Despite all the garbage reviews slating JLo for her performance, the movie is actually fun! Since when was JLo tryna be the next Meryl people? All the sit at home critics need to pipe down and take this movie for what it is: light, silly fun that ain't trying to win no Oscars. Especially enjoyed Wanda Sykes and her chemistry with Jane was perfect.
273 Reviews
The Return of Fonda!
anaconda-406589 June 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Monster-in-Law (2005): Dir: Robert Luketic / Cast: Jennifer Lopez, Jane Fonda, Michael Vartan, Wanda Sykes, Adam Scott: Emphasis seems to regard expectations. Jane Fonda returns to the screen after a fifteen year absence and plays a successful talk show host who is replaced by a younger woman. This has a bad affect on her sanity until her son arrives home with his girlfriend and announces their engagement. From there Fonda tries to sabotage the relationship until his fiancé retaliates. Typical setup follows formula faithfully until arriving exactly where we expect it too. Directed by Robert Luketic who previously made the underrated Win a Date With Tad Hamilton as well as the overrated Legally Blonde. Fonda is a welcome sight as she aids her frustration with alcohol, and Lopez plays a worthy target for her rage but they are reduced to a back and forth battle where one struggles to out scheme the other. Supporting roles unfortunately do not measure up. Michael Vartan as Fonda's son is flat. He is basically a prop that shakes his finger in their faces in the conclusion then telling them to kiss and make up. Wanda Sykes as Fonda's adviser has the best lines but the role is flat and uninteresting. Theme addresses close ties of parents and the inability to accept change within relationships in fear of losing touch. To bad someone didn't lose the script. Score: 6 / 10
The Legend And The Temp
wlawson6015 May 2006
I had such a thrill watching the unsinkable Jane Fonda making a wonderful fool of herself that I've actually saw it twice. The second time with my thumb on the fast forward. I've watched Jane's Viola interview that Brittany Spears clone many, many times. It's outrageously close to the knuckle and Fonda goes for it, body and soul. The problem resides elsewhere. I hope Jennifer Lopez has someone around her who can tell her the truth. She is so bad that the film can't recover from the heaviness of her romantic turns. She is the iceberg to this particular titanic. There is not a moment of sincerity in her entire performance and the fact that she is standing opposite one of the most truthful of actresses in the history of acting makes her appearance all the more jarring. Jane please, gives as more, Jennifer, go back to school.
Fun and delightful
Gordon-1122 July 2007
This film is about the tug of war between a mother who cannot bear losing her son through marriage, and the daughter in law who does not give in to the mother's manipulative behaviour.
The pacing is quite fast for a romantic comedy, as it squeezes in a romantic comedy in the first half and hour and then the tug of war in the last hour. The psychological games they play are clever and fun. Though there is clear rivalry between Charlie and Viola, it is still conveyed in a light hearted and fun way without hatred or malice. It brings out a great message that differences can eventually be solved through honest communication. I find this film fun and delightful.
The pacing is quite fast for a romantic comedy, as it squeezes in a romantic comedy in the first half and hour and then the tug of war in the last hour. The psychological games they play are clever and fun. Though there is clear rivalry between Charlie and Viola, it is still conveyed in a light hearted and fun way without hatred or malice. It brings out a great message that differences can eventually be solved through honest communication. I find this film fun and delightful.
The Fabulous Jane Fonda And The Dog Walker
arichmondfwc30 January 2006
Everyone I know went to see "Monster In Law" for Jane Fonda and in spite of J Lo. If you go with that spirit, you just may have a reasonable good time. I hadn't realized how much I missed Jane Fonda and how wonderful she is, she was she will always be. The film in itself is just too terrible for words. A showdown between a possessive mother and a dog walker. The script is unbelievable bad and the aforementioned Jennifer Lopez is, poor thing, atrocious. She has the lightness of an elephant and the charm of a blank page but, look at the billing...Jennifer Lopez right on top, above Jane Fonda. Ridiculous isn't it? But that's what, I imagine, marketing people decide. What a shame. If I had been Miss Lopez, I would have used my power to demand that Jane Fonda's name should appear above mine. I know, I live in a fantasy world of respect and, if nothing else, good manners. The film may turn out to be useful as a teaching tool. To show both actresses together for a how to and how not to. I'm sure Jennifer Lopez must have been told by someone that she has to cultivate her craft. Her voice, goodness! A jarring, shrilling clash of tonsils and nasal sounds. Too late to play cute, virginal girls. A dog walker indeed!
Love JLo and Fonda!
Calicodreamin7 February 2020
I've always enjoyed watching this movie, it's pure fun with a good ending. The perfect comedy to mindlessly pass an hour and a half. I think JLo and Fonda have good charisma and make have fun with the back and forth sparring. Wanda Sykes is hilarious and is so perfect in this role. Overall good fun, with decent acting and a decent storyline.
Hackneyed script sinks Fonda/Lopez film
Cliff72911 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I can visualize the pitch meeting for "Monster-in-Law": "It's a female version of "Meet the Parents," with Jennifer Lopez as Ben Stiller and Jane Fonda as Robert DeNiro!" And since neither of its stars has been burning up the box office latelyLopez hasn't had a big hit since The Wedding Planner, and Fonda's been off the big screen for 15 years--I can understand the appeal of a lightweight commercial vehicle. But did it have to be something THIS witless and unoriginal?
Monster-in-Law's opening scenes play out the like the pilot for a bad sitcom. Within the first 20 minutes, we've seen Lopez, as Charlotte "Charlie" Cantilini, handle multiple odd-jobs (including dog-walker, isn't THAT quirky), toured her movie-set-funky apartment, and met her obligatory offbeat friends (including, yes, the gay neighbor who enters her place without knocking). And just when it seems impossible for screenwriter Anya Kochoff to stack the clichés any higher, Charlie has not one, not two, but three Meet Cutes with hunky doctor Kevin Fields (Michael Vartan).True love blooms, Kevin proposes, Charlie accepts.
Enter Fonda as Kevin's mother Viola, a TV interviewer (think Barbara Walters on steroids) with problems of her ownin her first two scenes, she loses her job and has an on-camera meltdown while interviewing a Britney Spears-ish pop star. Presumably, this is to make Viola a tad sympathetic, a mother who has nothing going for her except her son, which makes her all the more neurotic at the prospect of "losing" him.
But even by comedy standards, it takes a huge suspension of disbelief to think Viola's career is overif Geraldo Rivera can work at network after network after all his gaffes, is there any doubt Viola would have a raft of job offers heading her way? And if Viola simply can't handle her son sharing his life with another woman, why does she keep trying to set him up with a catty former flame? (Lest the uber-Waspish Viola's campaign against Charlie be interpreted as racism, the filmmakers have cast Wanda Sykes as her assistant/confidante.)
The movie clunks and thumps from one comic set piece to the next, punctuated by a ham-handed score by David Newman which underscores every punchline and hijink with cues more suitable for a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Vartan does what little he can with the film's most thankless role, but Kochoff's script makes Kevin little more than a MacGuffin with abs, a device to get the plot rolling and nothing else. By the end of the film, Kevin seems so utterly clueless, it's a wonder either of the women in his life want anything to do with him. Sykes fares a bit betterunlike Vartan, her character at least has an inkling of what's going on.
The leading ladies certainly seem like good sportsFonda plops her face into a plate of tripe, Lopez makes a joke about her much-discussed derriereand every so often, they display enough star power to make us believe they're playing characters and not caricatures. The rest of the time, however, the actresses seem content to go through the motions and cash their checks. The starsand their fansdeserve better than this.
Monster-in-Law's opening scenes play out the like the pilot for a bad sitcom. Within the first 20 minutes, we've seen Lopez, as Charlotte "Charlie" Cantilini, handle multiple odd-jobs (including dog-walker, isn't THAT quirky), toured her movie-set-funky apartment, and met her obligatory offbeat friends (including, yes, the gay neighbor who enters her place without knocking). And just when it seems impossible for screenwriter Anya Kochoff to stack the clichés any higher, Charlie has not one, not two, but three Meet Cutes with hunky doctor Kevin Fields (Michael Vartan).True love blooms, Kevin proposes, Charlie accepts.
Enter Fonda as Kevin's mother Viola, a TV interviewer (think Barbara Walters on steroids) with problems of her ownin her first two scenes, she loses her job and has an on-camera meltdown while interviewing a Britney Spears-ish pop star. Presumably, this is to make Viola a tad sympathetic, a mother who has nothing going for her except her son, which makes her all the more neurotic at the prospect of "losing" him.
But even by comedy standards, it takes a huge suspension of disbelief to think Viola's career is overif Geraldo Rivera can work at network after network after all his gaffes, is there any doubt Viola would have a raft of job offers heading her way? And if Viola simply can't handle her son sharing his life with another woman, why does she keep trying to set him up with a catty former flame? (Lest the uber-Waspish Viola's campaign against Charlie be interpreted as racism, the filmmakers have cast Wanda Sykes as her assistant/confidante.)
The movie clunks and thumps from one comic set piece to the next, punctuated by a ham-handed score by David Newman which underscores every punchline and hijink with cues more suitable for a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Vartan does what little he can with the film's most thankless role, but Kochoff's script makes Kevin little more than a MacGuffin with abs, a device to get the plot rolling and nothing else. By the end of the film, Kevin seems so utterly clueless, it's a wonder either of the women in his life want anything to do with him. Sykes fares a bit betterunlike Vartan, her character at least has an inkling of what's going on.
The leading ladies certainly seem like good sportsFonda plops her face into a plate of tripe, Lopez makes a joke about her much-discussed derriereand every so often, they display enough star power to make us believe they're playing characters and not caricatures. The rest of the time, however, the actresses seem content to go through the motions and cash their checks. The starsand their fansdeserve better than this.
wedding silliness
ksf-213 April 2022
Jane and jen! Charlotte has found the perfect boyfriend, and starts planning the marriage. But the fiance comes with a controlling, overbearing, angry, stubborrn mother. Can they ever iron things out? Love the banter between the mom and her assistant... that's the best part. Some really fun co-stars... elaine stritch. Wanda sykes, who gets all the good one liners. The amazing jane fonda had already won two oscars, and this was probably a pretty lightweight role for her. Some funny bits, but very predictable. As soon as charlotte tells the mother in law what her allergies are.... we know what's coming next! The son refuses to believe his mother can be mean, and charlotte won't set her own boundaries. Directed by robert luketic. Story by anya kochoff, who also wrote the screenplay for mother's day...she has a lot to say about mothers.
Monstrously lame
pennshilvania16 October 2005
As a fan of Jane Fonda's acting, I was mildly interested in seeing this movie, her first in many years. I wish now that I hadn't wasted my time.
Granted, Jane Fonda is an asset to "Monster-in-Law." She brims with radiance and plays the Viola role with tremendous flair (although the psychosis of her character sometimes seems forced and exaggerated). My favorite scene, actually, is when she flies off the handle and tries to strangle a young singer whom she is interviewing on her talk show. There are a few moments where she effectively conveys the insecurity and desperation beneath Viola's nasty exterior. Nonetheless, even a brilliant actress cannot save a movie with such a weak script.
Take, for instance, the first few scenes, when Charlie and Kevin meet (in a most whimsical fashion, may I add). This introduction seems too drawn-out and ultimately worthless to the plot. I found myself mentally tuning out for the sake of my sanity.
Speaking of the two lovers, I'd be hard-pressed to name a more boring on-screen couple. J-Lo, as has been mentioned frequently on this site, comes across as too sweet and innocent and perfect throughout most of the movie. Simply put, she's annoying. I kept wishing they could have cast a more watchable actress. The Kevin character, also, has zero substance and is bland. He is like a prop that they casually drag into the movie whenever they need some filler between Charlie/Viola catfights.
Wanda Sykes, as Viola's assistant, is fairly comical and works much better with Jane Fonda than J-Lo does. Viola's mother-in-law also delivers her lines in an entertainingly caustic way. However, these two women do not have much screen time at all.
"Monster-in-Law" progresses as a string of loosely connected arguments. The result is tedious and mundane. There is no climax, really. If you've seen one spat between Charlie and Viola, you've seen them all. They spew petty insults...they seek revenge on each other...they go on to the next scene and repeat it all over again. It might be juicy if it weren't so repetitive, and if a different actress were squaring off against Jane Fonda, and if the dialogue weren't quite so stale.
The ending is literally an embarrassment. Oh, I won't give it away...except to say that I felt as if I were watching the end of a "Full House" episode. Yes folks, the music and lines are THAT corny and predictable. By the way, this is not a central plot point by any means, but Charlie's bridal gown is not particularly flattering. More like flattening. It makes her look as if she has no chest at all!
Anyhow, I would not recommend this fluffy, somewhat empty movie, which hardly evoked a laugh or even a smile from me. If you still want to see it, go ahead, but definitely don't expect too much. I saw this movie just a couple of hours ago and have already forgotten about most of it. Not that I'm complaining.
Granted, Jane Fonda is an asset to "Monster-in-Law." She brims with radiance and plays the Viola role with tremendous flair (although the psychosis of her character sometimes seems forced and exaggerated). My favorite scene, actually, is when she flies off the handle and tries to strangle a young singer whom she is interviewing on her talk show. There are a few moments where she effectively conveys the insecurity and desperation beneath Viola's nasty exterior. Nonetheless, even a brilliant actress cannot save a movie with such a weak script.
Take, for instance, the first few scenes, when Charlie and Kevin meet (in a most whimsical fashion, may I add). This introduction seems too drawn-out and ultimately worthless to the plot. I found myself mentally tuning out for the sake of my sanity.
Speaking of the two lovers, I'd be hard-pressed to name a more boring on-screen couple. J-Lo, as has been mentioned frequently on this site, comes across as too sweet and innocent and perfect throughout most of the movie. Simply put, she's annoying. I kept wishing they could have cast a more watchable actress. The Kevin character, also, has zero substance and is bland. He is like a prop that they casually drag into the movie whenever they need some filler between Charlie/Viola catfights.
Wanda Sykes, as Viola's assistant, is fairly comical and works much better with Jane Fonda than J-Lo does. Viola's mother-in-law also delivers her lines in an entertainingly caustic way. However, these two women do not have much screen time at all.
"Monster-in-Law" progresses as a string of loosely connected arguments. The result is tedious and mundane. There is no climax, really. If you've seen one spat between Charlie and Viola, you've seen them all. They spew petty insults...they seek revenge on each other...they go on to the next scene and repeat it all over again. It might be juicy if it weren't so repetitive, and if a different actress were squaring off against Jane Fonda, and if the dialogue weren't quite so stale.
The ending is literally an embarrassment. Oh, I won't give it away...except to say that I felt as if I were watching the end of a "Full House" episode. Yes folks, the music and lines are THAT corny and predictable. By the way, this is not a central plot point by any means, but Charlie's bridal gown is not particularly flattering. More like flattening. It makes her look as if she has no chest at all!
Anyhow, I would not recommend this fluffy, somewhat empty movie, which hardly evoked a laugh or even a smile from me. If you still want to see it, go ahead, but definitely don't expect too much. I saw this movie just a couple of hours ago and have already forgotten about most of it. Not that I'm complaining.
D@mn ain't that the truth.
lynchcaleb2 August 2021
Simply horrible
LilyDaleLady11 July 2005
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????
That's Entertainment
docm-323042 October 2020
Why such a low score
ruffrog22 August 2021
Jane Fonda's Bittersweet Return To The Screen
mpofarrell17 May 2005
Jane Fonda is one of the great stars in the Hollywood firmament. A beautiful woman and gifted actress, the motion picture camera has been an unflinching repository for her acting genius. Even in her lesser films Fonda always revealed a spark of creativity that often distinguished her from most of her acting contemporaries. With 6 Academy Award nominations to her credit and 2 Oscar wins for Best Actress, her legacy is firmly established. How sad it is then to report that her return to the screen after a 15 year hiatus is squandered on a wretchedly written, clumsily directed romantic comedy that is an embarrassment for not only Fonda but a talented supporting cast.
"Monster-in-Law" represents what seems to be an increasingly generic brand of comedy. Gone are the days of sharply observant romantic entertainments when writers knew where to throw in a bit of farce or add a dollop of cynicism. Directors such as Billy Wilder and Preston Sturges along with writers I.A.L. Diamond and Fay and Michael Kanin knew how to put an effective story together even if in hindsight the plausibility of the tale was suspect. Most contemporary movies are a completely different animal. Character motivation and good storytelling have been replaced by gross caricature and "connect-the-dots", formulaic writing that is as predictable as it is depressing.
"Monster-in-Law" takes many of its cues from an earlier Fonda comedy, the lamentable 1981 burlesque, "9 to 5". In that film three beleaguered secretaries wreak havoc on their sexist boss. The story was treated as pure farce and was marginally entertaining at best. There have been a score of "dumbed-down" comedies since. Unfortunately movie audiences seem easily pleased by this new comedy hybrid.
In "Monster-in-Law" Jane Fonda plays veteran television interviewer Viola Fields, a Diva from Hell who is determined to break up the impending marriage of her handsome, vacuous son (an L.A. surgeon) to Charlotte "Charlie" Cantilini (Jennifer Lopez), an office temp, part time caterer and dog walker. What starts out as only a mere semblance to reality quickly deteriorates into the most puerile farce imaginable soon after Viola makes her entrance. Viola is a psychotic mixture of brass balls and vulnerability and Ms. Fonda plays her to the hilt. Her star wattage is undeniable but this is not a particularly good performance. Most of the fault lies with Anya Kocheff's execrable screenplay and Robert Luketic's sledgehammer direction. Rationality is thrown out the window for the witless line and easy laugh. Only Wanda Sykes emerges relatively unscathed playing Viola's sarcastic assistant. Her Ruby is the one genuinely funny character in the movie. Otherwise "Monster-in-Law" is a mess and possibly the worst movie of Jane Fonda's career.
"Monster-in-Law" represents what seems to be an increasingly generic brand of comedy. Gone are the days of sharply observant romantic entertainments when writers knew where to throw in a bit of farce or add a dollop of cynicism. Directors such as Billy Wilder and Preston Sturges along with writers I.A.L. Diamond and Fay and Michael Kanin knew how to put an effective story together even if in hindsight the plausibility of the tale was suspect. Most contemporary movies are a completely different animal. Character motivation and good storytelling have been replaced by gross caricature and "connect-the-dots", formulaic writing that is as predictable as it is depressing.
"Monster-in-Law" takes many of its cues from an earlier Fonda comedy, the lamentable 1981 burlesque, "9 to 5". In that film three beleaguered secretaries wreak havoc on their sexist boss. The story was treated as pure farce and was marginally entertaining at best. There have been a score of "dumbed-down" comedies since. Unfortunately movie audiences seem easily pleased by this new comedy hybrid.
In "Monster-in-Law" Jane Fonda plays veteran television interviewer Viola Fields, a Diva from Hell who is determined to break up the impending marriage of her handsome, vacuous son (an L.A. surgeon) to Charlotte "Charlie" Cantilini (Jennifer Lopez), an office temp, part time caterer and dog walker. What starts out as only a mere semblance to reality quickly deteriorates into the most puerile farce imaginable soon after Viola makes her entrance. Viola is a psychotic mixture of brass balls and vulnerability and Ms. Fonda plays her to the hilt. Her star wattage is undeniable but this is not a particularly good performance. Most of the fault lies with Anya Kocheff's execrable screenplay and Robert Luketic's sledgehammer direction. Rationality is thrown out the window for the witless line and easy laugh. Only Wanda Sykes emerges relatively unscathed playing Viola's sarcastic assistant. Her Ruby is the one genuinely funny character in the movie. Otherwise "Monster-in-Law" is a mess and possibly the worst movie of Jane Fonda's career.
Great another cliché. Just what we all need
mch2k4 May 2005
MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS
Okay, so right off the bat I have to say that Monster In Law is bad. It's really dumb, cliché ridden, and common. It's not Showgirls bad but it is mediocre and I think I've had quite enough of mediocrity. I know many of you out there might be saying: "well what do you expect, Citizen Kane". Well, yes I do. At least the "Citizen Kane" of modern romantic comedies. Hell, I'll take an attempt at something unique or original; but to be honest I'm sick of settling and forgiving these films for their lack of creativity just because these movies are charming.
Set in the near future a space alien steals the DNA of just kidding. Monster in Law is the story of the nicest girl ON THE PLANET (Jennifer Lopez) who meets the perfect man (Michael Vartan). When I say perfect I mean the dude is perfect; he's a surgeon, you see, and every time someone on his operating table dies he yells: "It just doesn't get any easier!!!" No, I'm kidding again. He is a surgeon, yes, but he's perfect so no one dies. Anyway, nicest girl, perfect man want to get married. Enter perfect man's mom (Jane Fonda). JaFo doesn't want MiVa to marry J.Lo. I wasn't quite sure of the reason why. I think it had to do with some sort socialite caste system. See, Jenny From The Block is merely a temp/dog walker and Hanoi Jane is a rich T.V, talk personality who drops names like a seagull at a statue. So obviously Lopez isn't good enough for Vaughn I mean Vartan.
Over the course of the movies 90 minute running time you will be subjected to the following: Conspiracies to derail the wedding. The Clinging Mother who feigns anxiety attacks. The "Dogs attacking Prada/Gucci/Fendi" gag. The sleeping pill resulting in the face- in-the-worlds-worst-food/dish joke. And, if orange is the new black; allergy flare-ups in romantic comedies must be the new fart joke. Oh, and just when you think they couldn't possibly go there, the words: "You win, the wedding's off" actually are spoken thus giving us all the required rom-com conflict clichés.
There is something that I must concede. Wanda Sykes not only steals this movie from its two stars but she is so good that I would pay money to see her do it again (rental people rental). She is hilarious as Fonda's caustic quick-witted assistant. Sykes has made a career out of playing the sidekick and all her training has paid of beautifully. No one could've delivered the line: "I think I dislocated my vagina" as well as Sykes. She is the reason you won't ask for your money back at the end of Monster In Law.
Sykes aside Monster in Law has remained faithful to the unoriginal formula Hollywood has been recently churning out. I, for one am done forgiving talented people for being just good enough. You hear me Keanu! You make too much God Damned money to suck as often as you do. The same goes for Fonda and Lopez. Vartan gets a pass cause he's new.
Okay, so right off the bat I have to say that Monster In Law is bad. It's really dumb, cliché ridden, and common. It's not Showgirls bad but it is mediocre and I think I've had quite enough of mediocrity. I know many of you out there might be saying: "well what do you expect, Citizen Kane". Well, yes I do. At least the "Citizen Kane" of modern romantic comedies. Hell, I'll take an attempt at something unique or original; but to be honest I'm sick of settling and forgiving these films for their lack of creativity just because these movies are charming.
Set in the near future a space alien steals the DNA of just kidding. Monster in Law is the story of the nicest girl ON THE PLANET (Jennifer Lopez) who meets the perfect man (Michael Vartan). When I say perfect I mean the dude is perfect; he's a surgeon, you see, and every time someone on his operating table dies he yells: "It just doesn't get any easier!!!" No, I'm kidding again. He is a surgeon, yes, but he's perfect so no one dies. Anyway, nicest girl, perfect man want to get married. Enter perfect man's mom (Jane Fonda). JaFo doesn't want MiVa to marry J.Lo. I wasn't quite sure of the reason why. I think it had to do with some sort socialite caste system. See, Jenny From The Block is merely a temp/dog walker and Hanoi Jane is a rich T.V, talk personality who drops names like a seagull at a statue. So obviously Lopez isn't good enough for Vaughn I mean Vartan.
Over the course of the movies 90 minute running time you will be subjected to the following: Conspiracies to derail the wedding. The Clinging Mother who feigns anxiety attacks. The "Dogs attacking Prada/Gucci/Fendi" gag. The sleeping pill resulting in the face- in-the-worlds-worst-food/dish joke. And, if orange is the new black; allergy flare-ups in romantic comedies must be the new fart joke. Oh, and just when you think they couldn't possibly go there, the words: "You win, the wedding's off" actually are spoken thus giving us all the required rom-com conflict clichés.
There is something that I must concede. Wanda Sykes not only steals this movie from its two stars but she is so good that I would pay money to see her do it again (rental people rental). She is hilarious as Fonda's caustic quick-witted assistant. Sykes has made a career out of playing the sidekick and all her training has paid of beautifully. No one could've delivered the line: "I think I dislocated my vagina" as well as Sykes. She is the reason you won't ask for your money back at the end of Monster In Law.
Sykes aside Monster in Law has remained faithful to the unoriginal formula Hollywood has been recently churning out. I, for one am done forgiving talented people for being just good enough. You hear me Keanu! You make too much God Damned money to suck as often as you do. The same goes for Fonda and Lopez. Vartan gets a pass cause he's new.
A real waste of time
jon-berry-116 August 2005
How Lo can you go?
Cinemas in the Algarve region of Portugal have retained the custom of inserting an interval during the main feature. This is slightly annoying at times, but at others it provides a welcome break time for a quick smoke and time to decide whether there is any point going back to see the second half of the film. The break is thus a wonderful opportunity to slip away quietly without having to climb all over the other members of the audience midway through the film.
Sadly, I saw "Monster-in-Law" in Lisbon, where there was no such luxury, so I was forced to sit through the entire nine hours. OK, 90 minutes, but didn't Einstein say something about relativity
Admittedly, the film poster itself had sent up enough warning signals to discourage the "floating viewer": in the same way as you can be sure that any film starring Keanu Reeves will be drivel, you can count on anything featuring J-Lo being suspect at best. However, I have always found Wanda Sykes very funny, and Jane Fonda is usually worth a look.
Within 10 minutes, I was wishing I'd gone to see Crash instead. Or anything. Or a blank wall.
The "scene" is quickly set. J-Lo is the perfect, if a little quirky, woman, looking for the perfect man. Her friends the obligatory gay man and slightly trashy girl assure her that he is out there somewhere. Sure enough, he appears in the form of a perfect surgeon with a perfect physique, perfect teeth and perfect designer stubble ... Unfortunately, his mother (Jane Fonda) is a perfect harridan fresh off the back of a nervous breakdown or so we are asked to believe.
This is where the "fun" should start, with the general idea, I guess, being to make an "all-chick" version of "Meet the Parents". Why? Good question, and one to which I am still seeking an answer.
The plot, such as it is, is transparently thin there cannot surely be anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size who could not have predicted the ending (right down to the script) before the opening credits were over.
The only element of interest that remained was to see what the cast could do within the framework they had been given. Not a lot, it seems. But to be fair, Trevor Nunn and the Royal Shakespeare Company couldn't have done anything with this turkey.
The film limps from scene to scene with no sense of continuity or purpose, the only objective seems to be to reach the grand finale, which still manages to disappoint.
Questions must be asked.
Why did Jane Fonda end a 15-year break from the big screen to star in this nightmare? Did she lose a bet? In the same vein,why would Wanda Sykes debase her obvious talent to take on this quasi-Uncle Tom role? True, she was about the only person worth watching in the entire debacle, but she deserves a better vehicle than this.
Sadly, J-Lo looked at home here, seeming very much at ease in an over-hyped production with no substance at all.
Michael Vartan (the perfect man) manages to get away more-or-less unscathed, but only because his role is so peripheral that you can easily forget that he's there. I have a nagging suspicion that this film may not appear too prominently on his CV.
As far as I can see, this is Anya Kochoff's first foray into the world of screen writing. May it be her last. Please.
Cinemas in the Algarve region of Portugal have retained the custom of inserting an interval during the main feature. This is slightly annoying at times, but at others it provides a welcome break time for a quick smoke and time to decide whether there is any point going back to see the second half of the film. The break is thus a wonderful opportunity to slip away quietly without having to climb all over the other members of the audience midway through the film.
Sadly, I saw "Monster-in-Law" in Lisbon, where there was no such luxury, so I was forced to sit through the entire nine hours. OK, 90 minutes, but didn't Einstein say something about relativity
Admittedly, the film poster itself had sent up enough warning signals to discourage the "floating viewer": in the same way as you can be sure that any film starring Keanu Reeves will be drivel, you can count on anything featuring J-Lo being suspect at best. However, I have always found Wanda Sykes very funny, and Jane Fonda is usually worth a look.
Within 10 minutes, I was wishing I'd gone to see Crash instead. Or anything. Or a blank wall.
The "scene" is quickly set. J-Lo is the perfect, if a little quirky, woman, looking for the perfect man. Her friends the obligatory gay man and slightly trashy girl assure her that he is out there somewhere. Sure enough, he appears in the form of a perfect surgeon with a perfect physique, perfect teeth and perfect designer stubble ... Unfortunately, his mother (Jane Fonda) is a perfect harridan fresh off the back of a nervous breakdown or so we are asked to believe.
This is where the "fun" should start, with the general idea, I guess, being to make an "all-chick" version of "Meet the Parents". Why? Good question, and one to which I am still seeking an answer.
The plot, such as it is, is transparently thin there cannot surely be anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size who could not have predicted the ending (right down to the script) before the opening credits were over.
The only element of interest that remained was to see what the cast could do within the framework they had been given. Not a lot, it seems. But to be fair, Trevor Nunn and the Royal Shakespeare Company couldn't have done anything with this turkey.
The film limps from scene to scene with no sense of continuity or purpose, the only objective seems to be to reach the grand finale, which still manages to disappoint.
Questions must be asked.
Why did Jane Fonda end a 15-year break from the big screen to star in this nightmare? Did she lose a bet? In the same vein,why would Wanda Sykes debase her obvious talent to take on this quasi-Uncle Tom role? True, she was about the only person worth watching in the entire debacle, but she deserves a better vehicle than this.
Sadly, J-Lo looked at home here, seeming very much at ease in an over-hyped production with no substance at all.
Michael Vartan (the perfect man) manages to get away more-or-less unscathed, but only because his role is so peripheral that you can easily forget that he's there. I have a nagging suspicion that this film may not appear too prominently on his CV.
As far as I can see, this is Anya Kochoff's first foray into the world of screen writing. May it be her last. Please.
Jane Fonda is back!
HotToastyRag29 September 2017
After a fifteen-year retirement, Jane Fonda came back to Hollywood and starred in Monster-in-Law, a comedy about an overbearing mother who tries to interfere with her son's impending marriage because she feels his fiancé isn't good enough for him. Or, if you look at it another way, a loving mother feels her handsome doctor son could do better than a flaky, part-time dog walker, and she tries to help him come to his senses before they're married.
Michael Vartan plays Jane's son, and Jennifer Lopez is the impending daughter-in-law. All three are perfectly cast in their roles: Michael is weak, easily swayed, but sincere; Jenny is sweet but strong; and Jane is impeccable, uptight, and a force to be reckoned with. While it might be a bit of a shock for audiences who last saw Jane as a romantic lead in Stanley & Iris in 1990, she doesn't take the role as the mother-in-law to say, "I'm an old lady now." She's beautiful, vibrant, and able to compete toe-to-toe with the icon JLo. Jane even films a scene in her negligee; it's clear to her audience that she's nowhere near old age.
As to the movie itself, it's very entertaining and funny. Wanda Sykes costars as Jane's assistant and friend, and while everything out her mouth is supposed to a sarcastic aside to make the audience laugh, nothing she says is very funny. Jane and Jenny are the funny ones, and it's so easy to root for both of them, you'll find yourself changing sides every time you watch it! Keep a lookout for Elaine Stritch, Adam Scott, Monet Mazur and Will Arnett in smaller but memorable parts. This is a great movie to watch with your girlfriends or your mom—or if you have a great relationship with her, your mother-in-law. Pop the corn and champagne and get ready to giggle the night away.
Michael Vartan plays Jane's son, and Jennifer Lopez is the impending daughter-in-law. All three are perfectly cast in their roles: Michael is weak, easily swayed, but sincere; Jenny is sweet but strong; and Jane is impeccable, uptight, and a force to be reckoned with. While it might be a bit of a shock for audiences who last saw Jane as a romantic lead in Stanley & Iris in 1990, she doesn't take the role as the mother-in-law to say, "I'm an old lady now." She's beautiful, vibrant, and able to compete toe-to-toe with the icon JLo. Jane even films a scene in her negligee; it's clear to her audience that she's nowhere near old age.
As to the movie itself, it's very entertaining and funny. Wanda Sykes costars as Jane's assistant and friend, and while everything out her mouth is supposed to a sarcastic aside to make the audience laugh, nothing she says is very funny. Jane and Jenny are the funny ones, and it's so easy to root for both of them, you'll find yourself changing sides every time you watch it! Keep a lookout for Elaine Stritch, Adam Scott, Monet Mazur and Will Arnett in smaller but memorable parts. This is a great movie to watch with your girlfriends or your mom—or if you have a great relationship with her, your mother-in-law. Pop the corn and champagne and get ready to giggle the night away.
"For your own safety, make sure you know where the emergency exits are at all times"
Galina_movie_fan22 September 2005
I did not expect much from this comedy, I just wanted to have a few laughs. I knew that many critics hated it and advised the viewers to stay away from it. Well, they did not like "Meet the Fockers", either but I had a great time watching it. They praised "Something's Gotta Give" to the high heavens but I wanted to kill somebody while suffering through so called "one of the best comedies of the year". They universally agree that latest Woody Allen's comedies suck - and I believe that they (Woody's comedies not the critics) are funny and enjoyable. Plus, Jane Fonda came out of retirement to make "Monster-In-Law", her first movie in 15 years. I saw a few weeks ago Fonda's "Barbarella", one of the silliest and campiest movies ever made and I liked it a lot, mostly due to Fonda's charm.
I watched "Monster-in-Law" last night and I found it uninteresting, boring, and irritating. The worst quality - it is not funny. Forget about laughs, I hardly smiled at all. I almost fell asleep - its 101 minutes seemed like eternity. Every twist in so- called plot was predictable, every joke -stupid, the ending - sappy and mediocre. In one word, the movie was a mess with only one redeeming value - Wanda Sykes (Ruby) as Fonda's personal assistant. Both, J.Lo and JF tried hard to do something with the material but it just did not work. In the perfect world, if Woody Allen had written the script and made the movie with three of them, Fonda, Lopes, and Sykes - we could've had if not a masterpiece but a wonderful and funny comedy. Alas, we are not in the perfect world and this monster is not scary, it is just pathetic.
2/10
I watched "Monster-in-Law" last night and I found it uninteresting, boring, and irritating. The worst quality - it is not funny. Forget about laughs, I hardly smiled at all. I almost fell asleep - its 101 minutes seemed like eternity. Every twist in so- called plot was predictable, every joke -stupid, the ending - sappy and mediocre. In one word, the movie was a mess with only one redeeming value - Wanda Sykes (Ruby) as Fonda's personal assistant. Both, J.Lo and JF tried hard to do something with the material but it just did not work. In the perfect world, if Woody Allen had written the script and made the movie with three of them, Fonda, Lopes, and Sykes - we could've had if not a masterpiece but a wonderful and funny comedy. Alas, we are not in the perfect world and this monster is not scary, it is just pathetic.
2/10
Enjoyable to watch as long as you don't take it too seriously
christian12313 May 2005
Charlotte Honeywell (Jennifer Lopez) has had problems finding the perfect man until she starts dating Kevin (Michael Vartan). Thing are going well until she meets his overbearing mother (Jane Fonda), a recently fired news anchorwoman who takes her aggression out on her son's new girlfriend with help from her assistant Ruby (Wanda Sykes). But Charlotte is ready to fight back.
The premise is rather old and it has been done to death recently. Shrek 2, Meet the Fockers, Guess Who and now this film. I still enjoy this type of comedy but this is the worse one of the previous four. However, Monster-in-Law is still an enjoyable movie. It doesn't offer anything memorable but it's pretty entertaining while it lasts. I'll admit the movie is highly unrealistic from the cruel stuff Fonda and Lopez do to each other to the nice home Lopez owns despite the fact that it looks way too expensive for her to own. Some of the cruel things they do to each other is pretty funny while other times it's just a bit too much. Luckily, there really isn't too much of this material since the movie is only 100 minutes long. So the film hardly gets boring and it ends before it wears out its welcome.
The acting is alright, with a few performances really saving the movie. Jane Fonda gives a really funny performance as Charlotte. She does go over the top but her performance is still a lot of fun to watch on screen. Jennifer Lopez gives a bland performance, nothing special. Her chemistry with Fonda is weak and their scenes aren't as good as they could have been. Wanda Sykes offers a funny performance as Ruby. Her scenes with Jane Fonda are the best things about the movie though she gets a little annoying. Michael Vartan is kind of just there and he doesn't really do anything special.
Robert Luketic directs and he does an okay job. He could have made the film a little more realistic and a little less sitcomish but the movie turned out okay. The audience I saw this with were really into it and they seemed to be enjoying themselves. Obviously, critics won't like this film but those looking for a nice comedy should check out this movie. It is a little mean spirited and predictable but this doesn't take away too much from the movie. In the end, Monster-in-Law is a good time passer, nothing more or less. Rating 7/10
The premise is rather old and it has been done to death recently. Shrek 2, Meet the Fockers, Guess Who and now this film. I still enjoy this type of comedy but this is the worse one of the previous four. However, Monster-in-Law is still an enjoyable movie. It doesn't offer anything memorable but it's pretty entertaining while it lasts. I'll admit the movie is highly unrealistic from the cruel stuff Fonda and Lopez do to each other to the nice home Lopez owns despite the fact that it looks way too expensive for her to own. Some of the cruel things they do to each other is pretty funny while other times it's just a bit too much. Luckily, there really isn't too much of this material since the movie is only 100 minutes long. So the film hardly gets boring and it ends before it wears out its welcome.
The acting is alright, with a few performances really saving the movie. Jane Fonda gives a really funny performance as Charlotte. She does go over the top but her performance is still a lot of fun to watch on screen. Jennifer Lopez gives a bland performance, nothing special. Her chemistry with Fonda is weak and their scenes aren't as good as they could have been. Wanda Sykes offers a funny performance as Ruby. Her scenes with Jane Fonda are the best things about the movie though she gets a little annoying. Michael Vartan is kind of just there and he doesn't really do anything special.
Robert Luketic directs and he does an okay job. He could have made the film a little more realistic and a little less sitcomish but the movie turned out okay. The audience I saw this with were really into it and they seemed to be enjoying themselves. Obviously, critics won't like this film but those looking for a nice comedy should check out this movie. It is a little mean spirited and predictable but this doesn't take away too much from the movie. In the end, Monster-in-Law is a good time passer, nothing more or less. Rating 7/10
It was recommended by my boyfriend's 7-year-old daughter. 'Nuff said.
tangsoojanitor11 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was pure garbage. Jennifer Lopez was, as usual, unbelievably annoying and mannish despite her dewy complexion and massive boobies. There's just something about her voice and mannerisms (no pun intended) which seem undeniably masculine.
I would never have chosen to watch this movie. But when my boyfriend's incredibly cute daughter asked me to watch it with her and flashed me the sad puppy face, I steeled myself for a cinematic train wreck and popped it in.
It was even worse than I could have imagined.
First of all, it was unrealistic. The conniving, slapstick plotting of Viola and the still more conniving and slapstick retaliation of Charlie (ah-HA! she even has a man's name!!!) would never happen in real life. The mother would be cold and steely, perhaps even going so far as to tell the dreaded "temp" to stay away from her precious Golden Boy. Rather then slinging spaghetti sauce and innocently making the old hag a hideous 60's style prom dress to wear to the wedding, the spurned woman would either ignore the witch, or tell her off and be done with it.
Second of all, the chemistry between Charlie and Kevin was the worst I've EVER seen in a movie. And I do literally mean ever. Kevin seemed like a pompous irritating jerk, as well as the worst kind of mama's boy, and in her interaction with him, Charlie came across as whiny, grovelly, and childlike. Their physical scenes (rare indeed) were actually difficult to watch they seemed so forced. And that pathetic almost phone-sex scene, thankfully interrupted by Mother Superior, seemed so unrealistic and cheesy that I found myself squirming. Kevin sounded so casual he could have been discussing his new and very boring foot fungus. Charlie couldn't have looked any more uncomfortable if he had been, in between pouty bleats of "I miss you." Please!
Finally, the ending was rushed, stupid, and even more unrealistic than the events leading up to it. In under ten seconds the sun just breaks through and everything's okay. Yeah right! But it's not like I didn't see it coming. I did. From when the movie began, that is. I could even let the unrealistic happy ending fly since we ARE talking about a movie, but I can't excuse the lightning-strike suddenness with which it came on. It was like they were filming and the camera was about to run out of batteries so they just decided to wrap it up and get it over with quick, rather than come back and do it right after recharging. I'm just watching the movie and suddenly BOOM! Here's a fistful of ending right to the jaw.
Not that I was really complaining by that point. Any ending was fine with me. I just wanted the thing to END.
I can say one good thing about the movie. Wanda Sykes was hilarious as Ruby. If it hadn't been for her I might have had to stick a meat fork through my eyes to let out my frustration with the movie. I came close, even so.
In conclusion, the seven-year-old loved it.
I would never have chosen to watch this movie. But when my boyfriend's incredibly cute daughter asked me to watch it with her and flashed me the sad puppy face, I steeled myself for a cinematic train wreck and popped it in.
It was even worse than I could have imagined.
First of all, it was unrealistic. The conniving, slapstick plotting of Viola and the still more conniving and slapstick retaliation of Charlie (ah-HA! she even has a man's name!!!) would never happen in real life. The mother would be cold and steely, perhaps even going so far as to tell the dreaded "temp" to stay away from her precious Golden Boy. Rather then slinging spaghetti sauce and innocently making the old hag a hideous 60's style prom dress to wear to the wedding, the spurned woman would either ignore the witch, or tell her off and be done with it.
Second of all, the chemistry between Charlie and Kevin was the worst I've EVER seen in a movie. And I do literally mean ever. Kevin seemed like a pompous irritating jerk, as well as the worst kind of mama's boy, and in her interaction with him, Charlie came across as whiny, grovelly, and childlike. Their physical scenes (rare indeed) were actually difficult to watch they seemed so forced. And that pathetic almost phone-sex scene, thankfully interrupted by Mother Superior, seemed so unrealistic and cheesy that I found myself squirming. Kevin sounded so casual he could have been discussing his new and very boring foot fungus. Charlie couldn't have looked any more uncomfortable if he had been, in between pouty bleats of "I miss you." Please!
Finally, the ending was rushed, stupid, and even more unrealistic than the events leading up to it. In under ten seconds the sun just breaks through and everything's okay. Yeah right! But it's not like I didn't see it coming. I did. From when the movie began, that is. I could even let the unrealistic happy ending fly since we ARE talking about a movie, but I can't excuse the lightning-strike suddenness with which it came on. It was like they were filming and the camera was about to run out of batteries so they just decided to wrap it up and get it over with quick, rather than come back and do it right after recharging. I'm just watching the movie and suddenly BOOM! Here's a fistful of ending right to the jaw.
Not that I was really complaining by that point. Any ending was fine with me. I just wanted the thing to END.
I can say one good thing about the movie. Wanda Sykes was hilarious as Ruby. If it hadn't been for her I might have had to stick a meat fork through my eyes to let out my frustration with the movie. I came close, even so.
In conclusion, the seven-year-old loved it.
Like in a Fairytale, She Found Her Prince Charming and the Wicked Witch
claudio_carvalho8 November 2006
When the versatile and simple Charlotte (Jennifer Lopez) meets the surgeon Kevin (Michael Vartan), she finds her Prince Charming. Meanwhile, his obsessive mother and famous anchor Viola (Jane Fonda) is replaced on her TV talk show and has a nervous breakdown. When she leaves the clinic, Kevin schedules a visit with Charlie to her mansion and unexpectedly proposes Charlie. Viola decides to plot a despicable plan to make Charlie crazy and call off their weeding. When Charlie discloses the scheme of her future mother-in-law, she pays her back for her malice.
"Monster-in-Law" is a hilarious underrated comedy, highly recommended for days of migraines, headaches or bad humor. In her return to the cinema industry, Jane Fonda "steals" the movie and has an excellent performance in the role of a possessive mother that does her best trying to avoid the marriage of her beloved son scaring her daughter-in-law. Jennifer Lopez is also great in the role of a sweet and hard worker woman, in love with her Mr. Right and threatened by a merciless paranoid mother-in-law. Wanda Sykes, Michael Vartan, Adam Scott, Annie Parisse and Monet Mazur complete the good cast of this funny movie. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "A Sogra" ("The Mother-in-Law")
"Monster-in-Law" is a hilarious underrated comedy, highly recommended for days of migraines, headaches or bad humor. In her return to the cinema industry, Jane Fonda "steals" the movie and has an excellent performance in the role of a possessive mother that does her best trying to avoid the marriage of her beloved son scaring her daughter-in-law. Jennifer Lopez is also great in the role of a sweet and hard worker woman, in love with her Mr. Right and threatened by a merciless paranoid mother-in-law. Wanda Sykes, Michael Vartan, Adam Scott, Annie Parisse and Monet Mazur complete the good cast of this funny movie. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "A Sogra" ("The Mother-in-Law")
Monster in Law is incredibly awful
afijamesy2k8 September 2005
Jane Fonda touch some many over the year with films such as coming home and the china syndrome (one of my favorite movies of all time) After 15 years she's made a comeback, but sadly she has made a disappointing comeback to this dreadful comedy, about a monster mother who disapproves his fiancé's marriage, the laughs are completely non-existent, the acting is really bad, the script is lousy This is more like an badly overplayed sitcom than a movie Avoid this while you can.
Jane Fonda waiting over a decade to do movies, just to be in this garbage
Mercy.
Jane Fonda waiting over a decade to do movies, just to be in this garbage
Mercy.
Deserves at least an 8!!!
laurenmariiie3 February 2019
Delivers expectations as an entertaining comedy.
insomniac_rod23 December 2007
I don't know why so many people hate this movie. I didn't have much expectations for it but I ended up having a really good time. Well I must say it was a boring Sunday and this was the most "decent" movie on HBO.
So well, I must say that "Monster In Law" delivers expectations for those who want to see a light romantic comedy with the occasional American humor and creative funny situations. Okay, this isn't a HILARIOUS movie but it surely can entertain the viewer because the story is simple but entertaining; the situations are funny and there's no place for drama. So if you want just a relaxing movie that won't make you feel anything but mindless fun, then this movie may do it for you.
Jane Fonda is simply a delight as Viola. The excellent actress has an unique charm that is so spectacular that she makes the entire movie worth watching. She's truly a MAGNIFICENT actress, even in movies like this.
Jennifer López isn't a bad actress and she has found that romantic comedies are her stuff. Good for her.
Wanda Skyes delivers a fantastic comedic performance. She reminds me of her character in "The New Adventures of Old Christine". She's simply hilarious and she's the soul of the comedic aspects of the movie.
Michael Vartan is simply good. Adam Scott, the super sexy Monet Mazur (the hot blonde from "40 Days and 40 Nights"), Will Arnett and the beautiful sexy Annie Parisse complement the great cast. I really dug it. Elain Stritch as Gertrude has minimal on-screen time but delivers a great comedic role.
Well give this movie a chance if you are in the mood for a romantic comedy that isn't very pretentious and that it's only purpose is to entertain. So give yourself a chance and let your brain take a break and watch this movie for silly entertainment.
So well, I must say that "Monster In Law" delivers expectations for those who want to see a light romantic comedy with the occasional American humor and creative funny situations. Okay, this isn't a HILARIOUS movie but it surely can entertain the viewer because the story is simple but entertaining; the situations are funny and there's no place for drama. So if you want just a relaxing movie that won't make you feel anything but mindless fun, then this movie may do it for you.
Jane Fonda is simply a delight as Viola. The excellent actress has an unique charm that is so spectacular that she makes the entire movie worth watching. She's truly a MAGNIFICENT actress, even in movies like this.
Jennifer López isn't a bad actress and she has found that romantic comedies are her stuff. Good for her.
Wanda Skyes delivers a fantastic comedic performance. She reminds me of her character in "The New Adventures of Old Christine". She's simply hilarious and she's the soul of the comedic aspects of the movie.
Michael Vartan is simply good. Adam Scott, the super sexy Monet Mazur (the hot blonde from "40 Days and 40 Nights"), Will Arnett and the beautiful sexy Annie Parisse complement the great cast. I really dug it. Elain Stritch as Gertrude has minimal on-screen time but delivers a great comedic role.
Well give this movie a chance if you are in the mood for a romantic comedy that isn't very pretentious and that it's only purpose is to entertain. So give yourself a chance and let your brain take a break and watch this movie for silly entertainment.
The title deserved a better film
dromasca26 November 2005
The title of this film is the best thing in this movie. I would actually say that such a title deserved a better movie.
'Monster in Law' is a combination between 'Maid in Manhattan' and 'Meet the Parents'. Jennifer Lopez is practically re-doing her role in 'Maid ..' and this is probably what she knows to play best, or the only thing she knows to play, I do not know. The problem is that this movie is made three years later, and the character is supposed to be ten years younger than in the New York located film. I also suspect that she cannot count on her looks for long, and even here a couple of jokes about her waist had to be inserted. What will she do with her career in the next years? Well, we'll see.
Robert Luketic directed the original 'Legally Blonde' and had much better material to work from there. The main problem of this film is that the script is so predictable, the jokes so thin, and we must have seen the end in zillions of other movies. We do have Jane Fonda back on screen, but sincerely, I would expect her to do something else after 15 years of creativity break, and not this routine feel good comedy.
I am afraid that this film - after making its in-flight entertainment career - will rest soon on the shelves of the studios full of not-so-funny comedies, and a well deserved amount of dust will cover it. Twenty years from now somebody will maybe take the idea and the title and make a better film of it.
'Monster in Law' is a combination between 'Maid in Manhattan' and 'Meet the Parents'. Jennifer Lopez is practically re-doing her role in 'Maid ..' and this is probably what she knows to play best, or the only thing she knows to play, I do not know. The problem is that this movie is made three years later, and the character is supposed to be ten years younger than in the New York located film. I also suspect that she cannot count on her looks for long, and even here a couple of jokes about her waist had to be inserted. What will she do with her career in the next years? Well, we'll see.
Robert Luketic directed the original 'Legally Blonde' and had much better material to work from there. The main problem of this film is that the script is so predictable, the jokes so thin, and we must have seen the end in zillions of other movies. We do have Jane Fonda back on screen, but sincerely, I would expect her to do something else after 15 years of creativity break, and not this routine feel good comedy.
I am afraid that this film - after making its in-flight entertainment career - will rest soon on the shelves of the studios full of not-so-funny comedies, and a well deserved amount of dust will cover it. Twenty years from now somebody will maybe take the idea and the title and make a better film of it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
