Metascore
46

Mixed or average reviews - based on 32 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 32
  2. Negative: 5 out of 32
  1. 63
    Albert Brooks is expertly cast as a hopelessly neurotic, fanny-pack-wearing podiatrist.
  2. Relies on comic formula -- but does so with more than usual panache.
  3. 50
    Seems conventional in its ideas about where it can go and what it can accomplish. You don't get the idea anyone laughed out loud while writing the screenplay. It lacks a strange light in its eyes. It is too easily satisfied.
  4. Douglas brings a hilarious kind of Gordon Gekko assurance to his character, and Brooks' long-suffering, naggy persona -- which hasn't had a showcase this strong since "Lost in America" -- sparks off it like Hope with Crosby.
  5. 70
    Fleming's more than passable, often extremely funny remake.
  6. 50
    This In-Laws isn't a disaster, it's just not very good.
  7. Reviewed by: David Edelstein
    50
    Coarse and chaotic remake.
  8. 40
    Perhaps the oddest thing about The In-Laws is that it's aimed at an audience old enough to remember not only the original, but also how much funnier it seemed at the time.
  9. They (Brooks and Douglas) are so out of sync with each other that they seem to be looking for different movies to take their acts, though neither makes you want to see those hypothetical films. Not even as an option to this one.
  10. A walking-talking affront to every middle-class middle-ager it intends to sucker, this remake of the 1979 accidental-classic screwball hits every wrong note and trips on every chair leg.
  11. 75
    A remake, done right, was not a bad idea. And, fortunately in this case, it has been accomplished with some flair. The result is a lightweight source of entertainment that maximizes humor and minimizes serious stuff.
  12. But uneven acting isn't fatal here, since Andrew Bergman's screenplay is strong enough and Andrew Fleming's direction seamless enough to carry it forward.
  13. This In-Laws feels, in the end, formulaic and unnecessary, especially when the original is yours for the renting at the video store.
  14. 50
    Everything sly and low-key about The In-Laws, a 1979 comedy...is supersized and coarsened in Andrew Fleming's remake.
  15. Like too many movies these days, takes a clever little idea and all but pounds it into the ground.
  16. Big, bloated and only intermittently amusing.
  17. 50
    What's cutting- edge comedy for one generation can become generic filler for the next - that's the lesson to be learned from The In-Laws, a strenuous attempt to recycle a vastly funnier minor classic.
  18. 50
    Overdoes it and falls on its farce.
  19. Brooks has long since mastered his whiny/neurotic persona, and Douglas does a passable version of giddy craziness. The young folks get lost in the shuffle, which leaves Suchet to steal the show with his fey, moist-eyed delivery. In this case, that's petty larceny.
  20. 38
    Misses out on just about everything that made the original work, most notably Falk and Arkin, whose odd-couple pairing was the foundation on which the entire movie rested.
  21. Reviewed by: Ty Burr
    38
    Perhaps the biggest disappointment is that The In-Laws was directed by Andrew Fleming, who delivered the fizzy Nixon-era comedy ''Dick'' a few years back and who also had a hand in ''Grosse Pointe,'' the wicked, briefly-lived WB parody of TV teen dramas. The man obviously knows from satire, but not on the evidence of anything here.
  22. Reviewed by: Angel Cohn
    60
    Fans of the original may be disheartened by this glossier, action-packed version, but the brisker pacing and showy shoot-'em-up scenes are exactly what will appeal to the film's target audience.
  23. 50
    It seems downright unfair to harp on the remake’s differences from the original when both films are having such a ball.
  24. While much of The In-Laws feels stuck in time, what really does it in is the script's boring, modern sensitivity to fatherhood, and bonding with one's kids, and all that enlightened parenthood crap.
  25. Subtle it's not. Still, the film, directed by Andrew Fleming ("Dick"), gets large and plentiful laughs where it's supposed to.
  26. 70
    This is a movie that starts silly and just gets sillier -- at one point Candice Bergen shows up with a Buddhist monk -- but its laughs are sweet-natured, and Heaven knows the lead players earn every one.
  27. It's as if the director, Andrew Fleming, and the screenwriters, Nat Mauldin and Ed Solomon, set out to make a movie that would be mediocre in every respect. If so, they have completely succeeded.
  28. Reviewed by: Robert Koehler
    50
    The 2003 edition written by Nat Mauldin and Ed Solomon and helmed by Andrew Fleming places the Douglas-Brooks combo inside a much more complicated if not quite as funny world.
  29. Why do filmmakers persist in remaking films that were already great to begin with? Why not instead remake bad movies that had terrific premises?
  30. It winds up like all Hollywood comedies these days--merely resembling something funny.
  31. All that's missing is wit and humanity.
User Score
6.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 11 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 4
  2. Negative: 1 out of 4
  1. Aug 28, 2014
    6
    To call The In-Laws unfunny and mediocre would be a lie. Michael Douglas and Albert Brooks are genius together. It may often be over the top,To call The In-Laws unfunny and mediocre would be a lie. Michael Douglas and Albert Brooks are genius together. It may often be over the top, but it's satisfying and hilarious. Full Review »
  2. ChadB.
    Jan 25, 2008
    8
    Kind of a "get smart" for the 21st century, very entertaining.
  3. PatC.
    Jun 30, 2006
    2
    Awful in the early going, finger poised over the remote to stop the pain, but it does become watchable while remaining insultingly stupid.