Mon beau-père, mes parents et moi

"It's nice, all of us being here together, don't you think?"

Ben Stiller followed up the hit 2000 comedy Meet the Parents with a slightly lukewarm revisit of Gaylord Focker, this time with his own parents in tow. It's not as funny as the first movie, but it's also not a complete blight on the quality of the first film.

The plot this time around revolves around the meeting of Greg's and Pam's parents, as the soon to be in-laws have yet to be introduced. As you could probably guess, Jack (a returning Robert De Niro) clashes with the free-spirited and unorthodox Bernie (Dustin Hoffman) and Roz (Barbra Streisand). Conflict and the occasional humorous situation results.

With such a great cast, It's a little disappointing that this feels like such a re-tread, and that so many of jokes are hit or miss. Greg once again finds himself straying outside of the circle of trust, there are more jokes about him being a nurse, a dog that likes to hump things, and a baby who curses. It's a bit of an understatement to say that Meet the Fockers starts off slowly. Still, there are some laughs to be had, and at the very least, watching this will get you caught up on events before the third (and much funnier looking) movie in the series rolls into theaters this winter. 

Fans of the first movie or Ben Stiller should check this out, but you should also keep your expectations at a moderate level. The fresh faces add some fun, but the writing is a little stale.

Firmly part of the circle of trust, Greg Focker is planning his marriage to Dina and has put off a big family get together for as long as he can. With no further excuses, Greg and Dina join Pam and Jack as they take their RV down to Florida to meet the Focker family. With an eye very much on his bloodline, Jack is keen to judge his future son-in-law by his parents, which spells problems when he finds himself living with two very liberal and touchy-feely Fockers.

I'm in my thirties now and it probably is not very impressive that I can put words together in a basic sentence. Whereas for a two year old it might be a real surprise if they were to discuss their opinions on political matters as such with you. What is the difference? Well it is simply one of expectation. Coming to the subject of films, expectation can often make or break a film, with perhaps a poor Pauly Shore movie being better received by viewers than a poor Spielberg film partly because you expect that standard from the former but more from the latter. So it does help this film that with the very title you are informed that you are not about to witness the sharpest of comedies.

With this in mind I went in with a forgiving eye, just hoping for laughs but I was not really prepared for how most of the film is unimaginative and base. In the first film we had Greg contrast with stern father Jack and hilarity ensues; here we have the same setup again but this time Greg is replaced as a device by his parents. What this means is that the film essentially aims at the same low targets as the first film and mostly hits them. To avoiding being too boorish on this subject I will admit that moments are funny and that the casting was a nice try but mostly I just found it obvious and dull. Toilet humour, a retread of the CIA stuff and so on supposedly provide the comedy while the drama is the same superficial relationship stuff as before.

The cast mostly do their best to try and lift it. Stiller mugs along well enough but the real fun (such as it is) comes from De Niro and Hoffman. The former more or less just does his stuff again but is enjoyable enough, while the latter is at least having fun with a silly character. Streisand and Polo have lesser roles but still have a bit of fun, while poor Danner is just a plot device to try and the give the film some sort of centre. Cameos from Wilson and Nelson don't add much to proceedings and don't even get me starting on the annoying Pickren twins who are not only irritating but made more irritating by the way the film overuses them, apparently in the belief that "Little Jack" is funny and/or cute when really he is neither. Roach's direction is nothing short of pedestrian – even the choice of theme music is obvious and easy.

Overall then this is a film that people who really liked the first film will enjoy. Those that just "liked" it may find that they didn't like it enough to watch it twice, which is what is happening here. The cast play it up as much as they can but really this is just an extension of the original idea done bigger but to lesser effect.

Having finally managed to gain the approval of Pam's hard-to-please father Jack, Greg now has the daunting task of introducing his straight-laced no nonsense father-in-law to his rather eccentric parents. With both sets of parents being so different, will everyone be able to get along for a second time?

With Greg's parents being so 'out there' Meet The Fockers is more outlandish and zany than its predecessor (and even occasionally veers into screwball territory). Some may say that the sequel is trying a little too hard and, to an extent, I agree, but for me a lot of the crazy antics that we witness are still very funny and there are plenty of new sight gags and jokes making the film still have enough qualities to act as a standalone sequel as opposed to a lazy rehash.

Of course, it is still predictable; more so with how the film ends and in Jack's character arc, but in all fairness if a film makes me laugh then I don't care if I can see how things are going to transpire right from the start as long as the film makes me laugh (which this film did).

The likes of Hoffman, Streisand, Stiller and De Niro are all on good form and play off one other very well. The direction and pacing are fast and frenetic meaning that the film is never dull.

Those who enjoyed the first film are almost certain to enjoy this film which in my personal opinion is equally as good and just as funny as the first film.

MEET THE FOCKERS made me laugh a lot. It probably has more laughs than the original, but the laughs aren't as big or as fresh or as subtle. And as sequels go, it contains many scenes that are mere variations of the original: the dinner gone wrong, the sports competition gone wrong, the pet gone wrong, the Owen Wilson cameo, the "focker" puns, etc. But many of the variations are quite inspired. Thanks to the terrific cast. De Niro, Stiller, Hoffman and Streisand all look like they're having a great time. Each is given a scene or two to really shine; De Niro and Hoffman fare the best. A child actor's also been added to the cast, and he's a scene-stealer. I just wish Blythe Danner (Mrs. Byrnes) and Teri Polo (Pam Focker) were given more to do. But, as entertaining as I thought the movie was, expect many critics to be turned off or pretend to be turned off by the numerous toilet jokes. I say, flock 'em!

Meet the Fockers is not quite as good as its predecessor, but it is still very enjoyable with some brilliant cast additions that make for great comedy.

Everything that was brilliant about the style of Meet the Parents is replicated in this sequel to great effect. Ben Stiller and De Niro are on fine form as expected, and the addition of Dustin Hoffman and Barbara Streisand is inspired. They were so fantastic and their characters so well written.

The plot is fun, although it feels slightly less fresh than Meet the Parent. This is my only real criticism. Some plot elements felt a bit repetitive of the first film. I mean there's only so much that can go wrong for this poor guy right?

Overall a very solid and enjoyable comedy sequel. A worthy successor to Meet the Parents.