When a remake of one of my favorite films is on the horizon, I generally cringe.
So it was with "The In-Laws," which opens today, and sadly, my cringing proved prophetic.
While the original 1979 comedy is funny for its zany situations and goofy dialogue, it's very much a character-driven film. And the performances by Alan Arkin and Peter Falk, as fathers whose kids are marrying each other, really make it sing.
Arkin plays the straight-arrow dentist whose upscale life is turned wildly upside-down by Falk, who is as laid back as he can be as a CIA agent . . . maybe. (The film was released on DVD this week.)
The remake casts Albert Brooks in the Arkin role (albeit as a podiatrist), and he's not a bad choice. But Michael Douglas is miscast as the CIA agent (which is given away from the get-go). He seems to be channeling his "Romancing the Stone" character, but mostly he's just bombastic.
The main distinction between the two films, however . . . aside from the 1979 film being hysterically funny and the 2003 version being completely unfunny . . . is that this new remake is less about the characters than about explosions, elaborate stunts and a loud-louder-loudest soundtrack loaded with rock songs. (The opening action scene plays out under Paul McCartney's "Live and Let Die," a hint that Douglas' character is James Bondish.)
Fans of the first film have many favorite moments, none of which show up in the remake — Falk telling Arkin to "serpentine" as he's dodging bullets; Arkin shouting, "There's no reason to shoot at me, I'm a dentist!"; or this line from Falk, as he talks to a cabbie about the CIA: "Are you interested in joining? The benefits are terrific. The trick is not to get killed. That's really the key to the benefit program."
Arkin and Falk had great chemistry together, with Arkin spending most of the film on the verge of hysteria and Falk being quiet and understated, even in the middle of a car chase or when someone is shooting at him. The rest of the cast was also excellent, especially Richard Libertini as a wacky Central American dictator who talks with his hand.
The new film is as vulgar and obnoxious as you might expect, ratcheting up the plot to include Brooks and Douglas on a jet-ski, dodging a nuclear submarine's torpedo; a parachute jump in downtown Chicago; a prissy gay villain who takes a liking to Brooks; and dialogue that competes with a cacophony of sound effects and rock songs.
"DOWN WITH LOVE" is being touted as an homage rather than a remake of the old Doris Day/Rock Hudson/Tony Randall romantic comedies of the '50s and '60s. But I wonder how many critics who say so have really seen those movies?
A case could be made that "Down With Love" is a remake of both "Pillow Talk" and "Lover Come Back," since it liberally lifts numerous plot points and gags from those two films.
But it's really a parody.
Mel Brooks or the Zucker Brothers couldn't have made a more broadly played goof on those old films . . . or perhaps Mike Myers is a better example, since a number of vulgar gags owe a lot to the raunchy "Austin Powers" pictures.
"Down With Love" certainly captures the look, with candy-colored sets and outrageous gowns (along with big floppy hats), as well as dated furnishings (no cell phones, please).
Renee Zellweger has the Day role, with Ewan McGregor filling in for Hudson, and the Randall character is played by David Hyde Pierce.
But the characterizations by Zellweger and McGregor are too exaggerated; note Zellweger's pawlike hands when she walks, or McGregor's sly wink-at-the-camera demeanor.
Only Pierce gets it right, with a very funny performance that handily steals the show. (And just so you get the point, Randall himself shows up in two scenes!)
In the end, "Down With Love" is just too impressed with itself, too calculated, too pseudo-hip.
There's nothing wrong with parody, but why be so disingenuous about it?
E-MAIL: hicks@desnews.com