Film Feedback
New This WeekAround TownMusicFilmArtTheaterNews & FeaturesFood & DrinkAstrology
  HOME
NEW THIS WEEK
EDITORS' PICKS
LISTINGS
NEWS & FEATURES
MUSIC
FILM
ART
BOOKS
THEATER
DANCE
TELEVISION
FOOD & DRINK
ARCHIVES
LETTERS
PERSONALS
CLASSIFIEDS
ADULT
ASTROLOGY
PHOENIX FORUM DOWNLOAD MP3s

  E-Mail This Article to a Friend
THE IN-LAWS

There’s so much wrong with this remake, but it’s easy to know where to start: Albert Brooks climbing out of a hot tub wearing a thong. Throughout Andrew Fleming’s film, Brooks is asked to carry the comic load and do his whiny shtick. But here’s the problem: Brooks’s character should be the straight man. In the original 1979 incarnation of The In-Laws, Alan Arkin plays a normal, well-respected New York dentist whose daughter is about to be married. He becomes, against his will, involved in a counterfeit money scheme cooked up by his future son-in-law’s father, a CIA agent — though he may be rogue — played by Peter Falk. You empathize with Arkin as he’s driven crazy because you can see yourself in his shoes, but it’s also hard to resist the crusty, lovable Falk.

The story’s pretty much the same in the remake, though only the most neurotic will relate to Brooks (who isn’t a dentist but an oh-so-much-wackier podiatrist). Michael Douglas, as the CIA agent, is more smarm than charm, and for some bizarre reason Fleming turns much of film into a lame action flick. Tack on a villain who is — get ready to laugh — a homosexual and you’ve got one great insult to a classic comedy. (95 minutes)

BY MARK BAZER

Issue Date: May 23 - 29, 2003
Back to the Movies table of contents.
  E-Mail This Article to a Friend

home | feedback | about the phoenix | find the phoenix | advertising info | privacy policy | the masthead | work for us

 © 2003 Phoenix Media Communications Group