BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Neil Welch 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.

wes-connors 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

Boba_Fett1138 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.5/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

nycritic 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.