What do you get when you put a neurotic Jewish foot doctor from New
York together with a CIA agent on a case to bust an arms-smuggling
ring? And then have their kids get married? You get Albert Brooks and
Michael Douglas as "The In-Laws", a remake of a film by the same name
from 1979. Unfortunately, the marriage of these two actors doesn't seem
as compatible.
Both movies follow essentially the same plot line: the daughter of a
conservative and traditional family man from New York is about to marry
the son of a CIA agent who happens to be in the midst of cracking a
huge international case wide open. When things go inadvertently awry,
the fun begins as the doctor gets caught up in the scheme and almost
blows the whole thing, and gets himself and his soon-to-be in-law killed
at the same time.
What made the original movie work is precisely what failed about the
current version: the movie is not supposed to be about the "sting", it's
supposed to be about the relationship between the neurotic in-laws. In the
case of the doctor, Albert Brooks is perfectly cast as the doctor/father,
blundering and fearful exactly as you expect him to be, as he faces
everything from near death to being in a hot-tub with a dangerous (and
gay) arms dealer. He eventually learns to ease his anxiety and deal
with his situation, just like his predecessor, Alan Arkin, did in the
original film.
The problem with the film has more to do with Michael Douglas' role.
Unlike his predecessor, Peter Falk, Douglas is far too polished. The
role of Steve Tobias is supposed to be that of a quirky, unassuming and
somewhat innocent but lovable guy, much the character Falk made famous
in his series, "Columbo." With Tobias, you never really know whether his
stories are true, or if he can be trusted, or even if he knows what he's
doing. This would drive anyone nuts if they were in a tight situation
with this guy, and Falk was made for this role. Douglas, however, is
quite the contrary. He's not nuts enough - he can't be; that's just
not him. He's too good looking. In the original film, you never really
knew if Tobias was a CIA agent till quite close to the end of the film,
whereas the new film makes only one half-hearted attempt at hiding the
fact, but it doesn't really fool anyone. Because of how poorly Douglas
was cast, and how too many quirky aspects of the film were replaced by
high-tech effects and more modern and threatening villains, there is
no chemistry between anyone to carry the movie.
On the positive side, "The In-Laws" certainly had its share of comedic
lines, and I found myself laughing far more often than the movie deserved
to be laughed at. But that's me. I love Albert Brooks, and I make no
apologies or excuses for being easily amused. That said, I left the
film disappointed. In fact, so much so, that I rented the original film
again, just to enjoy it one more time. Not that I want to turn this into
a video review, but it should be noted that the original 1979 version
is well-worth seeing, especially if you were a Columbo fan.
You can look up this movie in the Internet Movie Database here:
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0314786.
|
|
