Mon beau-père, mes parents et moi

Just as good the original, in my opinion. Any sequel-slack was ironed out with Dustin Hoffman's sidesplitting performance. I'm really surprised to see so many people find this an unworthy sequel... it's more of what made the original funny with just enough additions to keep it fresh.

After convincing his fiancée's parents to allow them to marry, Greg Focker (Ben Stiller) now has to deal with what happens when her ex-CIA father Jack Byrnes (Robert De Niro) meets his own wacky ex-hippy parents, played by Dustin Hoffman and Barbara Streisand.

I really wanted to see this film when it was first announced. The original was very funny and it had a great repeat value. However, the reviews started coming in and they were all negative so I was a little discouraged. I still went to see it and it turned out to be very funny. The critics really need to lighten up since they turned away a fine comedy. Sure, some of the gags are old and tired but they still work. They use a lot of "Focker" jokes and of male nurse jokes sob that kind of got annoying but it wasn't an overload either. The story is pretty much the same as the first one except now Greg's parents are thrown into the mix and nothing ever goes right. The writers came up with a bunch of different, funny situations and some of them were recycled while others were new.

The cast is great and they help move the film along nicely. The best was clearly Dustin Hoffman as Greg's dad. He was hilarious and fun to watch on screen. Ben Stiller was okay but his uptight character role is kind of getting annoying. Robert De Niro also gives a funny performance and he is now forgiven for appearing in Godsend. Barbara Streisand was surprisingly funny and bearable. I usually cannot stand her but she was alright in the movie. Blythe Danner gives a decent performance, nothing really special. Teri Polo was the only miscast in the movie. She just didn't fit or look well next to Hoffman, Stiller and De Niro. Owen Wilson makes a cameo and it was decent, a little unnecessary though.

Jay Roach directs and he does a good job with the movie though it was a little too long. 115 minutes is kind of long for a comedy and because of the long running time, the film starts to bore around the end. They should have taken some things out to keep the film shorter and interesting. I also didn't like the character little Jack. He was the grandson of Jack (De Niro) and he was very annoying. The addition of the baby character was unnecessary and it kind of brought the film down. Compared to the original, the first one is funnier and more enjoyable. The second one is still pretty funny but it doesn't have a good repeat value. However, the film is still worth checking out in theaters. In the end, please ignore the critics and check this film out in theaters. Rating 7/10

'Meet The Fockers (2004)' may be similar in premise to its predecessor, but it feels distinct enough to work as a sequel and is the natural extension of the series' core concept. Pitting in-laws against in-laws is a solid idea, especially when you have a cast as good as this. I mean, who doesn't want to see De Niro get body slammed by Hoffman? The picture is a good time throughout. It amps up the slapstick ever-so-slightly but it still remains relatively grounded and relatable. It's properly funny, too; it may actually be funnier than the first flick. Overall, it's a solid comedy with memorable characters and classic comedic beats. It's really enjoyable. 7/10

I beg to disagree with most of the critics on this one. I actually liked this movie a little better than 'Meet the Parents', and it is very rare for me to prefer a sequel to the original. There was some good acting in this movie, which is no wonder given the caliber of the cast. Make no mistake, this was definitely not a masterpiece, the script could have been better and the last 20 minutes of the film are a little overdone and cheesy, but all in all a decent, entertaining movie.

One thing I found to be a little disturbing about this film is the message it sends, especially to the younger audience: 'It is wrong to be straight, to have strong principles and self-discipline (the Byrnes), whereas it is proper to have no inhibitions, no discipline, no job (somehow everybody is rich anyway) and the world is just a happy merry-go-round (the Fockers). Even coming from liberal Hollywood, this is still wrong.

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.