Return of the Secaucus Seven

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.

Return of the Secaucus Seven begins with a shot of a man doing a half hearted job of plunging a filthy toilet, and goes down hill from there. Only desperately insecure ex-hippies or their sycophants could praise this very poorly made and unimaginative work. Nothing against writer/director John Sayles, he is excellent ... but not on this film.

I'm just trying to be realistic here for anyone looking for an unbiased opinion. Sayles was 28 or 29 at the time he made this and it was his first film, made by novices on a shoe string budget. Seriously now, how good could it be? Yet it is not the low budget feel that bothers me about this film, although it is quite annoying with it's monkey camera operators, stag film bad lighting and camcorder like sound. It is not the wooden and forced acting on the part of it's inexperienced cast, who, I am not saying is amateur, but every time they would speak their eyes would roll back in their head and the rest of the cast would mouth the line along with them. It was not the unattractive boring cast whose idea of an interesting character choice is singing like Dan Fogelberg on ludes or doing bad impressions of Humphrey Bogart. No, the thing that is really annoying about this film is it's tedious and pretentious script. To think that anyone would be interested in watching a film about a group of uninteresting unmarried unscrupulous 30 year olds kvetching about life as they jump from bed to bed is pretty cocky on the part of the author. If you are not going to have an interesting storyline, you had better have some damn good dialog, like in Diner or Manhattan, or at least an interesting character like in Yojimbo or The Good The Bad and The Ugly, or even Creature From the Black Lagoon.

Several here on the IMDb have praised this films dialog. My guess is they are members of a secret Hippie society that have a Gestapo like fervor for anything that espouses hippie virtues. In reality, the dialog is juvenile at best. It romanticizes such lofty ideals as bean farts and the nuances of puking. The rock band Rush is referred to as a "progressive" band (in 1980? What? Perhaps in 1975 stoner circles), a small tip off as to how out of touch the script is.

A large portion of the script is dedicated to events that have nothing to do with the story. I suppose this is to help develop the characters, but shouldn't those characters first be worth developing? Come on, John, it's bad enough we have to watch the actors suck at acting, do we have to watch them suck at charades as well? What would make you think we would enjoy watching them argue about obvious political opinions, girls playing Clue, or men diving naked into a river? (note major shrinkage factor in chilly New Hampshire water) Speaking of which, what's with that strange leg tuck David Strathairn did every time he took a dive? He looked like a Don Martin cartoon from MadMagazine. That was the final straw for me. I'll bet Richard Nixon could dive better than that. Hypocrites.

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.

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.

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.