Review: Monster-in-Law (2005)

What is there to say about a film such as Monster-in-Law, the latest Hollywood romantic comedy? To review a film like this, one has to put aside all expectations for anything new or different, and just focus on the entertainment factor. That is really all that matters with any film like this-did it keep me entertained for the hour and a half I was in the theatre?

Sadly, no. To be fair, the first two reels of the film weren't without their charm. Jennifer Lopez provides an easy going character, the type of character the audience doesn't mind being in the presence of. This is a good thing. The introduction of Michael Vartan's character providesfor some pleasant romantic situations as well. There is some amusing bits of business in the first two reels or so, but this sadly is not the tone the rest of the picture will maintain. It all begins with the introduction of the eponymous "monster"-in-law.

As soon as Jane Fonda's character is introduced, things start to go downhill. Fonda handles her role well. Returning to the screen after a 15 year absence, it is a treat to see Fonda back on the big screen. It's just ashame it had to be in such a shrill, poorly written and two dimensional characterization such as this.

This is the type of role that could have been a real tour-de-force had it been fleshed out, rather than just presented with all the subtlety and depth of a Disney villain. Fonda's character never works because it is simply not believable. And worse, Michael Vartan's role, as Fonda's incredibly complacent son, suffers as a result of the same type of poor character development.

It is simply unbelievable to the point of distraction that Vartan's son could remain so complacent as his mother-in-law tormets, tortures and nearly kills his bride-to-be (Lopez). This hurts the romantic angle of the picture, as the romance becomes so unbelievable that every last bit of logic goes right out the window.

The battle of Fonda and Lopez plays less like a battle of the wits and more like a Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote cartoon. Except that unlike those cartoon characters, neither one is the least bit sympathetic. Both come across as psychotic and out-of-control by the end, and there is a surprise finish that surprises no one.

Comedienne Wanda Sykes has some okay one-liners as Fonda's assistant, but adds little to the story. She does, however, come across as one of the only likable characters in the piece.

The only real delight to be found in this film is a supporting appearance at the end of the film by Elaine Stritch, as Fonda's mother-in-law. Unlike Fonda, Stritch is a brilliant comic who is able to salvage some decent moments from an essentially one-note character.

Overall, I would hesistate to recommend this film on the grounds that its script and characters seriously hamper its entertainment possibilities. And with a film such as this, that's all that matters.

Meta Post

***
An Introduction (revised June 19, 2009)
As this is the fourth anniversary of my blog, which began as "Films and Reviews" in June 2005, I wanted to provide a brief introduction on this first post in order to introduce readers to the content they can expect to find here.

When I began this blog, it was purely an experiment, to publish some of my thoughts and essays on different topics pertaining to the cinema. I decided that I would stay away from writing about the technical aspects of film production, which I've often been tempted to do.

I had found that I was spending so much time writing about film on various forums across the web, including prolific postings on Usenet dating back to 1999, that I decided it would be worth it to focus my writing into a single venue. I published the inaugural post, which follows, in the June of 2005. It was taken from a rather lengthy response I'd posted earlier at the Internet Movie Database. I had previously started a website, The Film Page, in the fall of 2003, which featured some of my writing on different topics of film history, as well as extensive links to the best film resources across the web. As we were on the verge of Web 2.0, starting a static website at that time was already a slightly outdated approach to what I was trying to do-that is, to provide an ongoing discussion of any and all areas of cinema studies.

By the time I started this blog in 2005, things had changed quite a bit. I was actively participating in then-new social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace, which aided in the promotion of my blog. Most recently, I've been able to take advantage of services like Twitter to help broadcast my new posts here.

At the time, I had no idea that this blog would attract the kind of attention that it's received. When I first began writing it, I was a sophomore at Towson University, about to enter the undergraduate film production program. On this four-year anniversary, I am preparing to enter the graduate Cinema Studies program at the Tisch School at NYU.

I've enjoyed publishing at this blog, and hope to continue to do so as I move forward. I can say that, even as continue writing more than ever, I will probably post less and less here, simply as most of my writing will be done with an eye toward publication in other venues. I certainly plan to continue blogging, a wonderfully free-form venue in which I can tackle various topics in as much or as little room as needed, and write to a wide audience of other film enthusiasts across cyberspace.

Notifications of updates for this blog can be received by following me on my Twitter account. Occasionally, I may embed video content to this blog from the The Art and Culture of Movies YouTube Channel. I currently have posted a series of excerpts from my 1997 documentary, "Cinema Past", consisting of interviews with Maryland-area theatre owners. As new content becomes available, it will be posted to this blog. You can watch any of the documentary excerpts by visiting the channel directly.

This is the first post for the Art and Culture of Movies blog:

***
The following is a taken from an article I posted on the Internet Movie Database detailing the reasons for the decline of Jerry Lewis' films in the late 1960s and early 70s:

"Certainly between 1946-1960 Jerry Lewis was a phenomenally popular comedian. The films he and Dean Martin made between 1949-56 didnt break any new ground in comedy, and were really just a continuation of the trend for "comedy team" movies that had been such a huge hit after Abbott and Costello, and Hope and Crosby.

After 1960, Lewis became increasingly interested in the technical side of filmmaking, becoming the first American comedian to direct himself since Chaplin, and being involved in every aspect of production on his films. Certain comedians (Stan Laurel at Hal Roach Studios, and W.C. Fields) had attained a certain degree of creative control over their films in the sound era, but Lewis became the first American comedy "auteur" of the sound era. It was in this period that he did his most interesting and personal work, which ranged from very good (NUTTY PROFESSOR, THE PATSY, THE BELLBOY) to downright childish (THE FAMILY JEWELS). The late 1960s saw an end to the type of comedy Lewis was doing. This combined with the fact that for a comedian who prided himself on his ability to expand and expound on the genre, Lewis' work was becoming relatively stagnant.

In 1961, his methods of comedy filmmaking were incredibly creative and new (THE LADIES MAN is one of the most sheer innovative comedies of all), but by 1965, he was in danger of (if not actually) repeating himself, and therefore the comic material becomes the focus of the work, and it simply wasn't strong enough to sustain itself through many more films. THE BIG MOUTH (a personal favorite, admittedly) is an example of this type of over-the-top silliness in search of some direction.

There were two major trends in comedy in the late 60s that hurt his output. One was the penchant for big-budget epic comedies such as THE GREAT RACE and THOSE MAGNIFICENT MEN IN THEIR FLYING MACHINES-films with ensemble casts, big gags and international stars and settings-that had been inspired by the all-star IT'S A MAD MAD MAD MAD WORLD in 1963. These big comedies were designed to stand alongside the other "big" films of the era (the historical and musical epics) as a measure of offering an audience something it couldn't see on TV. This was a direct opposite of Lewis' more personal and self-focused style of comedy.

The other trend that perhaps had a more significant effect on Lewis' career (especially after 1970) were the preferences for comedy with some sort of social satire. On the one hand, films like MASH were tackling serious issues with a comic twist, and on the other hand, comedians such as Woody Allen and Mel Brooks (perhaps the two most significant comic actor-directors of the 1970s) were blending satire with a certain edgy-type of humor that was not Lewis' style at all. Allen's films of this period, such as TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN and BANANAS, are fused with satire and social and political humor. Brooks similarly used that satirical edginess in THE PRODUCERS and BLAZING SADDLES. These films were all quite different from Lewis' more straightforward slapstick comedy. This type of comedy also certainly carried over to the TV medium with shows like LAUGH-IN and M*A*S*H, and with the standup comedy of George Carlin. These trends helped keep Lewis from doing much screen work between 1972 and 1981.

What *did* help Lewis' brief return in the early 80s was the new trend for "comedian-oriented" comedies that were spawned in the wake of the popularity of comedians from SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE and other comedy TV programs. This, mixed with standup comedy, put the emphasis back on the comedian and their unique characterization, rather than just the material itself. Lewis has said that this type of comedy (beginning with ANIMAL HOUSE) encouraged him to get back into the market. By this time, though, he was older and was also faced with the same problem he had in the mid-1960s in that the comic material was often just too thin to carry a full-length feature film. With the rise of comedians such as Eddie Murphy (TRADING PLACES), Chevy Chase(FLETCH, VACATION), Rodney Dangerfield (EASY MONEY) and Steve Martin(THE JERK, any of his films with Carl Reiner), whose films exhibited both a high quality of production as well as comic invention, Lewis stopped acting and directing his own films in 1983. Lewis broke alot of ground in the early 1960s, and introduced many filmmaking techniques embraced by both serious and comedic directors, and his influence is still strongly felt today in the comedy film scene. "
-Matt Barry