Release Date: May 23, 2003
Starring: Michael Douglas, Albert Brooks, Ryan Reynolds, Lindsay Sloane, Robin Tunney, Candice Bergen
Directed by: Andrew Flemming
Written by: Nat Mauldin, Ed Solomon
Distributed by: Warner Brothers
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (suggestive humor, language, some drug references, action violence)
Originally titled The Wedding Party, this remake of the 1979 film The In-Laws is one of those movies you laugh at mostly out of sympathy. It borrows the same concept as its predecessor, which starred Peter Falk and Alan Arkin, but it goes in too many directions at once, resulting in a case of careless filmmaking rather than mindful entertainment. Nothing, then, is worth taking seriously, and though that works for some comedies, the characters and premise in Andrew Flemming’s version of The In-Laws require more than half-wit humor and a greatly mishandled screenplay.
In short, director Flemming and his pair of screenwriters (whose previous credits include Doctor Dolittle and Charlie’s Angels) either couldn’t agree on a solid storyline or they didn’t even bother trying. This lack of effort is obvious immediately, when we see a quick establishing shot of a high-tech submarine off the coast of Canada that lasts only long enough for us to read the subtitle -- and it's never seen again. Then, there’s an abrupt cut to Prague, where deep cover CIA agent Steve Tobias (Michael Douglas) is working on getting himself out of trouble with a group of unidentified European thugs. That scene is followed by a mildly exciting chase sequence which cleverly uses Paul McCartney’s song “Live and Let Die” to set the mood.
This moment alone sums up The In-Laws, in that it might make you smile, or maybe even tap your foot to the soundtrack, but there’s little to care about. And most certainly, there are far better things you could be doing with your time.
Albert Brooks (who appears for the first time in a film in wide release since 1999’s The Muse) plays Jerry Peyser, a mind-mannered but neurotic pediatrist who is about to see his daughter (Lindsay Sloane) get married. He hasn’t yet met his future in-laws, however, because his son-in-law’s father, Steve Tobias (the aforementioned CIA agent played by Douglas), can never seem to keep a dinner date. But when Tobias finally shows up, Jerry certainly wishes he hadn’t met him at all because literally everything afterward involves a dangerous and overly elaborate scheme that Jerry, for some reason, can’t seem to avoid.
Think The Odd Couple meets Mission: Impossible, but without the comedic creativity of the former nor the ingenious intricacies of the latter. The sole purpose of every page of The In-Laws screenplay is to set up a later joke or gimmick that doesn’t even work when the punch line finally arrives. Brooks and Douglas have amusing chemistry together, but very little of what they’re scripted to do allows them to make use of their comedic talents. Instead, the vast majority of the movie is a source of embarassment, particularly for Brooks, whose character, at one point, is even forced to wear a speedo and flirt with a sexually unstable crime lord in a hot tub. On the bright side, Brooks plays the unhappy role well, though he shouldn’t have put up with this much, both as an actor and as a fictional neurotic.
Had everything not been so contrived and mindless, the movie could have been as charming and exciting as it wanted to be. This is exactly what happens, though, when not enough time is spent on the writing. With the way the film is, every scene and line might as well have been improvised on set. Poor filmmaking like this is especially noticeable when the movie is a remake or an adaptation, because with the basic material already provided to them, the writers should have no excuse for such subpar work. The 1979 In-Laws certainly didn’t become a clut classic with such silliness.
Fans of the original will be especially disappointed, and those unsuspecting customers hoping for the Odd Couple/Mission: Impossible mix that the movie advertises itself as won't be far behind. In fact, The In-Laws is hardly half as good as those movies, so, in essence, it’s a failure all the way around.
-- Andy Zientek (zfilm@earthlink.net)