Just absolutely awful and embarrassing for all involved, in a "deer caught in the headlights" sort of way. "Monster-in-law" would be cheese even if it had been developed as a single episode of sitcom, and drawn out to a feature length movie, it's unbearable...crude, cruel, dumb, and of course worst of all -- unfunny.
The minimal thrust of the plot is to create a diva cat-fight between 70-ish Jane Fonda (still beautiful, but subjected here to many very unkind closeups) and 35-ish Jennifer Lopez....the pleasure intended to be seeing them slap each other, poison each other with drugs and otherwise create mayhem. Unfortunately, the two actresses have absolutely zero chemistry with each other, so the film fails around desperately trying to find something (anything!) that's funny...landing on poor Wanda Sykes, who is reduced to doing Amos 'N Andy-type of "black sidekick" shtick. What IS Ms. Sykes character in relation to Jane Fonda (Viola)? She seems more like a slave than a personal assistant, and why does the unemployed Viola require a personal assistant anyways?
J-Lo plays Charlie, who is repeatedly called a "temp" (as if that was a really dirty word, like N____r) when in fact she actually has a number of permanent part-time jobs, which is not the definition of "temp" at all. For reasons that bewilder me, Charlie is supposedly Italian in heritage, when Ms. Lopez is very clearly a Latina: given how common Hispanics are in Southern California, what the heck is going on with this? The movie sucks any energy inherent in the very real racism that DOES exist today, but claiming that Viola hates Charlie for being a temp, when it's perfectly obvious to anyone with eyes that her hatred is racist in character.
It's tempting to say that Ms. Lopez is miscast, but that would be disregarding her last dozen films where she was also miscast. Frankly, she's a very attractive woman who simply has no acting talent whatsoever. She has a thin, whiny voice and is entirely incapable of doing comedy, or even of being the "straight man". What she IS, is a diva...a very beautiful woman, heavily made-up and in stunning designer clothes and elaborate jewelry....the antithesis of the supposed heroine Charlie, who we are to believe is a simple down-to-earth girl. The contrast is entirely confusing and confounds the plot or any attempt at humor. J-Lo is NOT down-to-earth...she is constantly posing, she is entirely artificial. The fantasy that she is still "Jenny from the Block" is appalling and untrue. Furthermore, at 35-ish, she is really too old for this kind of ingénue part -- no way this powerful, glamorous diva is gonna be innocent or naive.
The rest of the cast gets so little attention from the script it's hard to even comment on them. Michael Vartann (Alias) is becoming the go-to guy for parts requiring "perfect boyfriends", but he's too hip looking to convince as a surgeon (a surgeon with stubble? hopefully not in my operating room) and so wimpy here that you could easily be convinced that he is gay. Charlie is surrounded by the usual friends: a gay man and a "less pretty" female friend (Annie Parisse, given nothing to do, but having an incredible resemblance to Paula Prentiss).
The film is set in a fantasy world where a young surgeon barely finished with his residency can afford to set up housekeeping in a Green & Greene Arts & Crafts mansion, and where a TV personality lives on a estate that looks like Versailles. Entirely disconnected from any kind of humanity or realism that the audience can identify with, there is almost nothing for the script to draw humor or energy from.
In any truly bad movie, the culprit is nearly always the script. BAD WRITING, people. How does Hollywood get away with this? How can rich powerful stars like Jane Fonda and Jennifer Lopez agree to perform in such drivel? Do they have no standards? No embarrassment? No SHAME????
The minimal thrust of the plot is to create a diva cat-fight between 70-ish Jane Fonda (still beautiful, but subjected here to many very unkind closeups) and 35-ish Jennifer Lopez....the pleasure intended to be seeing them slap each other, poison each other with drugs and otherwise create mayhem. Unfortunately, the two actresses have absolutely zero chemistry with each other, so the film fails around desperately trying to find something (anything!) that's funny...landing on poor Wanda Sykes, who is reduced to doing Amos 'N Andy-type of "black sidekick" shtick. What IS Ms. Sykes character in relation to Jane Fonda (Viola)? She seems more like a slave than a personal assistant, and why does the unemployed Viola require a personal assistant anyways?
J-Lo plays Charlie, who is repeatedly called a "temp" (as if that was a really dirty word, like N____r) when in fact she actually has a number of permanent part-time jobs, which is not the definition of "temp" at all. For reasons that bewilder me, Charlie is supposedly Italian in heritage, when Ms. Lopez is very clearly a Latina: given how common Hispanics are in Southern California, what the heck is going on with this? The movie sucks any energy inherent in the very real racism that DOES exist today, but claiming that Viola hates Charlie for being a temp, when it's perfectly obvious to anyone with eyes that her hatred is racist in character.
It's tempting to say that Ms. Lopez is miscast, but that would be disregarding her last dozen films where she was also miscast. Frankly, she's a very attractive woman who simply has no acting talent whatsoever. She has a thin, whiny voice and is entirely incapable of doing comedy, or even of being the "straight man". What she IS, is a diva...a very beautiful woman, heavily made-up and in stunning designer clothes and elaborate jewelry....the antithesis of the supposed heroine Charlie, who we are to believe is a simple down-to-earth girl. The contrast is entirely confusing and confounds the plot or any attempt at humor. J-Lo is NOT down-to-earth...she is constantly posing, she is entirely artificial. The fantasy that she is still "Jenny from the Block" is appalling and untrue. Furthermore, at 35-ish, she is really too old for this kind of ingénue part -- no way this powerful, glamorous diva is gonna be innocent or naive.
The rest of the cast gets so little attention from the script it's hard to even comment on them. Michael Vartann (Alias) is becoming the go-to guy for parts requiring "perfect boyfriends", but he's too hip looking to convince as a surgeon (a surgeon with stubble? hopefully not in my operating room) and so wimpy here that you could easily be convinced that he is gay. Charlie is surrounded by the usual friends: a gay man and a "less pretty" female friend (Annie Parisse, given nothing to do, but having an incredible resemblance to Paula Prentiss).
The film is set in a fantasy world where a young surgeon barely finished with his residency can afford to set up housekeeping in a Green & Greene Arts & Crafts mansion, and where a TV personality lives on a estate that looks like Versailles. Entirely disconnected from any kind of humanity or realism that the audience can identify with, there is almost nothing for the script to draw humor or energy from.
In any truly bad movie, the culprit is nearly always the script. BAD WRITING, people. How does Hollywood get away with this? How can rich powerful stars like Jane Fonda and Jennifer Lopez agree to perform in such drivel? Do they have no standards? No embarrassment? No SHAME????