Wednesday, October 2, 2013

The In-Laws (1979) / The In-Laws (2003) (Double Feature)



The In-Laws
Both versions are great and worth comparing. I remembered the first version with Alan Arkin & Peter Falk from years ago when I first enjoyed seeing that movie, and was equally impressed with the new version with Michael Douglas & Albert Brooks where the storyline has been brought up to modern day. David Suchet (from the Poirot series) is fantastic as the villain.

Movies don't all have to have "lessons" or deep meanings!
A good movie is a like a good book, a means to escape. The older I get, the more I enjoy watching something that is just plain funny. I don't want to be sad, I don't want to have to concentrate on a movie with a lot of metaphors and hidden meanings. I don't want murders, rapes, heart breaks or pain and suffering. Sometimes it's fun to watch a movie that is just pure entertainment and THE IN-LAWS fits the bill. Michael Douglas and Albert Brooks play the fathers of a couple who are about to be married. The only problem is that the dull, neurotic, germ obsessed, fanny pack wearing foot doctor becomes involved with CIA agent Douglas's secret life. Here begin laughs that don't stop until the movie is over. In fact, I laughed until I cried and trust me, it is wonderful to be that happy! What an escape!

Quality remake.... of "Meet the Parents"
Why? Why why why?

Well, there are positives to get out of the way first. Albert Brooks is an inspired choice to recreate Alan Arkin's role from the original "In-Laws". He brings to every movie a fully-formed nebbish ready to let loose 6 or 7 really memorable zingers, and this was no exception. Michael Douglas has played a very wide range of stock characters, if not necessarily deep. And the original "In-Laws" certainly wasn't technically perfect: it suffered from atrocious film editing. Why not spruce it up with some CGI submarines, more expansive stunt sequences, and a Paul McCartney soundtrack?

Most of the changes in the remake, however, don't make sense. Brooks is playing a Chicago podiatrist, not a Manhattan dentist. Michael Douglas has been saddled with a female sidekick, the likes of which Peter Falk didn't need. There's considerable more emphasis placed on Brooks's daughter and Douglas's son... so they can argue at length about his pre-marital flings. Candice...

Click to Editorial Reviews

No comments:

Post a Comment