Comedy between in-laws, it seems, never grows old

Monster-in-Law (2005)
New Line Cinema presents a Robert Luketic film starring Jennifer Lopez and Jane Fonda. Written by Anya Kochoff. 102m. Rated PG-13 for sex references and language.

2.5 stars

Oftentimes when screenwriters fail in their obligation to provide adequate backstory for their characters, I become consumed in the unexplained details.

“Monster-in-Law” doesn’t want to trifle with why characters act the way they do; they just want to set up a serious of situations where comedy can blossom and call it a movie. It’s a mentality fostered in box-office draws like “Meet the Fockers.” A vicious cycle is created in which critics are subjected to less intelligent, cohesive writing and mainstream audiences continue to ignore their opinions. If we laugh a lot, then aren’t the critics wrong? (Of course we are.)

It should offend audience’s sense of decency that a twit-like dog walker (Jennifer Lopez) would attract the attention of a gorgeous doctor (Michael Vartan). But audiences roared at every little flirtatious action, suspending their disbelief that a caste system doesn’t, at least unofficially, exist in modern dating.

We know as much about Dr. Kevin Fields as we do about Richard Gere’s character in “Shall We Dance,” Lopez’s previous vehicle. I see Kevin as plastic surgeon, although my hypothesis is only pure speculation because we never see him actually tend to a patient.

Meanwhile, we’ve heard more than enough about Charlie, who claims her temp-chic lifestyle emanates out of a motivation never to have the same day twice. Unless you’re Phil Connors stuck in Punxsatawney, Pa., I think everyone is generally safe in that respect.

Charlie and Kevin’s first encounter is on the beach, where the Latina temp is resting in between stints as a dog walker. Apparently, Kevin has correctly deduced that Charlie is not a crazy lady with a dozen homely dogs and is, instead, a feisty Latina with a killer body who only moonlights as a dog walker.

There’s two more serendipitous run-ins before the movie jumps into warp speed, setting us down at Charlie’s move-in to Kevin’s abode without so much as a “three months later” intertile.

Of course, we’re jumping ahead at a speed approaching mach levels because we have to introduce the film’s true star, Jane Fonda. In her first appearance on the silver screen in 15 years, Fonda is the titular inspiration. For she, if not the film’s audience, grasps that Kevin would be doing himself a great disservice if he married this far below his station.

While I believe love can exist between two diverse individuals, Lopez’s prattling, cooing and hair twirling certainly can’t be attractive to a fellow who spent countless nights pouring over med school textbooks. Nevertheless, he pops the question and plot begins to truly turn: a battle begins between Viola and her soon-to-be daughter-in-law.

While the pre-marital fragging is quite innocent and certainly humorous at first, it takes a decidedly darker turn in the beginning of the movie’s third act. First-time screenwriter Anya Kochoff deftly balances this malicious back-stabbing with a comic relief in the form of Wanda Sykes, who often acts as referee between her employer and the temp.

In the end, “Monster-in-Law” is littered with moments that, if Kevin had truly been handed a brain with his doctorate, would have horrified the groom-to-be. Instead, the inevitable olive branch is extended from one female lead to another, thanks to some scene stealing by comic mistress Elaine Stritch.

“Monster-in-Law” keep the laughs consistent, and is strongly recommended for anyone who loves to be entertained by a little in-law chicanery. I was surprised myself at how often and hard I laughed at both one liners and extended gags.
With a certain perspective, there’s a lot to be satisfied with here – even if I’m still back at the beginning, creating an intricate reason how Kevin can maintain a permanent three-day beard.