- Critic Score
- Most active
- Publication
- Most clicked
-
75It's a hoot to watch Fonda cut loose and mix it up with J. Lo, even when the laughs turn mean-spirited.
-
75A generational spectacle that's fun to witness.
-
67Isn't a particularly good movie if what interests you is the art of film -- cinematography, editing, screenwriting, staging, little things like that. But if you're chiefly interested in turning off the upstairs lights and relaxing with a few laughs, you could do a lot worse.
-
63Fonda is a hoot and a half.
-
50It would take the dark wit of a Billy Wilder or a Coen brother--or at least a Neil Simon--to put across this kind of material.
-
50By Hollywood standards, a movie carried with such gusto by a 67-year-old woman has to be considered a miracle. And I'm not sorry to say I enjoyed watching her do it.
-
50Imagine what someone like Danny DeVito might have done with the material, taking it in that darker "War of the Roses" direction instead of languishing in this sunny, not-nearly-sinister-enough "Legally Blonde" territory.
-
50The movie briefly suggests Viola is an incestuous psychotic.
-
50This is a gay men's movie whose primary function is to doll Fonda up like a drag queen and let her rip.
-
50"Legally Blonde" director Robert Luketic bumbles along with typically clumsy blocking and framing, and the misogyny inherent in the three-ring spectacle of bitch slaps, barbiturate covert ops, and wedding plan hysteria does rankle.
-
42As for Monster-in-Law, it's tripe on a plate.
-
40A note to Fonda: even thin, fabulous 67-year-olds shouldn't wear strapless gowns. It's scary.
-
40Fonda and Sykes are made for each other, and their incessant bickering and arguing are about the only things that give Monster-in-Law any life.
-
40All I could think about while watching Jennifer Lopez prance through Monster-in-Law was how cool and poised she was in "Out of Sight."
-
40Ultimately one flat-footed beast.
-
38A fairly tedious, stupid picture.
-
38Fonda's performance is a perfect storm of histrionics, and she leaves nothing and no one standing.
-
38Monster-in-Law, where Bridezilla meets Godzilla, is a comedy so anemic, so toxic, that even Dracula wouldn't bite.
-
38Doesn't make the movie worth watching -- even if you're monstrously bored.
-
38Monster-in-Law is appalling misfire of a comedy - a motion picture that takes a situation ripe for the blackest vein of satire and reduces it to a puerile and edgeless pile of goo
-
38Add them up and the sum has a certain mathematical inevitability: Really annoying characters, really annoying movie.
-
30This vapid, mean-spirited comedy is Lopez's show, and though she is utterly unconvincing as a paragon of down-to-earth virtues, the last laugh was hers from the outset.
-
30How much better this would have been had someone like Brian De Palma stepped behind the camera.
-
30Billed as a comedy, this low-wattage sitcom is both ill-tempered and mean-spirited.
-
30A depressing comeback for Jane Fonda, but it's still nice to see her in movies again, and in something that isn't dripping with self-actualizing virtue like her last projects.
-
30Shrill, undermotivated, feature-length catfight.
-
30So tame and limp, it may actually give mothers-in-law a good name.
-
30To boost this movie's rating to "worth seeing" would make me feel like a publicist or simply a dope.
-
25Monster-in-Law fails the Gene Siskel Test: "Is this film more interesting than a documentary of the same actors having lunch?"
-
25The comedy is shamelessly stupid and flagrantly vulgar by turns.
-
25Jane Fonda coming back to the screen after a decade-and-a-half absence in Monster-in-Law is like Brando returning from the dead to star in a Police Academy movie.
-
25It's incorrigibly unfunny.
-
20A deeply dispiriting movie, not just because it is grindingly bad but because Jane Fonda actually chose this for her comeback after a 15-year absence from the screen. But it's worse than that. Fonda, one of the best actors of her generation, is downright awful in a role she could have -- and probably should have -- sleepwalked through.
-
20A shrunken, cowardly movie in deep denial of its true nature, which is far uglier than it is ever willing to admit.
-
20The movie itself is grotesque, and may drive you nuts as it makes you laugh, mostly at the stupidity of the thing.
-
20The self-confident fatuity and condescension of the movie is offensive.
-
20Fonda believed in acting. She doesn't seem to believe in it anymore. Her performance in this film is a collection of reactions, vocal whoops, and pouncings that we have seen often before in lesser actors.
-
0It's not hard to imagine the militant Jane Fonda of 1972 angrily denouncing Monster-In-Law as insulting Hollywood claptrap trafficking in regressive, reactionary, blatantly sexist gender codes. And she'd be right.
prev
next
Page:
- 1
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 18 out of 39
-
Mixed: 3 out of 39
-
Negative: 18 out of 39
-
3
-
AngelicaG.10It couldn't have been any better...now the real question is...is there going to be a part 2 to this movie?