 Unfortunately for The In-Laws , it's a remake of a relatively recent (1979) movie that critics remember with fondness. Most of them agree that the original was funnier. As Lou Lumenick writes in the New York Post: "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." Ty Burr in the Boston Globe puts it this way: "Those who know the 1979 film of the same title will recognize this sad little remake for what it is: Insult piled upon injury." Joe Morgenstern in the Wall Street Journal raises the appropriate question: "Why was this film perpetrated in the first place? The original was deservedly beloved, and left little or no room for improvement. The answer, of course, is that the original was beloved. These days the studios are terrified of taking chances on untested material, and remakes aren't meant to improve, but only to wring new revenue from old assets." Nevertheless, Glenn Whipp in the Los Angeles Daily News finds the film "funny and quite enjoyable" and concludes that while the writers may not have improved on the original, "they didn't ruin it, either." And Roger Moore in the Denver Post concludes his review on a similar note: "The new In-Laws never captures the cheesy anarchy of the original, something worth shooting for if you remake a comedy classic. But at least its funny enough that we can't call it a sacrilege." |
