Well, there are positives to get out of the way first. Albert Brooks is an inspired choice to recreate Alan Arkin's role from the original "In-Laws". He brings to every movie a fully-formed nebbish ready to let loose 6 or 7 really memorable zingers, and this was no exception. Michael Douglas has played a very wide range of stock characters, if not necessarily deep. And the original "In-Laws" certainly wasn't technically perfect: it suffered from atrocious film editing. Why not spruce it up with some CGI submarines, more expansive stunt sequences, and a Paul McCartney soundtrack?

Most of the changes in the remake, however, don't make sense. Brooks is playing a Chicago podiatrist, not a Manhattan dentist. Michael Douglas has been saddled with a female sidekick, the likes of which Peter Falk didn't need. There's considerable more emphasis placed on Brooks's daughter and Douglas's son... so they can argue at length about his pre-marital flings. Candice Bergen has a strenuously unfunny cameo as Douglas's ex-wife (Falk was happily married in the original, albeit to a wife who had no idea what he did for a living).

Most noticeably, the witty humor of the original is all but gone, save for a few Brooks gags. That's all been replaced by a wide variety of warmed-over sex and toilet jokes, which have been funny in a hundred other movies since "The In-Laws" came out, and which are so familiar here that you'll laugh at the joke before it's even finished. Indeed, with the main character being a nebbishy Jewish medical professional from Chicago, and his co-star an over-the-top CIA agent, you'll quickly realize that this is a remake of "Meet the Parents" more than anything else.

The accomplished David Suchet shows up for a pointless role only faintly evocative of Richard Libertini's in the original. I'm sure that blatant gags about repressed gay terrorists are still funny somewhere, but it is possible to do a movie without them. Right?

I wasn't expecting a carbon copy of the original "In-Laws". However, I was expecting something lively and original. And this movie isn't it.

It's an okay movie. There's only a couple of funny scenes. Most of it is pretty bland material, and it is probably one of the most predictable movies that has ever been made.

(No way will you guess this, but everybody learns a valuable lesson... No way will you guess, but the groom learns about honesty and why it's important...)

Plus, I found the bride and groom characters to be extremely irritating. I can't explain why, exactly, and it may just be my personality reacting to them, but they seem to be rather obnoxious people.

However, in spite of being a dull and lifeless comedy, there are good points. The direction is agreeable and the special effects / sets are pretty good. About half of the actors do a good job, with Albert Brooks stealing the show completely.

And, even if it isn't hilarious, it isn't painful to watch. The jokes aren't stupid or offensive, they're just not particularly funny (At least, not to me). This is good news, because it means that no matter who you are, you can at least give the movie a chance without being shocked by any nasty surprises or crude humor. You may not laugh, but, hey... like I said, "Innocuous."

VIOLENT CONTENT - Some punches and kicks, people point guns at each other a lot, some slapsticky humor. There's no blood. Saturday morning cartoons have more violence within two minutes than this movie has in its entirity.

LANGUAGE CONTENT - Not much. I think they say the "F word" once, there's a couple of the "S word." Scattered language throughout that doesn't amount to a whole lot.

NUDITY / SEXUAL CONTENT - Almost nothing. The only thing close is a brief monologue by Candice Bergen's character about how she had great sex with her ex-husband. There is one shot of Brooks in a thong, but it's fleeting. I think it was actually in the trailer of the movie...