a film was under rather than over written.
The movie deserved better than it got.
A surprisingly well-directed thriller.
gridoon4 June 2001
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)
Poor effort, unexciting, unoriginal.
Jack_Rabbit_Slims9127 December 2011
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.
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.
Thriller
Film_Lover_4ever25 March 2021
Jamie Did This One for the Money
jake-15015 July 1999
What other explanation could there be for Jamie Lee Curtis agreeing to appear in this laughably horrible "thriller?" She plays a mentally disturbed ex-wife and mother who returns after many years to reclaim her family. Oops! Daddy has already found a new girlfriend. Oops again! The kids like the girlfriend! Of course, mayhem ensues, right up until the literal "cliffhanger" ending.
The director either ran out of film, or decided he couldn't possibly wrap the story up neatly, because the big climatic scene suddenly simply ends without explanation or resolution.
The best part of this film is watching Jamie Lee do her best impersonation of Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct. Even if you're able to rent this one at the local video store for under a buck, you're spending too much.
The director either ran out of film, or decided he couldn't possibly wrap the story up neatly, because the big climatic scene suddenly simply ends without explanation or resolution.
The best part of this film is watching Jamie Lee do her best impersonation of Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct. Even if you're able to rent this one at the local video store for under a buck, you're spending too much.
Hey Jude, Don't Make it Bad
wes-connors21 February 2010
After three years traveling, sexy psycho mom Jamie Lee Curtis (as Judith "Jude" Madigan) wants to move back in with handsome husband Peter Gallagher (as Robert Madigan) and their three cute young sons. But, Mr. Gallagher has proposed to new mate Joanne Whalley-Kilmer (as Colleen "Callie" Harland), an assistant principal at the kids' school, who is ready for bed. But, Ms. Curtis will not to go quietly into her marriage's final good night; she demands visiting rights to "Mother's Boys", and casts her wicked spell over the lads and their dad.
Emotionally disturbed twelve-year-old Luke Edwards (as Kes) is old enough to remember his mother's mean streak; but, Curtis decides to seduce her son into helping mom get rid of Ms. Whalley-Kilmer (as in Val). Little brothers Colin Ward and Joey Zimmerman are manipulated into assistance. The distinguished Vanessa Redgrave, playing Curtis' mother, takes a tumble while trying to help stop her daughter's nasty plan. Mainly, the story revolves around Curtis and young Edwards. They do well with their roles, but story is lacking.
A sequence wherein Curtis strips to show Edwards her Cesarean scar and joins her young son in bed, may be considered offensive; but, it certainly fits Curtis' character. The real problem with "Mother's Boys" is that many of the characters are made to do really dumb things in the most stupid ways. The story structure renders it most unconvincing. Still, the unintentional laughs, a few exciting scenes (directed by Yves Simoneau), and nice cinematography (by Elliot Davis) make the film more entertaining than not. But, be prepared to giggle.
****** Mother's Boys (3/18/94) Yves Simoneau ~ Jamie Lee Curtis, Luke Edwards, Peter Gallagher, Joanne Whalley
Emotionally disturbed twelve-year-old Luke Edwards (as Kes) is old enough to remember his mother's mean streak; but, Curtis decides to seduce her son into helping mom get rid of Ms. Whalley-Kilmer (as in Val). Little brothers Colin Ward and Joey Zimmerman are manipulated into assistance. The distinguished Vanessa Redgrave, playing Curtis' mother, takes a tumble while trying to help stop her daughter's nasty plan. Mainly, the story revolves around Curtis and young Edwards. They do well with their roles, but story is lacking.
A sequence wherein Curtis strips to show Edwards her Cesarean scar and joins her young son in bed, may be considered offensive; but, it certainly fits Curtis' character. The real problem with "Mother's Boys" is that many of the characters are made to do really dumb things in the most stupid ways. The story structure renders it most unconvincing. Still, the unintentional laughs, a few exciting scenes (directed by Yves Simoneau), and nice cinematography (by Elliot Davis) make the film more entertaining than not. But, be prepared to giggle.
****** Mother's Boys (3/18/94) Yves Simoneau ~ Jamie Lee Curtis, Luke Edwards, Peter Gallagher, Joanne Whalley
Waste of a good premise
Leofwine_draca1 May 2013
I like the psycho-thriller sub-genre well enough; these were the wave of psychopath movies that came out in the wake of FATAL ATTRACTION, each offering a differently positioned character - nanny, secretary, lover, boss - who would inevitably turn out to be a raging maniac with homicidal intent. MOTHER'S BOYS offers us a mother from hell, with Jamie Lee Curtis cast against type as a real weirdo.
The set up is decent enough: Joanne Whalley-Kilmer is a solid protagonist, easy to sympathise with. Curtis, too, acquits herself well as villain for the change, proving to be one of those love-to-hate characters. There's some interesting psychological set-up with the children involved in this mess, and some good scenes (like that involving the frog).
Unfortunately, around the halfway point, things start to fall apart. There's way too much lurid melodrama instead of real meat to the storyline, and it all begins to fall apart with plenty of style attempting to mask real substance. The ending is the worst, contrived beyond belief, but the scenes preceding it are lacking, too. I wanted more incident, more motivation, but instead I got clichés and not a lot else besides.
The psycho-thriller genre is an entertaining one, but unfortunately most of the films had the misfortune to be made during the 1990s, a decade which hasn't dated well for cinema. MOTHER'S BOYS is a good example of this.
The set up is decent enough: Joanne Whalley-Kilmer is a solid protagonist, easy to sympathise with. Curtis, too, acquits herself well as villain for the change, proving to be one of those love-to-hate characters. There's some interesting psychological set-up with the children involved in this mess, and some good scenes (like that involving the frog).
Unfortunately, around the halfway point, things start to fall apart. There's way too much lurid melodrama instead of real meat to the storyline, and it all begins to fall apart with plenty of style attempting to mask real substance. The ending is the worst, contrived beyond belief, but the scenes preceding it are lacking, too. I wanted more incident, more motivation, but instead I got clichés and not a lot else besides.
The psycho-thriller genre is an entertaining one, but unfortunately most of the films had the misfortune to be made during the 1990s, a decade which hasn't dated well for cinema. MOTHER'S BOYS is a good example of this.
CHEER! - (7 stars out of 10)
BJG-Reviews19 March 2021
The stage curtains open ...
"Mother's Boys" is a good example of thriller films that were prevalent back in the 1990's. Jamie Lee Curtis had newfound fame in cinema behind films like, "A Fish Called Wanda", "Blue Steel" and "My Girl" and rode that right into this movie. A year after this one, she would star in "True Lies" with Arnold Schwarzenegger. So, this was arguably at the height of her popularity - and she delivers a fun performance here.
Curtis plays the role of Jude, a woman displaying sociopathic behaviors, who has returned home after an unexplained 3 year absence, in an effort to reunite with her estranged husband and three sons. When she gets back however, she finds that he wants more than a divorce, he is also planning to marry his new love, Callie (played by Joanne Whalley). Jude formulates a very clever plan to try and seduce her husband, win over her boys, and eliminate what she perceives as a threat in Callie, once and for all. She will go to any lengths to get her way, but when things get out of control, everything spirals down to a climactic finish.
This was a solid film with a very good performance by Jamie Lee Curtis. The whole film hinges on this, as the supporting acting was cursory. What makes this film work is Curtis. She sold me on being a sociopath - that, coupled with some nifty camera work made it very effective. Most especially during some scenes where the camera focuses in on her eyes - you can almost see what is going on behind them. The story was plausible, along with the explanation of what made her this way. The pacing is good as the movie keeps thing moving right along.
I enjoyed the movie when it first came out, and again all these years later. I recommend "Mother's Boys" at a very solid 7 stars out of 10. It was disturbing when it had to be, throwing in a couple of jump scares to keep you awake. The plot and characters were developed well enough to keep you invested. I would certainly watch this one again, and if you enjoy a good thriller, then you should watch it too.
"Mother's Boys" is a good example of thriller films that were prevalent back in the 1990's. Jamie Lee Curtis had newfound fame in cinema behind films like, "A Fish Called Wanda", "Blue Steel" and "My Girl" and rode that right into this movie. A year after this one, she would star in "True Lies" with Arnold Schwarzenegger. So, this was arguably at the height of her popularity - and she delivers a fun performance here.
Curtis plays the role of Jude, a woman displaying sociopathic behaviors, who has returned home after an unexplained 3 year absence, in an effort to reunite with her estranged husband and three sons. When she gets back however, she finds that he wants more than a divorce, he is also planning to marry his new love, Callie (played by Joanne Whalley). Jude formulates a very clever plan to try and seduce her husband, win over her boys, and eliminate what she perceives as a threat in Callie, once and for all. She will go to any lengths to get her way, but when things get out of control, everything spirals down to a climactic finish.
This was a solid film with a very good performance by Jamie Lee Curtis. The whole film hinges on this, as the supporting acting was cursory. What makes this film work is Curtis. She sold me on being a sociopath - that, coupled with some nifty camera work made it very effective. Most especially during some scenes where the camera focuses in on her eyes - you can almost see what is going on behind them. The story was plausible, along with the explanation of what made her this way. The pacing is good as the movie keeps thing moving right along.
I enjoyed the movie when it first came out, and again all these years later. I recommend "Mother's Boys" at a very solid 7 stars out of 10. It was disturbing when it had to be, throwing in a couple of jump scares to keep you awake. The plot and characters were developed well enough to keep you invested. I would certainly watch this one again, and if you enjoy a good thriller, then you should watch it too.
Redefines "Horror"
DJBlackSwan9 November 2005
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.
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.
Jamie Lee Curtis, The Mother From Hell
AngelHonesty20 February 2024
I think the goal of this movie can be summed up in one of the quotes/scenes made in the film:
Jude: "What did you think of the movie?" Kes: "It was okay." Jude: "I thought it was funny." Kes: "I thought it was kinda sad." Jude: "Sometimes Sad is funny."
Unfortunately, nothing sad in this movie is funny. The movie isn't funny, it's not scary, it's not tear jerking, it's not a mystery. It's not even shocking. It kind of floats in the middle of, not being much of anything. Except weird. And makes you feel really sorry for Callie. And makes you cringe at times. But the cast is phenomenal.
A women who cares for no one, who is wild, bad, smart and knows how to lie, leaves her family for three years. Then when the possibility that they might be moving on and might find happiness and love with another women. Dear old Jude returns to not let that happen. The women does not really care about her family. She doesn't care about anyone. And sadly enough the law is on her side. She could take those kids in a heartbeat, but she doesn't. Because she doesn't really want them. That's not the goal... The movie did a great job with picking a solid cast of people who can really act. The cast is what makes the movie worth watching. The filming was great, the story not so much. It's very simple and cringe in area's. Exhausting by the end.
There wasn't anything in the movie that really shocked me. Nothing that felt fun. Nothing that felt like a win. And no one to cheer for. You had the mother from hell pretty much who is sleazy and cruel. And another women who genuinely loved the children. Some very cringe nudity scenes because it was a women naked in front of a child. And an ending that really turned up the anger for me. This poor women who just wants to help the kids, and everyone wants to kill her? Really?
And above all it doesn't really explain itself. It drops hints of there being three generations of psychopaths in the family. But doesn't give us a solid story. No real background. Does not dig into the characters. And the ending is very far from satisfying. It felt very rushed and sudden. So much build up for it to just end.
Unfortunately, nothing sad in this movie is funny. The movie isn't funny, it's not scary, it's not tear jerking, it's not a mystery. It's not even shocking. It kind of floats in the middle of, not being much of anything. Except weird. And makes you feel really sorry for Callie. And makes you cringe at times. But the cast is phenomenal.
A women who cares for no one, who is wild, bad, smart and knows how to lie, leaves her family for three years. Then when the possibility that they might be moving on and might find happiness and love with another women. Dear old Jude returns to not let that happen. The women does not really care about her family. She doesn't care about anyone. And sadly enough the law is on her side. She could take those kids in a heartbeat, but she doesn't. Because she doesn't really want them. That's not the goal... The movie did a great job with picking a solid cast of people who can really act. The cast is what makes the movie worth watching. The filming was great, the story not so much. It's very simple and cringe in area's. Exhausting by the end.
There wasn't anything in the movie that really shocked me. Nothing that felt fun. Nothing that felt like a win. And no one to cheer for. You had the mother from hell pretty much who is sleazy and cruel. And another women who genuinely loved the children. Some very cringe nudity scenes because it was a women naked in front of a child. And an ending that really turned up the anger for me. This poor women who just wants to help the kids, and everyone wants to kill her? Really?
And above all it doesn't really explain itself. It drops hints of there being three generations of psychopaths in the family. But doesn't give us a solid story. No real background. Does not dig into the characters. And the ending is very far from satisfying. It felt very rushed and sudden. So much build up for it to just end.
Terrible, Even by Terrible Standards
nycritic27 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
Curtis is ice-cold!
SamJamie28 September 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Sexy but unstable wife and mother Jude (Jamie Lee Curtis) walked out on her family three years ago. Now, just as suddenly, she is back. But her husband, Robert (Peter Gallagher), has fallen in love with Callie (Joanne Whalley-Kilmer), an assistant principal at his sons' school. He asks Jude for a divorce. She responds by trying to turn her three boys against Callie, then by slashing herself and blaming her rival and finally by drawing her 12-year-old, Kes (Luke Edwards), into a murderous plot.
Mothers Boy's is a ludicrously involving thriller led by Jamie Lee Curtis, giving a fantastic performance as the ice-cold, bitter ex-wife Jude. Helmed by Yves Simoneau, this psychological thriller makes Curtis look like the most ominous spiderwoman ever to spin a web of doom around an all-American family. She is shown dressed in black, furiously puffing on a cigarette. With her sharp features and deep-set eyes, Ms. Curtis is certainly threatening.
The key to her campaign is her emotionally disturbed eldest son, 12-year-old Kes (Luke Edwards). In the movie's opening scene, this unsmiling boy goes berserk in his biology class and repeatedly stabs the dead frog he is supposed to be dissecting. Jude eventually wins Kes's loyalty in the movie's creepiest scene. While taking a bubble bath in her fancy apartment, she entices him into the bathroom and shows him her scar from the Caesarean operation that brought him into the world. She was in labor with him for two days, she explains, because he didn't want to leave her.
This film really does spoil us in terms of star-power; not only do we have the divine Jamie Lee Curtis playing a rockin' evil bit**, but we also have the legendary Vanessa Redgrave as the eternally beautiful, weathly grandmother who foresees the evilness of Kes, imparts some information on Jude's horrific past (no wonder she's crazy) and does her level best to keep her daughter away from Robert and Callie. It's a rare woman that could even for a moment make me wish Jamie Lee Curtis would just go away, but at one point in the film, I must confess I preferred her to Jude.
I'm sure many of the people who have actually seen this movie would argue it's not cinematic genius or even particularly original - the vengeful ex/jilted lover is by no means an unexplored genre (you probably won't be able to watch this without thinking of Fatal Attraction) - but it's enjoyable, gripping and wholly entertaining. Plus is has Jamie Lee Curtis in, so really it's a winner all round and a thoroughly entertaining thriller.
Mothers Boy's is a ludicrously involving thriller led by Jamie Lee Curtis, giving a fantastic performance as the ice-cold, bitter ex-wife Jude. Helmed by Yves Simoneau, this psychological thriller makes Curtis look like the most ominous spiderwoman ever to spin a web of doom around an all-American family. She is shown dressed in black, furiously puffing on a cigarette. With her sharp features and deep-set eyes, Ms. Curtis is certainly threatening.
The key to her campaign is her emotionally disturbed eldest son, 12-year-old Kes (Luke Edwards). In the movie's opening scene, this unsmiling boy goes berserk in his biology class and repeatedly stabs the dead frog he is supposed to be dissecting. Jude eventually wins Kes's loyalty in the movie's creepiest scene. While taking a bubble bath in her fancy apartment, she entices him into the bathroom and shows him her scar from the Caesarean operation that brought him into the world. She was in labor with him for two days, she explains, because he didn't want to leave her.
This film really does spoil us in terms of star-power; not only do we have the divine Jamie Lee Curtis playing a rockin' evil bit**, but we also have the legendary Vanessa Redgrave as the eternally beautiful, weathly grandmother who foresees the evilness of Kes, imparts some information on Jude's horrific past (no wonder she's crazy) and does her level best to keep her daughter away from Robert and Callie. It's a rare woman that could even for a moment make me wish Jamie Lee Curtis would just go away, but at one point in the film, I must confess I preferred her to Jude.
I'm sure many of the people who have actually seen this movie would argue it's not cinematic genius or even particularly original - the vengeful ex/jilted lover is by no means an unexplored genre (you probably won't be able to watch this without thinking of Fatal Attraction) - but it's enjoyable, gripping and wholly entertaining. Plus is has Jamie Lee Curtis in, so really it's a winner all round and a thoroughly entertaining thriller.
Unbalanced mom will stop at nothing to get her family back
Carcrazy112430 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
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.
Not worth the time
allan-459 June 2001
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.
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
