IMDb user comments for
Return of the Secaucus Seven (1980)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Index

30 comments in total

---

11 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
A Solid Beginning, 23 March 2004
Author: alanlit96 from Kansas

Sayles' first film is, as one previously reviewer noted, the prototype independent film: small budget, previously unknown actors, an emphasis upon talk and ideas over action or even an event-oriented plot. The script varies from slow at times to very entertaining and incisive at others, but it always feels real. You don't necessarily feel you know the characters all that well when it's over, but you care about them nonetheless. It's all in all a very worthwhile film, in which you can see the director learning how to handle an ensemble cast, as he has done so effectively in recent years in Lone Star and Sunshine State. If you like this type of film at all, you will find it rewarding and quite worth your time.

It is amazing, though, how so many of the reviews attempt to not merely acknowledge the similarities to The Big Chill, but to elevate one film and denigrate the other. They come from very different places in terms of budget, stars and polish, but are both very fine films. In one sense, TBC is deeper in that the characters in that film have varied from their previous ideals (or at least it seems that way), a fact that lends a melancholy beneath the slickness that really isn't there in S7. However, a lot of people reach the age of the characters in S7 (they are all only about 30, younger than the characters in Chill) without yet having to really put things in perspective. The leads in S7 have become teachers, a predictable outcome. One other character has taken a job as an aide to a senator. J.T. is pursuing (or putting off pursuing) a musical career. The fact that this film views the characters before some of the inevitable conflicts in their lives have ripened actually makes it more subtle, and allows for the viewer to wonder where they will be in 5-10 years. Will the leads become Kevin Kline and Glenn Close? Will one of the characters die young and precipitate the life-examining session that occurs in Chill? I think the two films dovetail nicely together. To exalt one at the expense of the other is unnecessary and needlessly cynical.

---

8 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
In my all-time Top 10, 13 July 2005

Author: asc85 from Mercer County, NJ

I am absolutely stunned by the majority of contributors here who didn't love, or even like this film. One of the best films I've ever seen in terms of dialogue. It's true that if you're in the mood to watch "Raiders of the Lost Ark" with a couple of friends, this is NOT the film for you. Since not much happens in this movie, if you can't appreciate the dialogue, than you won't like this movie at all.

I find it interesting that most of the "stars" of this picture were amateurs, and didn't make another film after this one. The only "major" stars who came out of this were Gordon Clapp (NYPD Blue) and David Strathairn, who wasn't even one of the stars, and was in a supporting role.

---

7 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
The first "Big Chill", 3 January 1999

Author: Huron from U.S.

Well before "The Big Chill" came along, John Sayles made this terrific low-budget film. If you are looking for slick-filmmaking go elsewhere. If you want something that is different, and for me far more believable, than most Hollywood films try this one.

---

6 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
John Sayles' home movie of 1980 America, 15 May 2001

Author: austex23 from Austin, Texas

Overshadowed by its loud, shallow and uncredited remake (The Big Chill) Sayles' first film is a very slight effort that manages to capture a time and place with quiet brilliance. The actors -- first roles for most of them and only roles for some -- are sometimes painfully amateurish and the duration and self-indulgence of some of the scenes make the viewer long for chainsaw intervention, but the film as a whole does a wonderful job of showing a generation of aging idealists on the eve of Reagan's America. Unlike The Big Chill, where everyone is pretty and successful and the dialogue is crisp and full of what passes for wit on prime time TV, Sayles' characters are almost too low-key, their banter sometimes clumsy and their jokes not terribly funny. The unfortunate side effect of his conscientious effort to keep things "real" is that the film sometimes fails to entertain or engage and most of the characters end up outside the viewers' sphere of caring, like someone else's friends in a third-hand story. Still, a very impressive first film and influential on many other 80s movies besides its gaudy imitator.

---

5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Good film about old friends reuniting, 7 May 2000
Author: (capt@harlock.net) from Santa Babara, CA

John Sayles first film and it shows, but despite this a great film about old friends reuniting and having a good time. Great characters just being themselves in front of the camera and it is very beautiful. Don't expect action or even much plot out of this film but if you can get past the fact this is not your same old generic Hollywood film you will like this one.

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Groundbreaking Indie Film, 17 December 2006

Author: divineangel from hollywood

Shocked that there's only three pages of comments for the film widely considered to be one of the fathers of the modern indie film movement. John Saylees used his b-movie money from Roger Corman (the best scripts written for him) and financed this weekend home movie that became a hit and launched Sayle's film career.

Some of the bad reviews are really unfounded. This has some of the best dialog in American film, and though the performances are not all polished, it adds to the reality. There's a sense of genuine community not like the Hollywoodized "Big Chill."

If you stick with the film you'll be rewarded by many nifty scenes and conversations. Gordon Clapp is fun and there are beautifully observed moments of wit and drama. Mark Arnett is particularly good and the moment he recites his litany of protest arrests is great. The film-making is raw, but that's not the point.

However, the DVD version is actually missing a scene on the VHS of the hamburgers being grilled to some sort of rhythmic montage. Why?

Anyway, if you're a fan of great dialog, political commitment, and what can be done for 40 grand and terrific writing, check this classic out.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
What a great film!, 24 August 2000
Author: (alexhall@mail.med.upenn.edu) from Philadelphia

This is what good moviemaking is about. If you are looking for million-dollar cost overruns, over-rated movie stars, the same crop of (yawn) "special" effects and trite action-movie plots and dialog, look elsewhere. This is young John Sayles doing his absolute best with limited resources. The characters are realistic, the dialog brilliant yet believable and the script does an excellent job of handling the subject of not only growing up, but growing older with a bittersweet sense of humor.

For years I heard this film described as The Big Chill only three years earlier. A pretty accurate description. The plot and characters are similar, but Return of the Secaucus 7 has more layers, and provides more random "slice of life" scenes. Whilst watching this film, you can't help the feeling you know these people, or someone like them. Sayles manages to prove that real life situations can be interesting, funny and touching; unexpected moments can start a chain of life-altering events.

The New Hampshire scenery is beautiful – nice to see something shot anywhere other than NYC or a Hollywood back lot. A testament to friendship, fun and low-budget filmmaking.

---

2 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
I hear Jon Lovitz: "It's ACTING!", 21 September 2007

Author: ekeby from wisconsin

Okay, I watched this just now, many, many years after seeing The Big Chill. Maybe my expectations were too high, maybe I've seen too many other good movies by Sayles. I have to say I think this movie is seriously overrated.

I understand why people would prefer this over TBC. The script is not bad, the camera work is not bad, the editing is not bad. A lot of the dialog is smart. Unfortunately, when the dialog isn't smart, it's downright smarmy, completely off the mark. But what makes this a truly inferior movie is the ACTING!

Jon Lovitz's "It's ACTING!" came to mind no more than ten minutes into this movie. I couldn't get past the atrocious delivery, intonation, pacing, and fake emotion of just about every actor in this movie. Just really, really bad. There's no way to soft pedal. Even the (now) reliable David Strathairn will make you wince. I couldn't help thinking that this is one movie Sayles could remake and greatly improve upon just by using good, professional actors.

So, if you're like me, someone who actually thinks TBC is a good movie, and you've heard The Return of the Secaucus 7 praised as infinitely superior . . . lower your expectations. Perhaps you won't be quite so put off like I was.

---

3 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Did we all see the same film?, 7 March 2006

Author: niohc from United States

Some of the comments about "Return" are amazingly vitriolic and appear to have been written by people who hate independent films in general, or who hate "reunion" movies, or who hate low-budget movies, etc., etc., etc. If your comfort zone is Hollywood films with predictable plots and pretty, more or less interchangeable faces you've seen over and over, why watch this film at all?

There are also some misstatements of fact among the comments--it is amazing that someone thinks that "The Big Chill," a blatant piece of Hollywood plagiarism, preceded and inspired this film--but particularly off base is the remark that few of the actors in the film have many additional credits. Yes, there are several actors with only one to three credits. But more than half of them have numerous credits, some as many as 90, and some as writers and producers as well as actors. Furthermore, many of the credits are excellent--most of the TV credits, for example, are for series that are critically acclaimed. In addition, four or five of the actors are well known and respected in the business, whether they are household names or not. If you can use IMDb well enough to make comments, you can also check the accuracy of such statements before making them.

The film may not seem gripping now, since the reunion thing has been done to death. But it is a very important movie, in terms of advancing the popular acceptance of independent films and, of course, launching John Sayles' brilliant career, one which has contributed in a major way to the culture of this country and indeed the world. And it is still good watching for those who do not expect all films to be about action.

---

Charges Dropped, 23 July 2006

Author: Jason Forestein (jay4stein79@yahoo.com) from somerville, ma

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I will be completely frank upfront: I hate the Big Chill. I think it's vapid and boring. The only reason people still watch that superficial piece of trash is because the actors in it are eminently watchable. Every time I flip past it on AMC, I groan. How dare it have two of the finest actors of the last 30 years (William Hurt and Jeff Goldblum)? How dare it have Kevin Kline? How dare it, because of these terrific actors, take over the place in cinematic history rightfully held, at one time, by Return of the Secaucus 7? Usurper!

Return of the Secaucus 7, the first film directed by Piranha scribe John Sayles, is a marvelous little gem that explores the lives of several friends and former radicals as they approach 30 and spend a weekend together in New Hampshire. There's not much plot to speak of, but there is a vibe. It's organic and lazy and real. I felt, watching this movie, that John Sayles set out to make a movie that mirrored a reunion weekend he once had with his friends: There was some barbecue, volleyball, and beer-drinking; there was some drama too but nothing, you know, major--minor spats and an unexpected sexual encounter or two but nothing much. That's basically the plot. Long segments revolve around montages of men sweatily playing basketball and men skinny- dipping. Shorter scenes occur in which characters have "deep" conversations. For the most part, though, there's some talk of politics, tales of olden times, and updates on what's happening now.

Frankly, it feels like when my friends and I get together for a weekend. Consequently, since so little happens, if you don't like the characters, you're unlikely to appreciate the film. I found the characters interesting, human, and imperfect, so I like both them and the film. Visually, Return is uninspiring, but that doesn't really matter because of the vibe these characters give off. I don't mind that nothing is resolved (well, nothing happened that needed to be resolved). I don't mind that the dialogue doesn't "pop" the way Tarantino's or Mamet's does (it doesn't need to--the movie's about real people and not caricatures of conmen and gangsters). I liked the characters and the way the movie felt. It has a genial attitude and a worn-in feel. Return of the Secaucus 7 is far from Sayles's greatest work, but it's a great start.

---

---

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
External reviews	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history