The In-Laws 2003 remake

[ColinJones 0]

You probably don't even know this movie exists. I'm aware of most new releases but I had absolutely no clue what the hell this was when I stumbled across it.

 

To briefly make my case: Albert Brooks in a red thong masquerading as a crime lord named "Fat Cobra" is seduced by an offensively mincing David Suchet; the use of a device labeled "Elevator Randomizer" buys our heroes some time; and best of all: a tactical war submarine in Lake Michigan fires a torpedo that Douglas and Brooks, clutching each other suggestively on a jet ski, lead in a circle using an air horn that Brooks used earlier in the film as a makeshift rape whistle.

 

Throw in a few casually tossed off homophobic/racist running gags and you've got a toxic trainwreck that is much more of a bizarrely fascinating mess than the marketing makes it seem. Most importantly, and why I recommend this movie, is that it is not merely "bad" but so tremendously ill-conceived and poorly executed that you will not only be baffled as to "how" it was made but "why, for the love of god, why?"

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-tc4MmOkwU

[ColinJones 0]

A couple other details:

 

I had once caught a few minutes of the perfectly serviceable 1979 original with Alan Arkin and Peter Faulk, which I've heard manages to coast on the considerable charisma of the leads. Well Michael Douglas and (especially) Albert Brooks are no slouches when it comes to comedy, and though Douglas is obviously in check-cashing mode it is deeply uncomfortable to watch comedy legend Brooks hopelessly flounder trying to make something worthwhile out of the material here.

In fact one of the few dvd features is a few straight minutes of Albert Brooks trying multiples takes on one pointless, unfunny scene.

 

It's obvious this movie was cut and re-edited so many times as to make entire stretches nearly non-sensical. Characters do and say things that end up going nowhere, and you're left pondering why these things are happening, or why an actress's makeup is smudged and running for no reason.

 

Here is the second half of the movie, for anyone curious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UY_qKam69A

Honestly the first half has most of the weirdest and more offensive moments, but the ending is still hard to imagine being conceived by functioning human minds.

 

I believe that one theory as to "why, for the love of god, why" this was made is that Meet the Parents had found commercial success 3 years prior, and the idea was that any comedy about parents must be a moneymaker. Rather than just make one of the characters a stern ex-cia officer they decided to graft an entire spy plot onto the movie. They were so committed to this espionage business that it virtually takes over the movie, forcing the wedding, wives, and children of these titular in-laws deep into the background. It really is like Meet the Parents but all the jokes have been lobotomized and replaced with sub-austin powers spy intrigue.

 

As anyone who's read all this can tell I found this movie's existence and construction so baffling that it has taken up considerable mental space in my mind. I'll leave with mentioning that the most memorable running gag and closest the movie comes to a genuine laugh is the idea that Albert Brooks carrying a disposable cup in his fanny pack, and that his being a foot doctor somehow necessitates this, inspires endless mirth in anyone who sees it.