The In-Laws (1979)

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Men, naturally, are always trying to one-up each other for reasons only known to themselves (while the women are arguing about wedding shoes, they are getting shot at). The two patriarchs of the Kornpett and Ricardo families come together on the eve of the joining of hands in marriage, and sense the opportunity to gain an upper hand. Arkin and Falk are natural showmen, and Hiller plays their performances against a plot that never seems to force its hand but inexplicably drives them towards bigger and more ridiculous circumstances. But first, the in-laws are visiting for dinner. It is not a situation that calls for flamboyance, so the two men have to settle, quite humorously, for a battle of who is the more humble. Vincent gives his toast, and before they can even finish drinking Sheldon is up and giving his own. Vincent, not wanting to miss a beat, is already sobbing liberally into his handkerchief. It's a tactical cry, and because men seldom pull this trick out, we stare rather incredulously. The In-Laws places a comedic duo within a larger crime story and then lets them fend for themselves. Arkin is a splendid straight man; never has dentistry been less thrilling, and never has such an incompetent every-man lasted so long in a plot that would normally squash him flat in the opening scene. He has an ever growing incredulity about his face, as if he has wandered in from another slower, gentler movie and been asked to play a role that goes against every fibre of his body. It would not so unusual if he was to glance at the camera every now and again with a disbelief etched on his face, as if to ask the audience "Can you believe this?" But he is also a wonderful participant. He feigns indignation at times, but is one of those types that can be easily guilted and coerced if only because of his weak will and good nature. Arkin adds an extra layer of exasperation that has long passed the point of asking for explanation - just see the look on his face as he pays for the paint-job that has left his car looking like a hot-wheels toy, complete with dancing flames to match his brown suit.And then there is Falk's Vincent, who at times seems almost as loony as the mastermind General Garcia. Falk tiptoes the line between absurdity and seriousness. The easiest example is his early recount of his days in Guatemala, and how the aura of the dinner table suddenly shifts in line with his tone, and he takes on a persona that is akin to something of a war veteran mumbling on about the unspeakable terrors abroad. Falk's sincerity is matched by only his ability to keep a straight face, and add layer after layer of fabrication to his story and monstrous appendage after monstrous appendage to these 'flies'. The scene is so side-splittingly hilarious because we get the sense that Vincent is merely making it up as he goes along, and no one but Sheldon notices. What are the chances that he popped into the local nachos place for a side of guacamole that very afternoon? A strong possibility, if you ask me. Arkin takes on the common sense reaction, while the rest of the table is transfixed by the power of his tale, and the rest of the film goes along with this very notion. Because Arkin only seems unflappable and is easily pushed into escalating the situation again and again, they find themselves in foreign and precarious scenarios that James Bond would not feel out of place in. Hiller affords the pair an invincibility that enables their partnership's natural humour to shine even in the most unlikely of circumstances; see Vince's last minute absurd appeal to the General to spare their lives, but if not both of them, at least Sheldon's because of his excellent dental care, and how Sheldon explodes at this pathetic appeal. But then watch Arkin's perfect reaction to being accosted by two thugs armed with guns, and see if Vince's pleas are not wrong. He cries "He's my in-law", clutches the black bag of mystery in one hand, and with the other, flings his business card like a boomerang designed to doubly further his business and to enable a quick getaway. Arkin's eyes flash death and anger sometimes, but deep down he enjoys playing this little game.

Having read a number of reviews, I have to wonder if I saw the same movie everyone else did. I will have to admit that I do not like Allen Arkin, but not even Arthur Hiller, an actor, and director that I very much respect, could breathe life into this flaccid and boring script. I happen to have seen this film recently, and I discovered that I disliked it even more than I did when I saw it in a theater in 1978. One has to question a film's worth when its best joke/gag consists of Falk and Arkin fleeing from gunfire screaming, Serpentine, Shelly...Serpentine...big yuk!!! Perhaps I expect too much from film comedies, but I like to laugh as much as the next guy, but I found myself checking my watch wondering when this experience would be over

I watched this movie when it first came out. My mom and I laughed so hard throughout the whole thing. Peter Falk and Alan Arkin are superb! They make the best comedic pair and both played their parts perfectly.I saw that they remade this with Albert Brooks and Michael Douglas. It was a good and entertaining movie but not nearly as funny as this one. I just finished watching the remake and saw that this original was available on Amazon Prime so I watched it. It is just as funny today as it was when I first saw it.Serpentine! Serpentine! LOL You must watch this movie. It is pure genius.

It is interesting to note, Andrew Bergman wrote the script for this one and the recent remake starring Michael Douglas. This is by far the better version. There are several reasons for that.Arthur Hiller's Direction is definitely better in this one over the newer version. Then there is the more talented cast as Peter Falk and Alan Arkin are definitely more talented than the cast in the remake. It is not that Douglas is not talented, but that he does not fit his character as well as the original actor. Douglas is saddled with an inferior director in the new one too. It is a wonder they didn't get Tim Burton since he is the King of bad remakes, but you can't always get the best of the worst.The main thing is that this was an original and fresh material version of this film. When the remake was made, it did not get a fresh approach, it stuck with the original. In doing so, it fell flat because imitation is not always the sincerest form of flattery. Peter Falk is most known as Columbo, but this is one of several comedy films he made. Falk does Comedy well and this film is no exception. His teaming with Arkin here is inspired & produces very good results.When watching this film the recent loss of Peter Faulk is felt even more as he is incredible in this as the opposite of Columbo, just winging it without regards to details. The results are so funny.