criterionforum.org

The In-Laws



Peter Falk and Alan Arkin make for a hilarious dream team in this beloved American sidesplitter. Directed by Arthur Hiller from an ingenious script by Andrew Bergman, The In-Laws may at first seem like a generic meet-the-parents comedy, as Arkin's mild-mannered dentist suspiciously eyes Falk's volatile mystery man, whose son is engaged to his daughter. But soon, through a series of events too serpentine and surprising to spoil, the two men are brought together by a dangerous mission that takes them from suburban New Jersey to Honduras. Fueled by elaborate stunt work and the laconic, naturalistic charms of its two stars, The In-Laws deserves its status as a madcap classic—and has continued to draw ardent fans in the years since its release.

SPECIAL FEATURES

• New 2K digital restoration, with uncompressed monaural soundtrack on the Blu-ray
• Audio commentary from 2003 featuring director Arthur Hiller, actors Alan Arkin and Peter Falk, and writer Andrew Bergman
• New interview with Arkin
• In Support of "The In-Laws," a new interview program featuring actors Ed Begley Jr., Nancy Dussault, James Hong, and David Paymer
• Trailer
• PLUS: A booklet featuring an essay by comedy writer Stephen Winer and a 2011 recollection of the making of the film by Hiller

And it has an honest-to-god booklet!

This is probably not a forum fav (judging by the silence in the room) but I'm glad some of these well made 70s drama/comedies are getting some good treatment. Arkin is great in this!

I haven't seen it but I did see some of the ill-advised 2003 remake with Michael Douglas and Albert Brooks on television once. I would almost blind-buy this because of the people involved, and I've heard Kevin Pollak talk it up on his show saying it was his favorite movie. It's too bad Criterion couldn't have gotten him in for a video piece since he does an impeccable impression of both the leads.

I'm not too surprised there isn't more talk. I haven't seen this in years and I like it a lot, but I have a feeling certain members won't care for it much, if at all. The villain in the movie may prove a little much for starters. From what I remember it's pretty broad and sometimes feels like it's constantly throwing whatever joke/gag it can at the wall to see what sticks, but a lot of it sticks and the film has a great energy to it thanks mostly to Falk and Arkin. Falk's particularly good. His character is, in the end, quite insane, and I think a lot of actors would have played him over the top (Douglas goes a little silly with it in the rather bad remake) but Falk plays him completely straight, which makes it a lot funnier.

I'm curious what the reactions will be when members start watching it.

Blu-ray.com


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cdnchris wrote:I'm curious what the reactions will be when members start watching it.

Well, apart from possible technical issues, let's first acknowledge that Criterion dropped the ball by not commissioning black velvet art for the packaging! I thought the film gave itself an apt description midway through when Arkin describes Falk as heavily flawed but still oddly likable. I didn't think the movie was funny (I maybe chuckled twice near the end), but it had a certain charm to it nevertheless. I doubt I'll ever watch it again, but I've sat through too many films that couldn't even rise to the level of decent-enough distraction, so that's something I guess

I still laughed through it. The part that surprised me was

Spoiler

I ended up losing it with the hand puppet. Not laughing real hard, mind you, but giggling where I had a hard time stopping.

But most of the laughs, for me, come from Arkin's reactions to the situation and a few good lines. I'm still a bit surprised they chose it honestly, but like you said, it is a decent distraction at least.

Honestly I thought Arkin

Spoiler

quietly lowering his daughter's hand holding the envelope of money while talking to Ed Begley Jr

was the funniest bit of subtle humor. I could see how this could be a movie like Fletch where it gets funnier the more you see it/are around those who like it

Very much so. I generally appreciate any references to flies with beaks, or the Guacamole Act of 1917.

This is one of those movies where whenever it was not focused on the leads it dies almost immediately, but it's a lot of fun just to let Arkin and Falk goof around, and fun to see Falk essentially playing a sillier version of his Columbo character. I feel like whomever got this attached to Criterion must have been the same one who got Hopscotch in the collection- there's a similar action-spy-comedy vibe, and they both feel like someone's dad's favorite movie. Remaking something this based on the charm of the specific actors seems like a bizarre idea, though.

I have not seen this since i was a kid, so I recalled virtually nothing about it, but i was surprised how funny it is. It's escalating absurdity is anchored by Arkin's performance, and his innocence through the first two acts of the film. There's some real sly exchanges between Arkin and Falk, and I think that's what keeps it from going completely off the rails. I mean, the insanity that spins around them as they are the eye of the storm.

Also, please someone give Simon a proper home video release.

I wasn't expecting particularly a lot from it, but ended up being positively surprised. While no masterpiece, it has a pace on gags and jokes and an incredible Peter Falk in it which are just a treat. It drags a bit in the middle though, but the more the movie goes, the more madcap it goes (even though the opening dinner and Falk's story sets quite a high bar to being with). The James Hong sequence probably had me the most (and, as a more subtle gag, the time spent by Tom counting the bills in the enveloppe).

I found this for the most part lame and ordinary, but it sparked into life whenever it got particularly insane, with the extremely silly antics of James Hong and Richard Libertini being the highlights for me (the latter almost single-handedly turns this into a Marx Brothers movie for five minutes). Falk and Arkin make the rest of it watchable, so it passed the time adequately. Everybody involved in the film, if we're to believe the extras, seems to think it's some kind of masterpiece, so lucky them, I guess!

This isn't indexed in the top thread. As to the film itself I'll agree with everyone else that it isn't particularly good, but thankfully enough of the actors are on their A game to make it work mostly.

knives wrote:This isn't indexed in the top thread.

Fixed

I liked it. There are a lot of subtle things going on which add to the humor. Not laugh-out-loud stuff, but clever enough to make you (or me at least) smile. This has been done much better since, particularly with Midnight Run in terms of mixing action and unabashed comedy.

I do remember the lack of reaction and excitement when this was revealed to be entering the collection and I do not remember much from when I first watched it shortly after the fact but I just completed a rewatch and this is very enjoyable. I do echo Chris' comment the most where a lot of it that makes it humurous is Arkin's hysterical reactions to most of the situations and dialogue. Personally though this has always been a fail safe in comedies for me and it's the reason why John Waters' early films I find hilarious: just loud and annoying reactions and deliveries which orinically I absolutely HATE in real life. Aside from all that I found the escalating sequence of events to be great as well. I do disagree that the few moments the leads aren't in the picture the film dies I think it keeps its pace quite incredibly all throughout.

I haven't seen this in a while (though I watched it plenty as a kid, and revisited it once when Criterion put it out.. it's been five years already?) but I'm with zedz on Richard Libertini stealing the show