Espion mais pas trop!

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.

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

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.

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.

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