How sad is this?

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Lethargic and tedious, this ensemble drama drones on and on about nothing of significance, as a group of twenty-somethings, future yuppies, gather for a weekend reunion in New England. All the characters are Ivy League types who at one time demonstrated against the Vietnam War and who still question the status quo. Here, they talk romantic relationships, career, and gossip about each other.Assorted activities like a basketball game for the guys and board games for the ladies, charades for all and a trip to the local pub for drinks keep the plot moving. And throughout, it's talk, talk, talk, and more talk. I don't recall a film that was so dialogue driven. But all the talk is small. They're so wrapped up in themselves and their futures that, after a while, all that chatter just gets tiresome.Color cinematography trends a bit dark, and it's very conventional. But then this is a low-budget film. There are very few moving or tracking scenes. Mostly, the camera is static. Production design is minimal. The cast consists of actors who were unknown at the time. Generally, they do an acceptable job.The main problem here is a story that is mundane, trite, and very dated, and characters who are annoying and egocentric. The film offers no insights or thematic depth, just ordinary young adults who gather and talk among themselves about themselves in a setting that is common and pedestrian. "The Return Of The Secaucus Seven" has a soap-opera look and feel. I could not get interested in it at all.

Among subsequent films that seem to "owe" their plots to "Secaucus 7" is the British film "Peter's Friends." All these films, like "Big Chill" add their own twist to the story, but the characters and basic plot seem all too similar to "Secaucus 7" to be coincidence. The movie itself says SO much about my generation, particularly in those 10 or 15 years after college, when we are getting our lives started, or, like J.T., still looking for a starting-point. I always feel that I KNOW these guys! Sayles, generally, is one of those directors who has stuck to his guns and still tells a wonderful story with characters that are truthful. Thank heaven there are little havens like his movies in this world of "sequels" ad nauseum, and more special effects than plot. (I was DRAGGED, kicking and screaming, to see this movie and have never stopped thanking the friend who frog-marched me into the movie theatre to catch this movie. I have since become a hard-core Sayles fan and have every movie of his I can get on DVD.)

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.