Até que os Parentes nos Separem

A new "odd couple" is born with a new spy-film twist.

Michael Douglas is Stephen Tobias, a rugged deep-cover CIA agent, who focuses more on his work that his life with his son, Mark (Ryan Reynolds) or his now ex-wife, Judy (Candice Bergen).

It turns out that Mark is about to get married to beautiful Melissa (Lindsay Sloane) but has yet to meet Mark's parents. Mark assures her that is a good thing. But Melissa's parents, Jerry (Albert Brooks) and Katherine (Maria Ricossa) insist on meeting at least Mark's father.

During the first meeting between Mark's father and Melissa's parents, mild-mannered foot-doctor Jerry stumbles in on one of Stephen's spy plans and finds himself swept up in Stephen's mess on the eve of his daughter's nuptials. How will this revelation effect the up-coming marriage and will the two fathers live long enough to get back to the wedding?

"The In-Laws" is one of the biggest surprises I have seen this year. I never thought in a million years that this film would be as funny as it is. The odd pairing of Brooks and Douglas pays off tenfold. Their odd pairing and hilarious antics made me think some of the classic film, "The Odd Couple". The film also reminded me a little of the 80s comedy, "Real Men" because of its off-beat way of bringing the audience into the story.

Brooks hasn't been this funny in years. His neurotic schtick, which is probably more famous when played by Woody Allen, gives his character such innocence. There were so many priceless moments involving Brooks and how he relates to the spy-world.

Douglas seems to have journeyed back to his Jack Colton character, which he played in "Romancing the Stone". There is definitely some of Colton in Tobias. You can really see it when Douglas allows Tobias to put his guard down. That was always the funniest part of Colton and it is the same for Tobias.

Another great thing about this film is the caliber of people who are in the cast. You have some great upcoming comedy actors like Reynolds and Sloane and on the other side veterans like Bergen and Brooks. I wanted to see more of Reynolds since he is such a great comedic find. I have high expectations for that guy. I also really enjoyed Sloane when she was in the short-lived WB series, "Grosse Pointe". I so miss that series. She to has a great potential to be more if given the chance in comedy.

This film knows where its strengths are and it continues the laughs over and over. I just wish we could have had more time with the supporting cast.

The film also has some interesting uses of music in its soundtrack. For instance the opening scenes involving Michael Douglas escaping from one of his spy missions involves a great car chase and a gun battle but the whole scene's overture is accented by Paul McCartney's infamous James Bond theme, "Live & Let Die". It is a great addition as it seems to help build the spy feeling of the scene. Throughout the film there are interesting musical additions, which help put interesting slants and accents on the various scenes.

"The In-Laws" was such a surprise and is by far the funniest movie I have seen this year, thus far. (4 out of 5) So Says the Soothsayer.

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.

'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

I wasnt excepting a good movie after seeing it flop and the boxoffice and hearing the reviews that people saying about the movie. But I personally loved it. Its a cute little movie that deserves much more credit then it got. I recommend this movie to everyone. I give this 4/5 stars

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.