The In-Laws (I) (2003) User Reviews (109)

Welcome To My World Said The Agent To The Podiatrist

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 8 March 2008]

Judging by reviews in the press and the user comments here, this version of The In-Laws is a pale imitation of the 1979 classic with Peter Falk and Alan Arkin. I didn't find it so, this film has a lot of good laughs in it and some fine comic performances.

In his TCM tribute to his father Michael Douglas says that when he was starting out in the picture business he avoided taking roles as action heroes because he did not want comparison with his father. At this point though he's definitely not worried about that. The part that Michael Douglas plays, the CIA agent whose life prevents him from having any kind of home life that was done by Peter Falk in the original, I could easily see being done by Kirk Douglas in the Forties or Fifties.

Douglas's son Ryan Reynolds is going to marry Lindsay Thorne the daughter of a mild mannered podiatrist who has more phobias going on than Adrian Monk. But Albert Brooks as the podiatrist is just a little concerned about this mysterious father of the groom that keeps avoiding meeting. When Brooks and family eventually do meet Douglas, he bungles his way into a mission that Douglas is on. After that it's one wild ride from Chicago to Paris and back with both bad guys and the FBI trailing both.

The In-Laws has some very nice moments and the stars work well together. But the best performances are from David Suchet as the international arms trafficker who's gay and who Douglas convinces that Brooks is a regular Dirk Diggler. And the other great performance is from Candice Bergen who is Douglas's estranged wife and Reynolds mother. As she says she's the only one who really has her husband's number, but she's still crazy about him in certain ways.

This version of The In-Laws is an amusing comedy, a worthy next century successor to the original.

A Decent Entertainer!

[namashi_1 · 6/10 · 9 February 2012]

A remake of the original 1979 cult classic, 'The In-Laws' is A Decent Entertainer, that doesn't bore. Sure, it's not all-out funny & gripping, but it arrests your attention & provides fair entertainment nevertheless.

'The In-Laws' Synopsis: Right before his daughter's wedding, a mild-mannered foot doctor discovers that his new in-laws are international smugglers.

'The In-Laws' has its moments for sure. In the first-hour, especially, there are some really nice sequences. The second-hour, does lose pace, but it doesn't drag, thankfully. The Screenplay is fast-paced, but it could've been tighter in the second-hour. Andrew Fleming's Direction is fair. Cinematography & Editing are functional.

Performance-Wise: Michael Douglas & Albert Brooks deliver superbly. Both of the veteran actors, also share a striking on-screen chemistry from start to end. Ryan Reynolds is passable. Lindsay Sloane is good. Robin Tunney does fairly well. Maria Ricossa & Candice Bergen support well.

On the whole, 'The In-Laws' is a decent watch.

The Fat Cobra...

[FlashCallahan · 6/10 · 3 April 2017]

Dr. Jerry Peyser's daughter, Melissa is about to marry Mark Tobias.

Things are going well until Jerry stumbles across some secret information, Mark's father, Steve is an undercover CIA operative.

scared that Jerry will compromise his current assignment if he starts talking to authorities, Steve drags Jerry to an intercontinental mission that involves a dangerous criminal, Jean-Pierre Thibodoux, and his very strange ways.....

This film is nothing more than a vanity project for Douglas, showing that even at his age, he still has the chops to lead an action role, and with the addition of little mouse Brooks, shows that he still is the alpha male in Hollywood.

Bravo to that man. Any self-respecting actor would realise that Douglas has carved a wonderful career in his forty plus years as a leading man. He always took risks with his movies, and in doing so, has made some of the most memorable films in the eighties and nineties.

Wall Street, Fatal Attraction, falling Down, Basic Instinct, The Game, Disclosure, are all in their own respect, game changing films.

So what was his rationale for him appearing in this? Did Catherine say something to him that made him feel old? heaven only knows.

But it's harmless stuff, Douglas plays the wannabe twenty-something spy to Brooks scared of his own shadow foot doctor.

So what we have is set piece after set piece with Douglas looking cool, and Brooks in full on self-deprecating mode.

Halfway through the second act, we bump into David Suchet, who plays the campest bad guy this side of Max Zorin. He really plays his character well, and it's a joy when he's on screen.

Ryan Reynolds pops up as Douglas' Son, with the most amazing eyebrows in the film, doing nothing more than getting more stressed as the film goes on.

It's totally forgettable stuff, it sunk without a trace on it's initial release, but all in all, it's a good hangover film.

Modest script but Suchet, Brooks and Douglas are funny

[long-ford · 22 February 2009]

'The In-Laws' has a mediocre script but the actors successfully elevate the material. Albert Brooks in particular is very good as a neurotic podiatrist. Michael Douglas gives an energetic performance and the two work work well off each other. There are some consistent laughs throughout the film. David Suchet is fine as (MINOR SPOILERS) the gay international arms smuggler who falls in love with Brooks. The script is a gentle spoof of spy films and works well as long as you ignore the various plot holes. Douglas's family is shortchanged by the script, his relation with his estranged wife specially feels incomplete. Still watchable.

Overall 7/10

The In-Laws: Michael Douglas and Albert Brooks Give Up the Goods, but Where are the Good Supporting Roles for the Others

[bobbylabonte18 · 7/10 · 29 August 2010]

The In-Laws is a sharp, genuine comedy from director Andrew Fleming. The plot is good, but sometimes, it can feel predictable and completely out of whack, but sometimes it's good to have that in a film. Albert Brooks and Michael Douglas are given the most screen time with what I thought were genuinely funny and deeper characters than they appear, at times though, the Michael Douglas character is predictable with his inner self, but saves it with another great performance. Albert Brooks is funny in this role, in a way, he carries the light spots of this movie on his back due to sharp one liners, which I believe he may have improvised. But the really snores in this film come from the sub plot, a wedding for Douglas' son played by Ryan Reynolds and Brooks' daughter played by Lindsay Sloane. The problem with the sub plot, is it is just not funny or sharp enough, Ryan Reynolds was a complete miss-cast in this role, he just isn't funny. During this subplot, we see Candice Bergen slip into the picture in one of those one liner funny roles that she does so well. Overall, if not with casting of Ryan Reynolds, maybe neglecting the sub plot, with more heavy detail on the comedic action, The In-Laws would be a fantastic comedy, but what is done is done, and you are left wondering what could have been.

Not as good as the original, but great in it's own way

[supercygnus · 7/10 · 10 September 2003]

While the original Arkin-Falk version is a classic, this version is still highly enjoyable and even brings some new things to the table the original did not have going for it. For starters, the opening of the new film is very cool and exciting that stands up with even serious action flicks, speeding along to an awesome alternate rendition of "Live and Let Die" (still performed by McCaurtney...not to worry). Also, Brooks character is a bit more neurotic however, eventually also more proactive than the previous film's counterpart which was refreshing. He isn't just along for the ride by the finale. Excellent music choices here also only add to the fun, flavor and often times the hilarity of the situation (example: the scene with the save smashing into a party with no sound effects but "Rain Drops Keep Falling On My Head" over the soundtrack. This is one of the those highly underrated little gems that hopefully more will discover on home video. Very entertaining!

SERPENTINE!!!

[pingufreak · 1/10 · 29 May 2003]

There are absolutely no words to adequately describe just how truly awful this movie is. Being a huge fan of the 1979 original, starring Peter Falk and Alan Arkin, curiousity got the better of me...

I guess curiosity really did kill the cat!

As hilarious and genuinely funny as the original is - I still consider it to be among the funniest films I have EVER seen - this remake is the complete opposite. Whereas Peter Falk and Alan Arkin made a terrific onscreen team, Michael Douglas and Albert Brooks simply don't have it. There just isn't the same chemistry. One of the things that made me laugh so much at the original was Alan Arkin's straight-man performance vs. Peter Falk's "is-he-or-isn't-he insane?" In this one, you'll find nothing of the sort. Albert Brooks (in the Alan Arkin role), whose character is now a podiatrist (as opposed to being a dentist in the original), just doesn't bring in the same laughs...you won't see him running down the street screaming "There's no need to shoot, I'm a podiatrist!" or anything like that. And worse, Michael Douglas (in the Peter Falk role), the secret agent father in law to be who hasn't yet met the in-laws, has a pointless sidekick, played by Robin Tunney, something that I felt weakened Douglas' character...as if the already inept script didn't already do a fine job of that!

Worst of all was David Suchet's French arms dealer who suddenly develops a crush on Brooks' character, was nowhere nearly as entertaining as Richard Libertini's performance in the original...hell, even Senor Pepe had more comedic charisma than Suchet in this one, and Senor Pepe was a friggin' HAND PUPPET, for crying out loud!!!

All in all, this has to be one of the worst movies I have ever paid good money to see (thank God I only paid $5!). If you haven't seen the original, rent it and save yourself the anguish of sitting through this mindless claptrap of a movie. If you HAVE seen the original, and were contemplating a trip to the cinema to check this one out, I have one word for you: SERPENTINE!!!

A different twist on Meet the Parents sort of speak

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 7/10 · 13 July 2006]

Actually, I know many people didn't enjoy The In-Laws, but for some reason, I found it to be hilarious! I am in love with Michael Douglas, I think he is a very under rated actor and for the most part, his best characters go into comedies. I just loved it when he comes up to Albert and says "You lying to me? Cause if you are..." in the scariest voice like he's going to kill you and he'll know if you are lying, Albert of course comes to his lying defense and says "no"... "Oh, OK!" in the happiest response from Michael.

I feel that you should definitely give The In-laws a chance, it's a fun movie. If you enjoyed "Meet the Fockers", then come on! You definitely will enjoy The In-laws!

7/10

Why remakes shouldn't be allowed

[mkelly54 · 3/10 · 22 January 2006]

I wanted to laugh while watching this movie, and I actually did laugh ... when it was over ... from relief. All of the ingredients were there: great cast, the same writer as the original -- Andrew Bergman. But every line fell flatter than a ruined soufflé. Plus, the plot wasn't as plausible as the original with Peter Falk and Alan Arkin (1979).

Granted, the original begins with a long scene that is somewhat difficult to follow, but eventually every viewer is on board and enjoys the show. And there's one of the greatest spy lines of the 20th Century: "You knew Jack Kennedy?" "Bay of Pigs. My idea." I laughed so long and loud during the summer of 1979, I was almost kicked out of the theater.

Hollywood really needs to think about their inability to make quality movies overall, much less remakes. Prior to VHS and DVD sales, top grossing movies were re-released from time to time. This should have happened with the In-laws. The story is just as connected with our world today as it was in the late 70s, and the chemistry between Falk and Arkin is superior to Douglas and Brooks.

And, there are thousands of novels, non-fiction books and screen plays out there waiting to be adapted to movies. The original In-laws was an inspired piece of writing and acting. Hollywood needs to go after more "original" stories instead of sloppy retreads! No wonder theaters are so empty these days.

A Bit Too Over-The-Top Perhaps, But At Times This Is Hilarious

[sddavis63 · 7/10 · 25 July 2008]

This is a very funny movie, featuring the usual good performance from Michael Douglas as "deep under cover" CIA agent Steve Tobias, whose son is about to marry the daughter of Chicago podiatrist Jerry Peyser (Albert Brooks, who also put on a good performance.) The movie follows but freely adapts the story from the 1979 original of the same name that starred Peter Falk and Alan Arkin. The characters have different names, this version is set mostly in the U.S. and Europe, whereas the '79 version was set mostly in Central America, and this version deals a lot more with the wedding. The main difference, though, is that this one is way more over the top than the '79 movie, which tried to take the subject a little more seriously. Comparing the two, then, which you think is better will depend on whether you like over the top comedies. I do, and I prefer this one.

Tobias is a bit of a James Bond type, with lots of gadgets and a beautiful sidekick (played by Robin Tunney) to go along with them. Peyser's role as a podiatrist somehow seems funnier than the dentist character from '79. The FBI agents on their trail are more bumbling than anyone faced by the "heroes" of '79. Finally, the part of the bizarre general in '79 is replaced by a totally bizarre international arms dealer (played absolutely perfectly by David Suchet) who says that homosexuality disgusts him but then falls madly in love with Peyser. All these things add up to what I thought was a hilarious ride.

Worthy of note is Candice Bergen who was strong in a limited role as Tobias's ex-wife. Some of the story was a bit too over the top. The nuclear submarine in Lake Michigan was a bit of a stretch. One wonders how this thing got through the St. Lawrence Seaway. (I would think it would have been pretty hard to hide going through the Welland Canal!) Overall though, even if it's a wee bit too over the top at times, it's still really funny. 7/10

The reason that remakes should NOT be made

[Jreesing · 1/10 · 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.

Extremely Funny

[claudio_carvalho · 8/10 · 12 September 2004]

Steve Tobias (Michael Douglas) is an undercover and efficient CIA agent, supported by the lower-ranked CIA agent Angela Harris (Robin Tunney), and assigned in a dangerous and secret international mission. He is trying to retrieve a nuclear submarine and arrest some international drug dealers and smugglers. Steve is also a reckless and absent father. His son Mark (Ryan Reynolds) is a lawyer, who is going to get married with Melissa Peyser (Lindsay Sloane), the daughter of the housewife Katherine Peyser (Maria Ricossa) and Jerry Peyser (Albert Brooks), a conservative podiatrist of Chicago. Jerry is the opposite of Steve, being afraid of airplanes and living a routinely life. When the two families meet for a dinner in a Vietnamese restaurant to celebrate the forthcoming wedding, Jerry is mistakenly identified as a secret agent, turning his life upside-down. I found this movie extremely funny. The combination of Michael Douglas and Albert Brooks was amazingly (and even surprisingly) good. The performance of David Suchet, as the gay French drug dealer and criminal Jean-Pierre Thibodoux, is also excellent and very funny. KC and the Sunshine Band playing an old hit is also great and completes a highly recommended comedy. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): 'Até Que os Parentes Nos Separem' ('Until the Relatives Get Us Apart')

It was wacky but fun to watch!

[Sherazade · 7/10 · 22 March 2006]

Okay for starters, most of the characters in this films are not who they seem by the end of it. It is a movie about two families who are about to merge with the marriage of a daughter (played by Lindsay Sloane) from one and a son (Played by Ryan Reynolds) from the other. But first, the homophobic father of the groom gets entangled in a spy drama which involves him unknowingly meeting the father of the bride (played by Michael Douglas) before the designated wedding rehearsal dinner. The entire sequence of events that lead to the waterfront wedding is just plain hilarious! Don't miss Candice Bergen playing a neurotic ex-wife in a role that should have won her numerous accolades but probably didn't. This film is pure fun and laughter and let's just leave it as that.

Brutally awful

[Rooster99 · 2/10 · 22 November 2003]

Boring, done a thousand times before. Unbelievably bad. Incredibly stereotypical. Douglas is the hip-CIA agent father who never has time for his son, and Brooks is the square boring foot-doctor father who dotes on his daughter. Every single typical stereotypical attribute is given to each character....(yawn)..... Brooks is scared of heights and airplanes, he never leaves the State, he wears a fanny pack, he is boring and stodgy. Douglas of course, is the complete opposite, suave, able to beat up thugs, knows everything. And do you think there will be any moments in the film when they are both at a great height or in an airplane? And do you think that Michael Douglas will learn to be a better father, or at least figure out that he has been a bad one because he was away on missions all the time? Barf. Gag. Predictable. Don't know if that counts as a spoiler since it is so incredibly obvious.

Everything is moronic about this film. The FBI agents are more incompetent than Boss Hogg, the villains are as nasty as Gumby. The plot is absolutely absurd without being the least bit funny. The movie actually started off with me thinking "This won't be that bad", but that feeling quickly faded. Everything was predictable, nothing was original, everything had already been done 6000 times before.

Rent "Meet the Parents". It is infinitely better and considerably funnier. This one has nothing to praise, nothing at all. It is a remake of a moderately humourous movie from the 70s, but atrociously directed. On top of that, in 2 scenes the boom mikes practically konk Douglas on the head. Couldn't they catch that in the editing room? Fortunately, the movie is only 85 minutes long before the credits start rolling so I managed to get out before going completely insane. I don't think Hollywood is capable of making good comedies any longer. They seem intent of dumbing everything down, going for the lame tried-and-true and done 5000 times boring old dried up jokes. There was some forced laughter in the theatre at the beginning during the Vietnamese restaurant scene, but even that quickly died out. People started leaving before the movie got to the incredibly predictable wedding scene.

Lame. Terrible. A complete waste of time.

Overall very good

[sparkles4ever989 · 13 October 2003]

I wasnt excepting a good movie after seeing it flop and the boxoffice and hearing the reviews that people saying about the movie. But I personally loved it. Its a cute little movie that deserves much more credit then it got. I recommend this movie to everyone. I give this 4/5 stars

Good music, and one or two good scenes... but most of all, a mess

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 6/10 · 24 December 2006]

A buddy comedy with action, a mismatched couple of in-laws, loose ends and a general lack of sense. I can't claim that I had high expectations for this... but I gave it a chance, and I wanted to like it, I really did. Michael Douglas is good, as always. He delivers, action, acting and comedy. The only real problem is, apart from the first-mentioned quality, no one else delivers in this film. Brooks is usually good... at least as far as acting goes, and I could have sworn he had me laughing in at least one of his roles... maybe not film-wise, but his guest-roles on The Simpsons were hilarity itself. Reynolds has limited talent, and he's unfortunately cast, in that he isn't playing the typical womanizing teen-ish guy that we've grown used to him being. I haven't seen enough of Sloane to rate her performance according to how well she typically is, or compare her role to what she usually portrays. Tunney isn't really bad, she just has too little to do, and a character that is fairly uneven. She is a tool to bring about certain circumstances throughout, and that's too bad, because she does have some talent. One of the problems is that it's quite simply not very easy to accept these characters as people... they're too extreme, caricatures of perceptions of people. The ex-wife, for example, is stitched together of all the bad and "far out" qualities one could think of. One would hope that fairly few people in the world are quite that bizarre. The seemingly endless sub-plots are another mistake... for a film that lasts just over an hour and a half, there's story enough for a *saga*. Shakespeare could hardly have thought up more story for just one production. And they seem to just show up at random... as if the writer didn't want to deal with just one story or one pile of complications, so he had to think up more, and just kept adding until he had enough to make a film out of. The material just doesn't work well. We've seen the "odd couple" before, the idea of putting two people who have little in common isn't new... and it really isn't put to terribly good use here. The spy stuff and the action aren't bad... though the tension did seem tame at times, and the threat of the bad guys, the sense of danger just... isn't really there. Douglas makes a fine spy, though I'd wager that Peter Falk made a better one(I have yet to see the original, though I certainly intend to look for it). I didn't find the film particularly humorous... occasionally entertaining, but never really funny. The music was almost all good, though. And that's pretty much it... for those wanting spy-stuff, it'll do. And if you like your movies with a side of feel-good music, this certainly isn't the worst you could do. But for most anything else that this could offer, there are better movies out there. I rate this just above average, for the good things that it does hold. I recommend this to fans of the actors and the genre, and anyone with an hour and a half to kill who'd prefer something spy-related with music that is kind to the ears. 6/10

Deserves a 7, and will probably get one once more votes are cast

[Flamehead 3 · 7/10 · 10 October 2003]

I had the pleasure of watching this flick without any outside criticism, and I can say that I laughed a lot throughout the whole thing. Forget the critics and the nay-sayers -- 600-700 voters isn't enough to weigh your judgement on. It may be a remake, and it might be a little predictable, but there's a lot to it that makes it memorable.

Haven't seen the original though, so I won't compare them. Just pop it into your VCR and have a ball.

The Opposite of Funny

[d_grey · 1/10 · 27 May 2003]

Not funny. Un-Funny. Funnyless Funny-minus the funny and the laughter. If it was any less funny I'd call it a horror movie.

entertaining

[jfinke · 7/10 · 10 May 2003]

I just watched the original the other night. Then we went to see the sneak preview tonight. It was very entertaining. It can stand by itself. It keeps the themes of the original without copying it. I was worried a bit after seeing "Something about Charlie". They butchered that story. But, this was a very entertaining movie. Michael Douglas does a surprising good job. He is not as straight as Peter Falk was in the original. But, I don't think that there are many actors who are as straight as he is in comedy.

8 bucks down the drain

[rblayer · 2/10 · 6 June 2003]

Not the worst movie I ever saw....well...maybe. The only thing that could have made this show any more painful would be to have had Al Pacino in the overacted Michael Douglas role and having to endure that raspy voice for two hours...I mean really!! Douglas and Albert Brooks on a jet ski??? Unbelievably bad. Police Academy meets Weekend at Bernie's. None of the characters were likeable, except liking to hate the scene stealing Candice Bergan. Just imagine the villain being openly gay and swishing, the good-guys a band of inept Keystone Kop FBI agents, Brooks whining constantly while Douglas acted the ham, add in a convoluted plot, and what do you have???...me, wanting my eight dollars back about 7 minutes into this tragedy. Now I know why the cute double agent lady was never heard from after her fall off of a motor boat...she held her breath and swam to Egypt.

Worth watching

[mm-39 · 6/10 · 11 June 2003]

This is not a great movie, and will age badly; I liked this movie; it makes me laugh, but it is done cheesy in a 70's way. Michael Douglas is a great actor and saved this film. The other lead should not quit his day job. The restaurant scene is great, especially the part where he describes his copier business. Rent it! Do not go to the theater for this one. 6/10

All Wet

[jldmp1 · 2/10 · 6 June 2006]

What dreadfully bad stuff. This remake is a wholesale rip off of "Real Men", passing through "True Lies", sandwiched beneath "Father of the Bride" and "Meet the Parents".

Jammed into this is every imaginable date movie cliché, like so much mortar between bricks. There's barely any time allotted for the equation to register (couple is betrothed, a perceived sexual wandering drives them apart, but they are reconciled so we can cheer).

It exists only as an excuse for Douglas to act half his age...something he's doing in real life, too. Brooks is just a cipher here - he can't quite implant the meta narrative of looking at all of this as a joke.

The climax resolves through "Thelma and Louise" crossed with "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid".

There is more or less exactly zero cinematic value here...not a single original thought, word or deed to be found, either.

A new "odd couple" is born with a new spy-film twist.

[Dkish · 8/10 · 15 May 2003]

A new "odd couple" is born with a new spy-film twist.

Michael Douglas is Stephen Tobias, a rugged deep-cover CIA agent, who focuses more on his work that his life with his son, Mark (Ryan Reynolds) or his now ex-wife, Judy (Candice Bergen).

It turns out that Mark is about to get married to beautiful Melissa (Lindsay Sloane) but has yet to meet Mark's parents. Mark assures her that is a good thing. But Melissa's parents, Jerry (Albert Brooks) and Katherine (Maria Ricossa) insist on meeting at least Mark's father.

During the first meeting between Mark's father and Melissa's parents, mild-mannered foot-doctor Jerry stumbles in on one of Stephen's spy plans and finds himself swept up in Stephen's mess on the eve of his daughter's nuptials. How will this revelation effect the up-coming marriage and will the two fathers live long enough to get back to the wedding?

"The In-Laws" is one of the biggest surprises I have seen this year. I never thought in a million years that this film would be as funny as it is. The odd pairing of Brooks and Douglas pays off tenfold. Their odd pairing and hilarious antics made me think some of the classic film, "The Odd Couple". The film also reminded me a little of the 80s comedy, "Real Men" because of its off-beat way of bringing the audience into the story.

Brooks hasn't been this funny in years. His neurotic schtick, which is probably more famous when played by Woody Allen, gives his character such innocence. There were so many priceless moments involving Brooks and how he relates to the spy-world.

Douglas seems to have journeyed back to his Jack Colton character, which he played in "Romancing the Stone". There is definitely some of Colton in Tobias. You can really see it when Douglas allows Tobias to put his guard down. That was always the funniest part of Colton and it is the same for Tobias.

Another great thing about this film is the caliber of people who are in the cast. You have some great upcoming comedy actors like Reynolds and Sloane and on the other side veterans like Bergen and Brooks. I wanted to see more of Reynolds since he is such a great comedic find. I have high expectations for that guy. I also really enjoyed Sloane when she was in the short-lived WB series, "Grosse Pointe". I so miss that series. She to has a great potential to be more if given the chance in comedy.

This film knows where its strengths are and it continues the laughs over and over. I just wish we could have had more time with the supporting cast.

The film also has some interesting uses of music in its soundtrack. For instance the opening scenes involving Michael Douglas escaping from one of his spy missions involves a great car chase and a gun battle but the whole scene's overture is accented by Paul McCartney's infamous James Bond theme, "Live & Let Die". It is a great addition as it seems to help build the spy feeling of the scene. Throughout the film there are interesting musical additions, which help put interesting slants and accents on the various scenes.

"The In-Laws" was such a surprise and is by far the funniest movie I have seen this year, thus far. (4 out of 5) So Says the Soothsayer.

don't be fooled...not a dull romantic comedy

[peter_lumley · 7/10 · 12 July 2006]

The DVD box cover in the UK would suggest it is! This is a great action comedy with Michael Douglas and Albert Brooks providing some very amusing laughs along with the rest of the cast. It's not a dull romantic comedy that drags on too long! Ryan Reynolds is under used, but as a whole this movie moved fast and I was entertained. This comment is really to say watch this movie if you're not too serious of a thinker because you'll probably enjoy it! I was discouraged from watching it for a long time because of reviews on IMDb! Although a little older Michael Douglas was great in the 'James Bond' role.

Peter

Dreadful

[Cedric_Catsuits · 1/10 · 13 May 2006]

French people saying 'fanny pack' pretty much sums this up. Aimed squarely at the American market - it won't appeal much to anyone else, except those who are too easily amused. I can understand Douglas getting involved - vanity. How actors of the calibre of Suchet and Tunney were persuaded to participate, is less clear.

There are a few good comic moments, but the greatest laughs come from seeing a positively geriatric Michael Douglas attempting - unsuccessfully - some rather basic fight moves. How he didn't do himself a serious injury is a mystery. Suchet is suitably hammy and Tunney is always good to watch, but that's all the positives.

That about sums it up. Bad writing, bad direction, and a star who should have retired 10 years ago. Give it a miss.