The In-Laws (1979) vs The In-Laws (1995) - The Match-Up

I have been trying to think of some really interesting things to say about these two movies. I'm coming up a little short. Of the movies I have watched so far, these did not illicit much of a reaction out of me. A middle-of-the-road buddy adventure tale is not something that gets you all inspired. However, there are some good and bad things to mention, and away we go.

When comparing the two versions we get the same basic storyline. There is an upcoming wedding, this necessitates the joining of two families, a tricky situation no matter who you are, but especially tricky if one of the parents is an international spy. One slight change in the family dynamic of the 1995 version was making the spy character a divorcee. This stands to reason, since the wife in the 1979 version seemed a bit clueless, how could she not know what profession he husband was in?

Also, the 1995 version changes things up a by making Michael Douglas more or less a James Bond type. This makes for more action set pieces, probably a calculated change for modern audiences who demand more action in their movies. That's not to say the original didn't have action but Peter Faulk's character was grounded a bit more in reality. I think this change was an unfortunate one. In working the script to include more over-the-top action set pieces it caused the plot to become a bit over-complicated. I couldn't really tell why the bad guys were after our main characters and I didn't care either. The focus of this type of movie should be the comedy. The 1995 version was trying to hard to be both an action movie and comedy and didn't really accomplish either. I wonder if the fact that True Lies came out in 1994 had an affect on this movie's action level. It's like the geeky little brother of True Lies.

One new element to the 1995 version was the addition of a closeted-homosexual character. I can't remember, was being gay a popular thing to have a laugh about in the 90s? I put it that way because this felt forced and seemed out of place in the movie. As if, somewhere in the process of writing the script a studio exec saw some other movie with a gay theme and said, "we need that in our movie!" I'll have to do a little research on that one.

So, which one was better? I like the original The In-Laws much more than the 1995 remake, the only problem (and not it's fault at all) you could say about the original was, when being reviewed from this perspective, it doesn't appear to be very special. But that is just a matter of many other movies using the same formula. You can't go wrong with Alan Arkin and Peter Faulk, though. And did it need a remake? This time I can definitively say, no. The 1995 remake seemed like a response to other hit films around the same time, like the aforementioned True Lies. It's a shame, because Albert Brooks is a genius and Michael Douglas is always money in the bank. Still though, if you ever consider watching a movie called The In-Laws, do yourself a favor and watch the 1979 version. You'll get a much more coherent and funny experience.

The In-Laws (1995) - The Mini-Review

*Cha-ching* That's the sound that many of the stars of The In-Laws heard when they received this script. This version does not do much to advance the genre of the buddy adventure, and it seemed like a payday for most of the cast. Let me describe it a bit, if you feel like listening, that is.

We open with Steve Tobias (Michael Douglas), a slightly over-the-hill James Bond type, and we are right in the middle of a dangerous spy-type thing. I could explain the details of the situation but that's not really necessary, Steve has something that the bad guys want but he has places to be, namely a dinner date with his son's soon to be in-laws. After a daring escape Steve makes his appointment, but just barely. This doesn't sit well with Jerry Pyser (Albert Brooks), a nervous podiatrist who is none to pleased to be giving away his daughter to the son of such a sketchy man. His opinion of Steve Tobais doesn't improve when he witnesses Steve beat down a thug in the men's room of the restaurant in which they are having their dinner date. The next day circumstances require that Steve intrude on Jerry's lecture at a local hospital. The FBI is after Steve and he can't be caught with the Macguffin (the thing that everyone wants to get in the movie.) Not very reluctantly, Steve plants it on Jerry as a diversion, resulting in jerry's involvement in a global spy-thing. Wackiness does ensue, of course. Taking Jerry and Steve on a country hopping adventure.

Look, this is not a great movie, it is very mediocre even with all the star power present. Albert Brooks is completely adequate as nervous Jerry and Michael Douglas seems to be having a blast with an action role. The rest of the cast does an admirable job as well. There isn't much to sink your teeth into here, however. It is very by-the-numbers and does not surprise you much.

Is it a bad movie? No, I would say it is a solid "O.K." I just wish they had tried a little harder to do something slightly different with the genre. As it is, the only reason to see this movie over the many others of it's type, would be if you were an especially interested in watching this group of actors go through this routine. One of those movies that would quite a good time waster if you were stuck on a plane.

The In-Laws (1979) - The Mini-Review

This is one of the movies on my list that I knew the least about before going in. I did know it existed and who the main actors were, but that's about it. As it turns out, that was just fine. I had no idea where I was going in this movie and that's refreshing.

The In-Laws starts out with a well orchestrated heist of an armored car, something I did not expect from a comedy. After deftly making off with not money, but plates for the printing of U.S. Treasury bills, the crooks meet with one of the main characters, Vince Ricardo (Peter Faulk.) He is the man behind the heist, apparently our main character is a thief. There's not much time for him to celebrate however, since his son is getting married in few days and he needs to be off to meet the new in-laws. Enter our other main character, Sheldon Kornpett (Alan Arkin.) He is a successful, yet high strung New York dentist. At dinner things seem just a little bit off to Sheldon, his daughter's soon to be father-in-law, Vince, is a strange bird. The next day Vince shows up at Sheldon's downtown office to ask a slight favor of him. See, he needs Shelly to go to his office and get something from his safe for him. Little does Sheldon know that this will be just the beginning of his involvement in a series of incredible and goofy predicaments.

With the exception of a dated look (it is a 30 year old somewhat low budget movie), The In-Laws holds up really well. The jokes are smart and Alan Arkin does a great job, as he always does playing his "Alan Arkin" character. My exposure to Peter Faulk prior to this was pretty much just the Columbo series, and even that is not something I was too familiar with. He was a great foil to Alan Arkin's character, and was decent as a semi-action star.

The plot is very basic, filled with constant mistaken identity gags but they never try to get overly complicated with the plot. This is a well established genre by now, the buddy adventure. Recent movies seemed to use this formular with slightly better results, Midnight Run with Robert DiNero comes to mind. That is not to say you should skip The In-Laws, it is a great ride and many of those more modern buddy adventure movies probably owe something to this movie. See it.

The In-Laws (1979) vs The In-Laws (2003) - The Introductions

With his daughter planning to marry, dentist Sheldon Kornpett is meeting Vince Ricardo, his daughter's soon to be father-in-law. Vince, a crazy character who seems to be more than he lets on, takes them on a wild ride.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079336/

His daughter is getting married. What could go wrong? How about finding out your daughter's future in-laws are international smugglers, that's what.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314786/

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town vs Mr. Deeds - The Match-Up

While neither of these two movies would make it onto my short list of the greatest movies of all time, one at least, gets designated as a "movie that tickled me" and one gets forgotten real quick. Hmmm, I wonder which is which?

There aren't many story differences in the two movies, up to a point they are pretty much the same. Towards the end of both movies Mr. Deeds makes a plea, to those that would listen, to follow their hearts and to act on what is right not what is popular. How they arrive at this point really is not that important, it's the message.

One of the main differences in the two is the time period, obviously. Mr. Deeds Goes to Town was a depression era film. That had a large bearing on the story it told. When Mr. Deeds realizes the responsibility he now had in the acquisition of this fortune, he sets out to make changes and not just minor ones. After being involved in a nearly violent exchange with a desperate out of work farmer, Mr. Deeds realizes that something has to be done about the joblessness. He proposes a plan that will give farms to nearly fifty thousand americans. A plan that is not appreciated by the people around him that want a piece of his pie. In the re-make, Adam Sandler's Deeds, is also concerned with the workers. It this story it is much more simplified, however. His intention is simply to keep the current workers of his uncle's company employed by stopping a proposed dissolving of the company. While it is nice to see that the plight of the worker is kept for the re-make, you can see just how much affairs of it's time affected the focus of the original. There was a crisis in our country and it was at the heart of Mr. Deeds Goes to Town. Given the state of our economy in recent time, if the new version had been made just a few years ago, instead of 2002, perhaps it would have had a similar focus.

While the original was a comedy, it didn't rely on it's jokes to carry it. It was about more than just the odd Mr. Deeds. This is one of the issues with the remake. It's mostly a comedy based on Adam Sandler's version of Mr. Deeds, than anything else. In my particular case it was filled with jokes that were not really funny. And when that is your focus, there's a problem. I'm not going to nit-pick the jokes in detail, comedy is a subjective thing and this was not good in my opinion. It was either a case of poor writing or the actors not being inspired.

Overall, the remake does hit all the points it would want to hit in retelling the original. It's lighthearted, funny (not for me, but it was for most I suppose) and has a good message about how we should treat each other. That's why I don't want to bash the modern version of Mr. Deeds, it had good intentions. So, which one was better? For me, with it's more heartfelt message and easy approach to the comedy, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town is the more enjoyable film. And should it have been remade? This is a case where i would say, no. The original is very good and worth watching. However, given people's tendency to avoid black and white films and our need to see contemporary actors in our films, I understand the need to remake it. While the remake doesn't quite have the emotional impact of the original, it still has a good message at it's core and I don't see any reason to deny that to modern viewers.

Mr. Deeds - The Mini-Review

Well, where do I begin? To be honest I was prepared to hate this movie. I haven't liked much of Adam Sandler's work since Happy Gilmore and this was more of the same. And while I didn't hate this movie, it's not good either. I think I would have liked it a lot less if I hadn't seen the orignal first. Let me explain.

Just like the original, Mr. Deeds begins with the quaint town of Mandrake Falls. There, Longfellow Deeds lives a basic but happy life, in this case running a pizza restaurant. He is visited by some big city lawyers. His uncle has died unexpectedly, making Deeds (which he is referred to in this version) the sole heir to the empire his uncle has built. Like the the original movie before it, Deeds goes to the big city to see just what this all means, where he gets wrapped up in the petty motivations of everyone around him.

They stick pretty close to the original in this version, straying only occasionally to set up silly (and unfunny) comic moments. In the end, they forego an "insanity hearing" for Deeds in favor of a much more believable stock holder meeting, where a vote must be made, yes or no, to dissolve the business in the name of making a profit. In this case, Deeds argues more the value of dreams and the concept of happiness without money-grubbing than the benefit of being different. Even with these changes new scene is still admirable in it's intended message.

Mr. Deeds doesn't work for a number of reasons. It did have good intentions, you can see they have a love for the original, some of the original's best scenes are left intact here. But one of the major reasons it fails is that it decided to be a pure comedy. A comedy that isn't funny. This version lacks the heart that was present in the original and tries to fill that void with a large volume of jokes that never really pan out. Maybe the gags looked good on the page but didn't translate to the screen.

Can you blame the actors? Partially, while there were a plenty of good actors in this film, many of them seemed to be phoning this one in. The real reason has to be the writing, however.

Like I said, Mr. Deeds gets credit for the attempt but the recipe used to create the film just didn't work. I've argued that Adam Sandler has had free reign in his film to his detriment. This movie was populated by actors (and some characters) from the Adam Sandler "universe", and they just didn't get it done here. With a different cast and some funnier jokes, this could have been a much better.

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town - The Mini-Review

O.K., so it's not the most realistic movie I've seen. The characters are a bit cartoony but Mr. Deeds Goes to Town accomplishes what it's trying to do. At least it did for me.

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town opens with our titular character, Longfellow Deeds, receiving guests from the "big town." This group of lawyers have some surprising news for him; his uncle, who he barely knew has died, leaving Mr. Deeds the sole heir to his $20 million empire. Reluctantly, Mr. Deeds heads to the "Big City" to see where this ride takes him.

There he meets, not by accident, Babe Bennett. A fast talking tabloid journalist. Who, unknown to Mr. Deeds, has been given the assignment to get close to him for the purpose of getting juicy newspaper stories. Of course, Babe's motives are purely business at first but she can't help but fall in love with Mr. Deeds, the closer she gets to him. There are parties that want Mr. Deeds' fortune and will do everything they can to separate him from it. This leads to a silly (did this stuff actually happen back then) and quite public, sanity hearing. You see, the lawyers handling the estate of Mr. Deeds uncle have been trying all along to take it from him, and if they can just convince the public that the sweet and simple Mr. Deeds is crazy, they will get what they want.

This courtroom scene tries to put across some admirable concepts, Mr. Deeds argues that being kind and caring are traits that should be aspired to and being different is a good thing not something to be ashamed of. I appreciated the sentiment here but I don't think the writing was quite up to the job. It ended up being just a bit unbelievable.

I underestimated how much I was going to like Mr. Deeds Goes to Town. It looked simple and sappy, but that's why I liked it. It definitely seemed to be a movie of it's time. In his films, Capra (Director) was able to walk that line of over-the-top sentiment, as opposed to some modern directors that have tried to duplicate the skill but rarely succeed. It's a sweet, goofy movie but don't let it fool you, it has something to say.