Review of The In-Laws

The In-Laws (I) (2003)
1/10
The reason that remakes should NOT be made
29 May 2003
This was a great movie, humorous, well thought out, complex plot that required you to pay attention which kept you guessing until (almost) the ending credits, and, most importantly - it was very funny. Extremely funny. (That's my review of the original movie with Alan Arkin and Peter Falk.)

HOWEVER - this horrible remake is the exact opposite. It's boring, it's slow, it's not funny (well, actually Albert Brooks is funny in this, but, in spite of Brooks, this is a bomb), it has a simple plot, it has lots of special computer generated effects that detract from what little plot and sparse humor there is. This is analogous to comparing the original `Out of Towners' with the remake. The original movie is a classic, the remake is absolutely and without question, a bomb, a dud, a failure, a fiasco - in short, don't waste your time or money (I'll repeat this again later).

I guess the only good thing I can say about this remake of `The In-laws' is that it gave the studio the incentive to finally release the original Arkin/Falk gem on DVD. For that fact alone I am grateful, I suppose, to this remake. But don't waste your money or your time on seeing this remake, spend that money on a copy (DVD) of the original and you'll be forever grateful that you did. If you go to the theater and watch this, and you'll be sorry.

It really pains me to trash a movie with Albert Brooks - I generally love most of the movies that Albert Brooks is in. But in this case, it is very apparent that he had nothing to do with the production other than to star in this.
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed