The In-Laws 2003

Critics score:
34 / 100

Reviews provided by RottenTomatoes

Ty Burr, Boston Globe: A vehicle for Michael Douglas and Albert Brooks that manages to bring out the most annoying aspects of their respective personalities. Read more

Rene Rodriguez, Miami Herald: A bland waste of time. Read more

Richard Roeper, Ebert & Roeper: One of the problems with The In-Laws is that it spends as much time with the uninteresting and unfunny wedding story as it does with the spy stuff. Read more

Michael Wilmington, Chicago Tribune: The In-Laws, like too many movies these days, takes a clever little idea and all but pounds it into the ground. Read more

A.O. Scott, New York Times: It's as if the director, Andrew Fleming, and the screenwriters, Nat Mauldin and Ed Solomon, set out to make a movie that would be mediocre in every respect. If so, they have completely succeeded. Read more

Eleanor Ringel Gillespie, Atlanta Journal-Constitution: If it weren't for Albert Brooks, The In-Laws would be unwatchable. It's often unwatchable even with him. Read more

Los Angeles Times: Read more

Eric Harrison, Houston Chronicle: A flat-footed remake. Read more

Paul Clinton (, One of those films where you can tell everyone had a great time making it, but most of the fun was left on the sound stage floor. Read more

Denver Post: Read more

Lisa Schwarzbaum, Entertainment Weekly: While much of The In-Laws feels stuck in time, what really does it in is the script's boring, modern sensitivity to fatherhood, and bonding with one's kids. Read more

Ray Conlogue, Globe and Mail: The In-Laws is successful on the level of light comic entertainment. Read more

Philip Wuntch, Dallas Morning News: No genre is as geared to the bottom line as comedy. For movies of this ilk, that bottom line is simply, 'Is it funny?' And funny The In-Laws definitely is. Read more

John Patterson, L.A. Weekly: Often extremely funny. Read more

Gene Seymour, Newsday: Watching The In-Laws is like listening to a drawn-out, gruesomely inappropriate toast made at a posh wedding reception by a dissolute best man. Read more

Bob Campbell, Newark Star-Ledger: Fresh and funny all over again. Read more

Jami Bernard, New York Daily News: Big, bloated and only intermittently amusing. Read more

Andrew Sarris, New York Observer: Amazingly, the two versions have hit the casting bull's-eye twice in 24 years to provide superior entertainment. Read more

James Berardinelli, ReelViews: The In-Laws may not be art, and there are some fans of the original who will find it difficult to warm to, but director Andrew Fleming has done a solid job updating it for the 2000s. Read more

Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times: The remake knows the moves but lacks the recklessness. Read more

Charles Taylor, This In-Laws isn't a disaster, it's just not very good. Read more

Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle: It's a pleasure to see Douglas in a rare movie where he doesn't have to grit his teeth in tension, just as it's always a pleasure to watch Brooks get mentally tortured. Read more

Jeff Strickler, Minneapolis Star Tribune: The remake has a lot of energy; it just doesn't have a point. Read more

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Read more

Susan Walker, Toronto Star: If you've ever enjoyed watching Bergen, Brooks or Douglas, or ever been to a wedding you wish you'd missed, The In-Laws will make you laugh. Read more

Geoff Andrew, Time Out: Read more

Mike Clark, USA Today: If it's hot this weekend, and your air conditioner is broken, you could do worse. Otherwise, audience annulment proceedings will probably begin in a week or two. Read more

Robert Koehler, Variety: Read more

Michael Atkinson, Village Voice: Hits every wrong note and trips on every chair leg. Read more