The In-Laws

A remake of the original 1979 cult classic, 'The In-Laws' is A Decent Entertainer, that doesn't bore. Sure, it's not all-out funny & gripping, but it arrests your attention & provides fair entertainment nevertheless. 'The In-Laws' Synopsis: Right before his daughter's wedding, a mild-mannered foot doctor discovers that his new in-laws are international smugglers. 'The In-Laws' has its moments for sure. In the first-hour, especially, there are some really nice sequences. The second-hour, does lose pace, but it doesn't drag, thankfully. The Screenplay is fast-paced, but it could've been tighter in the second-hour. Andrew Fleming's Direction is fair. Cinematography & Editing are functional. Performance-Wise: Michael Douglas & Albert Brooks deliver superbly. Both of the veteran actors, also share a striking on-screen chemistry from start to end. Ryan Reynolds is passable. Lindsay Sloane is good. Robin Tunney does fairly well. Maria Ricossa & Candice Bergen support well. On the whole, 'The In-Laws' is a decent watch.

The In-Laws is a sharp, genuine comedy from director Andrew Fleming. The plot is good, but sometimes, it can feel predictable and completely out of whack, but sometimes it's good to have that in a film. Albert Brooks and Michael Douglas are given the most screen time with what I thought were genuinely funny and deeper characters than they appear, at times though, the Michael Douglas character is predictable with his inner self, but saves it with another great performance. Albert Brooks is funny in this role, in a way, he carries the light spots of this movie on his back due to sharp one liners, which I believe he may have improvised. But the really snores in this film come from the sub plot, a wedding for Douglas' son played by Ryan Reynolds and Brooks' daughter played by Lindsay Sloane. The problem with the sub plot, is it is just not funny or sharp enough, Ryan Reynolds was a complete miss-cast in this role, he just isn't funny. During this subplot, we see Candice Bergen slip into the picture in one of those one liner funny roles that she does so well. Overall, if not with casting of Ryan Reynolds, maybe neglecting the sub plot, with more heavy detail on the comedic action, The In-Laws would be a fantastic comedy, but what is done is done, and you are left wondering what could have been.

. . . meaning that a classic movie (in the case of the original 1963 Robert Wise directed 'Haunting') or solid comedy (in the case of the original 'In Laws',) has been covered by a heavy-handed, ham-fisted 'improvement' that lacks all the subtlety that made the first picture memorable. To state the most obvious, but hardly the only, major flaw, in the original, the 'zany' father-in-law - played unimprovably by Peter Falk - was as puzzling to the audience as he was to his conservative partner (Alan Arkin, also unimprovable). Who is he? What is he? Is he on the level? The basic movement of the plot is resolving these issues. Here, for reasons that can only be guessed at, the movie begins with a long, James Bondish chase that establishes the reality of the zany and thus gives the game away. Both Michael Douglas (zany) and Albert Brooks (conservative) stink. The villain is characterized erratically and totally unbelievably, the wedding action makes no sense, etc., etc., etc. This is a completely worthless movie.

'The In-Laws' has a mediocre script but the actors successfully elevate the material. Albert Brooks in particular is very good as a neurotic podiatrist. Michael Douglas gives an energetic performance and the two work work well off each other. There are some consistent laughs throughout the film. David Suchet is fine as (MINOR SPOILERS) the gay international arms smuggler who falls in love with Brooks. The script is a gentle spoof of spy films and works well as long as you ignore the various plot holes. Douglas's family is shortchanged by the script, his relation with his estranged wife specially feels incomplete. Still watchable. Overall 7/10

French people saying 'fanny pack' pretty much sums this up. Aimed squarely at the American market - it won't appeal much to anyone else, except those who are too easily amused. I can understand Douglas getting involved - vanity. How actors of the calibre of Suchet and Tunney were persuaded to participate, is less clear. There are a few good comic moments, but the greatest laughs come from seeing a positively geriatric Michael Douglas attempting - unsuccessfully - some rather basic fight moves. How he didn't do himself a serious injury is a mystery. Suchet is suitably hammy and Tunney is always good to watch, but that's all the positives. That about sums it up. Bad writing, bad direction, and a star who should have retired 10 years ago. Give it a miss.

What do you get when you put a neurotic Jewish foot doctor from New York together with a CIA agent on a case to bust an arms-smuggling ring? And then have their kids get married? You get Albert Brooks and Michael Douglas as `The In-Laws', a remake of a film by the same name from 1979. Unfortunately, the marriage of these two actors doesn't seem as compatible. Both movies follow essentially the same plot line: the daughter of a conservative and traditional family man from New York is about to marry the son of a CIA agent who happens to be in the midst of cracking a huge international case wide open. When things go inadvertently awry, the fun begins as the doctor gets caught up in the scheme and almost blows the whole thing, and gets himself and his soon-to-be in-law killed at the same time. What made the original movie work is precisely what failed about the current version: the movie is not supposed to be about the `sting', it's supposed to be about the relationship between the neurotic in-laws. In the case of the doctor, Albert Brooks is perfectly cast as the doctor/father, blundering and fearful exactly as you expect him to be, as he faces everything from near death to being in a hot-tub with a dangerous (and gay) arms dealer. He eventually learns to ease his anxiety and deal with his situation, just like his predecessor, Alan Arkin, did in the original film. The problem with the film has more to do with Michael Douglas' role. Unlike his predecessor, Peter Falk, Douglas is far too polished. The role of Steve Tobias is supposed to be that of a quirky, unassuming and somewhat innocent but lovable guy, much the character Falk made famous in his series, `Columbo.' With Tobias, you never really know whether his stories are true, or if he can be trusted, or even if he knows what he's doing. This would drive anyone nuts if they were in a tight situation with this guy, and Falk was made for this role. Douglas, however, is quite the contrary. He's not nuts enough – he can't be; that's just not him. He's too good looking. In the original film, you never really knew if Tobias was a CIA agent till quite close to the end of the film, whereas the new film makes only one half-hearted attempt at hiding the fact, but it doesn't really fool anyone. Because of how poorly Douglas was cast, and how too many quirky aspects of the film were replaced by high-tech effects and more modern and threatening villains, there is no chemistry between anyone to carry the movie. On the positive side, `The In-Laws' certainly had its share of comedic lines, and I found myself laughing far more often than the movie deserved to be laughed at. But that's me. I love Albert Brooks, and I make no apologies or excuses for being easily amused. That said, I left the film disappointed. In fact, so much so, that I rented the original film again, just to enjoy it one more time. Not that I want to turn this into a video review, but it should be noted that the original 1979 version is well-worth seeing, especially if you were a Columbo fan.

Steve Tobias (Michael Douglas) is an undercover and efficient CIA agent, supported by the lower-ranked CIA agent Angela Harris (Robin Tunney), and assigned in a dangerous and secret international mission. He is trying to retrieve a nuclear submarine and arrest some international drug dealers and smugglers. Steve is also a reckless and absent father. His son Mark (Ryan Reynolds) is a lawyer, who is going to get married with Melissa Peyser (Lindsay Sloane), the daughter of the housewife Katherine Peyser (Maria Ricossa) and Jerry Peyser (Albert Brooks), a conservative podiatrist of Chicago. Jerry is the opposite of Steve, being afraid of airplanes and living a routinely life. When the two families meet for a dinner in a Vietnamese restaurant to celebrate the forthcoming wedding, Jerry is mistakenly identified as a secret agent, turning his life upside-down. I found this movie extremely funny. The combination of Michael Douglas and Albert Brooks was amazingly (and even surprisingly) good. The performance of David Suchet, as the gay French drug dealer and criminal Jean-Pierre Thibodoux, is also excellent and very funny. KC and the Sunshine Band playing an old hit is also great and completes a highly recommended comedy. My vote is eight. Title (Brazil): 'Até Que os Parentes Nos Separem' ('Until the Relatives Get Us Apart')

A buddy comedy with action, a mismatched couple of in-laws, loose ends and a general lack of sense. I can't claim that I had high expectations for this... but I gave it a chance, and I wanted to like it, I really did. Michael Douglas is good, as always. He delivers, action, acting and comedy. The only real problem is, apart from the first-mentioned quality, no one else delivers in this film. Brooks is usually good... at least as far as acting goes, and I could have sworn he had me laughing in at least one of his roles... maybe not film-wise, but his guest-roles on The Simpsons were hilarity itself. Reynolds has limited talent, and he's unfortunately cast, in that he isn't playing the typical womanizing teen-ish guy that we've grown used to him being. I haven't seen enough of Sloane to rate her performance according to how well she typically is, or compare her role to what she usually portrays. Tunney isn't really bad, she just has too little to do, and a character that is fairly uneven. She is a tool to bring about certain circumstances throughout, and that's too bad, because she does have some talent. One of the problems is that it's quite simply not very easy to accept these characters as people... they're too extreme, caricatures of perceptions of people. The ex-wife, for example, is stitched together of all the bad and "far out" qualities one could think of. One would hope that fairly few people in the world are quite that bizarre. The seemingly endless sub-plots are another mistake... for a film that lasts just over an hour and a half, there's story enough for a *saga*. Shakespeare could hardly have thought up more story for just one production. And they seem to just show up at random... as if the writer didn't want to deal with just one story or one pile of complications, so he had to think up more, and just kept adding until he had enough to make a film out of. The material just doesn't work well. We've seen the "odd couple" before, the idea of putting two people who have little in common isn't new... and it really isn't put to terribly good use here. The spy stuff and the action aren't bad... though the tension did seem tame at times, and the threat of the bad guys, the sense of danger just... isn't really there. Douglas makes a fine spy, though I'd wager that Peter Falk made a better one(I have yet to see the original, though I certainly intend to look for it). I didn't find the film particularly humorous... occasionally entertaining, but never really funny. The music was almost all good, though. And that's pretty much it... for those wanting spy-stuff, it'll do. And if you like your movies with a side of feel-good music, this certainly isn't the worst you could do. But for most anything else that this could offer, there are better movies out there. I rate this just above average, for the good things that it does hold. I recommend this to fans of the actors and the genre, and anyone with an hour and a half to kill who'd prefer something spy-related with music that is kind to the ears. 6/10

The In-Laws is an fast paced, funny movie that brings together an over the top secret agent and a bored with life foot doctor whose only link is their children who are about to be married. The film is entertaining and the cast work well together.

There are absolutely no words to adequately describe just how truly awful this movie is. Being a huge fan of the 1979 original, starring Peter Falk and Alan Arkin, curiousity got the better of me... I guess curiosity really did kill the cat! As hilarious and genuinely funny as the original is - I still consider it to be among the funniest films I have EVER seen - this remake is the complete opposite. Whereas Peter Falk and Alan Arkin made a terrific onscreen team, Michael Douglas and Albert Brooks simply don't have it. There just isn't the same chemistry. One of the things that made me laugh so much at the original was Alan Arkin's straight-man performance vs. Peter Falk's "is-he-or-isn't-he insane?" In this one, you'll find nothing of the sort. Albert Brooks (in the Alan Arkin role), whose character is now a podiatrist (as opposed to being a dentist in the original), just doesn't bring in the same laughs...you won't see him running down the street screaming "There's no need to shoot, I'm a podiatrist!" or anything like that. And worse, Michael Douglas (in the Peter Falk role), the secret agent father in law to be who hasn't yet met the in-laws, has a pointless sidekick, played by Robin Tunney, something that I felt weakened Douglas' character...as if the already inept script didn't already do a fine job of that! Worst of all was David Suchet's French arms dealer who suddenly develops a crush on Brooks' character, was nowhere nearly as entertaining as Richard Libertini's performance in the original...hell, even Senor Pepe had more comedic charisma than Suchet in this one, and Senor Pepe was a friggin' HAND PUPPET, for crying out loud!!! All in all, this has to be one of the worst movies I have ever paid good money to see (thank God I only paid $5!). If you haven't seen the original, rent it and save yourself the anguish of sitting through this mindless claptrap of a movie. If you HAVE seen the original, and were contemplating a trip to the cinema to check this one out, I have one word for you: SERPENTINE!!!