|
Wretched rehash >> The In-Laws is an unbelievably bad remake |
|
by MARK SLUTSKY
The In-Laws is actually a remake of Arthur Hiller’s 1979 movie of the same name, which starred Alan Arkin and a thong-less Peter Falk. The 2003 version is directed by Andrew Fleming (responsible for the miles-better Dick) and features Michael Douglas opposite Brooks. Douglas plays a deep-cover CIA agent who’s trying to buy a submarine from, or for, a crime lord, or an arms dealer, or something. It’s not made very clear. Brooks is a podiatrist (the fact that he’s a foot doctor is treated like it’s a hilarious joke unto itself) whose daughter (Lindsay Sloane) is engaged to Douglas’s son, played by Ryan Reynolds. Brooks and family aren’t aware of Douglas’s top-secret profession, which is sort of the comic basis of the movie. Anyway, through a series of improbable and idiotic incidents (I honestly can’t remember the particulars) Brooks and Douglas are thrown together and go on a mission—to France! Where they meet a homosexual! Like the joke about Brooks being a podiatrist, the fact that a character is gay (a bad guy, no less) was apparently wildly funny to someone behind this film. Actually, I didn’t even realize they made movies so baldly homophobic anymore—there’s even a gag about how much the guy’s going to enjoy being raped in prison. In addition to all of the humourless jokes in this movie, and the surprise appearance of KC and the Sunshine Band (tellingly, a high point) it’s also completely confusing, with none of the characters’ motivation ever adequately explained. Why does Brooks weep and complain his way through the entire movie? Is there a reason for this, or is it just supposed to be funny? One thing’s for sure: funny, The In-laws ain’t. The In-laws opens Friday, May 23 |
|
HOME
| NEWS
| MUSIC / FILM / ARTS
| ENTERTAINMENT LISTINGS
| LETTERS
| COLUMNS SEARCH | WEBMASTER | STAFF | ARCHIVES | SITEMAP |
| © Communications Gratte-Ciel Ltée 2003 |