The In-Laws

Hollywood is littered with bad remakes of great films. One wonders why studios even bother. The original with Peter Falk and Alan Arkin is one of the funniest films ever made. On the other hand this updated version lacks in so many ways. Albert brooks and Michael Douglas do have good chemistry but he script is not up to the challenge of reviving this classic. The first half of the movie is pretty good, slowly but surely goes downhill. There are some good moments but they are few and far between during the last half of the movie. The ending is just plain stupid. Too bad, it could have been a contender. Im glad I saw this on television instead of spending money at a movie theater. Otherwise I would be writing a more negative review.

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.

'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

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.

Judging by reviews in the press and the user comments here, this version of The In-Laws is a pale imitation of the 1979 classic with Peter Falk and Alan Arkin. I didn't find it so, this film has a lot of good laughs in it and some fine comic performances.

In his TCM tribute to his father Michael Douglas says that when he was starting out in the picture business he avoided taking roles as action heroes because he did not want comparison with his father. At this point though he's definitely not worried about that. The part that Michael Douglas plays, the CIA agent whose life prevents him from having any kind of home life that was done by Peter Falk in the original, I could easily see being done by Kirk Douglas in the Forties or Fifties.

Douglas's son Ryan Reynolds is going to marry Lindsay Thorne the daughter of a mild mannered podiatrist who has more phobias going on than Adrian Monk. But Albert Brooks as the podiatrist is just a little concerned about this mysterious father of the groom that keeps avoiding meeting. When Brooks and family eventually do meet Douglas, he bungles his way into a mission that Douglas is on. After that it's one wild ride from Chicago to Paris and back with both bad guys and the FBI trailing both.

The In-Laws has some very nice moments and the stars work well together. But the best performances are from David Suchet as the international arms trafficker who's gay and who Douglas convinces that Brooks is a regular Dirk Diggler. And the other great performance is from Candice Bergen who is Douglas's estranged wife and Reynolds mother. As she says she's the only one who really has her husband's number, but she's still crazy about him in certain ways.

This version of The In-Laws is an amusing comedy, a worthy next century successor to the original.