The In-Laws (Full Screen Edition)

Rating:
Summary: totally ridiculous but still watchable
Review: ridiculous from the very beginning to the very end, but, well, still watchable. michael douglas still got some kind respectful energy to the viewers, 100 times better than what harrison ford shown in one of the most pathetic and worst movies, 'hollywood homicide'. if compare these two actors, ford is like a old guy trying very hard but fatally made a joke to himself, while douglas is like a never-become-too-old, always energetic and alive person, and he could always find fun in playing what he is supposed to play.

Rating:
Summary: This is a terrible DVD....
Review: Seeing Warner Brothers movies at the theater is often better then when they come to DVD. This DVD is just awful in that it's bonus features are really bad. You have a Director's commetery spoken by a man who sounds like he forgot why he made the movie, multiple takes with Albert Brooks that look corny, and a blooper reel full of not so funny scenes. There are also deleted/alternate scenes that should have been left on the cutting room floor. I know Warners has cheap DVD standards,but this is ridicious.

Rating:
Summary: This is a terrible DVD....
Review: Seeing Warner Brothers movies at the theater is often better then when they come to DVD. This DVD is just awful in that it's bonus features are really bad. You have a Director's commetery spoken by a man who sounds like he forgot why he made the movie, multiple takes with Albert Brooks that look corny, and a blooper reel full of not so funny scenes. There are also deleted/alternate scenes that should have been left on the cutting room floor. I know Warners has cheap DVD standards,but this is ridicious.

Rating:
Summary: Uneven Steven Hurts Remake
Review: Since Hollywood seems to be running out of ideas for original movie plots, I have a feeling that more updated remakes like 2003's The In Laws, are in the offing. If the film being remade is already a classic, then the update has a lot to live up to, and I'm always leary...I am a fan of the 1979 version of this film, starring Peter Falk and Alan Arkin, after watching the new film--I find myself disappointed

The Peyser and Tobias families are about to come together and celebrate the wedding of Mark (Ryan Reynolds)and Melissa (Lindsay Sloane). Little does the loving couple realize that their fathers are about to make their special day truly unforgettable. It seems that Mark's Dad Steve (Michael Douglas), is really an undercover CIA Agent, involved in a mission concerning illeagal weapons. Through a series of mishaps, the bride's father, Podiatrist Jerry (Albert Brooks) finds himself Steve's reluctant partner, helping him with the mission.

Director Andrew Flemming has big shoes to fill. For the most part, things turn out fair at best. A big problem I think is that Douglas is obviously miscast in the Falk role. Thankfully, Brooks is up to taking over for Arkin, and makes things watchable. The rest of the cast has their moments, especially Candice Begen, as Douglas's ex wife. The script is very predictable and the vital chemistry between the two men is forced and all one sided. As good as Brooks is--Douglas seems like he is out of step--therefore they don't hold a candle to Falk and Arkin.

The extras on the DVD are not really all that great. The only saving grace is the audio ommentary by Fleming. He, like Brooks is for the film is the one bright spot amid sub par material. The "hilarious" gag reel, "zany" additional scenes, and "riotous" sequences with Brooks don't really live up to any of those three adjectives. The theatrical trailers round out the laugh filled extras and the disc.

If you are a fan of Brooks, then by all means rent this version. But if you want to see what started it all, the far superior original is a better way to go.

Rating:
Summary: With In-Laws like These You Don't Need Enemies
Review: The best thing about the movie is Albert Brooks. He is hilarious. However the plot of the movie is so far-gone. It is unbelievable. The other characters were just there didn't add anything to the movie. Get In-Laws with Peter Falk instead.

Rating:
Summary: Utterly Horrible
Review: The original is one of the funniest movies ever made. This thing is simply pathetic. Laughably bad script and terrible performances from some usually good actors. There is nothing funny in this waste of time. I rank it with "Under the Tuscan Sun" as the worst movies I have seen in years.

Rating:
Summary: Innocuous. That's about it.
Review: There isn't much to say about this movie. I haven't seen the original that it is based on, so I can only write about what I have watched.

It's an okay movie. There's only a couple of funny scenes. Most of it is pretty bland material, and it is probably one of the most predictable movies that has ever been made.

(No way will you guess this, but everybody learns a valuable lesson... No way will you guess, but the groom learns about honesty and why it's important...)

Plus, I found the bride and groom characters to be extremely irritating. I can't explain why, exactly, and it may just be my personality reacting to them, but they seem to be rather obnoxious people.

However, in spite of being a dull and lifeless comedy, there are good points. The direction is agreeable and the special effects / sets are pretty good. About half of the actors do a good job, with Albert Brooks stealing the show completely.

And, even if it isn't hilarious, it isn't painful to watch. The jokes aren't stupid or offensive, they're just not particularly funny (At least, not to me). This is good news, because it means that no matter who you are, you can at least give the movie a chance without being shocked by any nasty surprises or crude humor. You may not laugh, but, hey... like I said, "Innocuous."

VIOLENT CONTENT - Some punches and kicks, people point guns at each other a lot, some slapsticky humor. There's no blood. Saturday morning cartoons have more violence within two minutes than this movie has in its entirity.

LANGUAGE CONTENT - Not much. I think they say the "F word" once, there's a couple of the "S word." Scattered language throughout that doesn't amount to a whole lot.

NUDITY / SEXUAL CONTENT - Almost nothing. The only thing close is a brief monologue by Candice Bergen's character about how she had great sex with her ex-husband. There is one shot of Brooks in a thong, but it's fleeting. I think it was actually in the trailer of the movie...

Rating:
Summary: Not too exciting
Review: There was one laugh-out-loud scene but other than that, I did not find this movie to exciting or interesting. This movie more reminds me of "Meet the Parents" instead of the original In-laws that this movie was based on. The only thing better than the original was how they gave more attention to the children being married than the two in-laws.

The performance which I thought was good was Albert Brooks (I'm sorry, Douglas does not belong in comedy roles... when will Hollywood learn). He was fun to watch as a neurotic foot doctor learning how to live more fully thanks to the life style of Michael Douglas' character.

In the end, I would not recommend this movie. I'm sure I could have been doing something more productive during the length of this movie... like housework.

Rating:
Summary: Light & funny
Review: This is a light movie that doesn't require much thinking. So if you are in a mood to watch something fun with your family this is good.

It's about an under cover agent (Micheal Douglas) trying to catch the man who wants to buy a highly advanced undetectable submarine. While at the same time meeting his son's future in-laws & attending the wedding. He ends up involving his son's father in-law in the mission & there the comedy begins. Not much explanation goes into the spy/ submarine story, so it's a bit dissapoining there.

All in all enjoyable but not memorable.

Rating:
Summary: Fun But Defintely Not Alan Arkin And Peter Falk
Review: This is a light, breezy comedy which is a remake of the 1979 film of the same name. Albert Brooks is Jerry Peyser, a Chicago podiatrist (Alan Arkin was a NYC dentist) and Michael Douglas (Steve Tobias) reprises Peter Falk's role as a deepcover CIA agent. The basic plot remains unchanged - as the wedding of their children approaches the unsuspecting father of the bride (Jerry) is drafted into duty to help the undercover agent (Steve) who is involved in a high priority attempt to foil an outlandish plot. The original film relied on the cleverness of the plot and the dry comedic talents of Falk and Arkin combined with the chemistry between them which developed on the screen. In contrast, technology is at the heart of agent Tobias' modus operandi in this film, and the action is much faster paced than in the original.

There are enough funny lines (with a few really hilarious sequences) and the pace is fast enough to make the film enjoyable light entertainment. Candice Bergen as Tobias' ex, supposedly mellowed through her conversion to mediation but in reality still extremely agitated by him, and especially the wonderful David Suchet as a gay arms dealer also provide some all too brief comic highlights. If you have seen the trailers or even just the TV ads, this is one film where they accurately represent its nature. So, if you have already seen the very highly recommended BEND IT LIKE BECKHAM (5 stars) and BRUCE ALMIGHTY (4 stars) and are looking for a reasonably funny comedy with no underlying message requiring any thought at all, this will provide a couple hours of entertainment.