Why a slicker, bigger remake of a cult classic often misses the mark
In short: The 2003 action comedy The In-Laws attempted to modernize a beloved 1979 original. Despite a high-profile cast and a significant budget, the film struggled to capture the chaotic charm of its predecessor. Critics noted that while the production was polished, it ultimately lacked the essential, unscripted lunacy of the original.
Released on May 23, 2003, the remake stars Michael Douglas as a CIA operative and Albert Brooks as a mild-mannered podiatrist. The plot centers on the two men being forced together when their children decide to marry. As the agent attempts to orchestrate a sting operation involving a Russian submarine, the foot doctor is dragged into a series of dangerous, high-stakes escapades. The pair must navigate gunfire, leaps from skyscrapers, and the theft of aircraft while evading federal authorities.
The film was a commercial disappointment, failing to earn back its $40 million production budget. Critics were largely unimpressed, with Rotten Tomatoes assigning it a 33% score. Reviewers frequently compared the remake to the 1979 original, arguing that the new version was too calculated. While the original was praised for its slapdash, unpredictable nature, the 2003 iteration was described as overly polished and inflated, losing the comedic chemistry that defined the first film.
Roger Ebert, writing for the Chicago Sun-Times, highlighted that the remake understood the mechanics of comedy but lacked the necessary recklessness. He suggested that humor is most effective when characters remain oblivious to their own absurdity, a quality he felt was missing here. Similarly, Michael Wilmington of the Chicago Tribune observed that director Andrew Fleming seemed overwhelmed by the action, resulting in a film that felt heavy-handed rather than inspired. Ultimately, the project serves as a case study in the difficulty of recreating lightning in a bottle.
Opens the Intellect+ feed with this card first. Swipe up for the next one.
Sources
- Summary by Intellect · source: The In-Laws (2003 film)
To cite this card, link to https://intellectplus.co.uk/app/entertainment-the-in-laws-2003-film.
How we source, check and correct cards: Editorial standards.
General information, not professional advice. Spotted an error? Flag the card or see corrections and complaints.
Intellect Plus is a visual educational discovery platform for exploring fascinating facts and ideas. Brain Food, Not Brain Rot. What is Intellect Plus?
Related
More in Films · More in Entertainment · Latest · A–Z · All topics
