|
Wealthy Viola Fields (Jane Fonda), a famous TV personality, has a breakdown when she gets fired
from her job. Fearing also to lose the love of her only son Kevin (Michael Vartan), a surgeon who is engaged to Charlie Cantilini (Jennifer Lopez), Viola plots to wreck the
romance. Viola thinks Charlie, a nobody who does odd jobs like dog walking is not good enough for her son. She pretends to like Charlie but does nasty things to make
things difficult for her. At first, tolerant and patiently taking the abuse from Viola, Charlie later decides to retaliate. In the meantime, Kevin thinks the two women
get along.
The title Monster-in-Lawimmediately gives away the theme and plot of this film.
Indeed, there are no surprises. Everything happens as predicted. People don't go to see the film for its story but probably are curious how Jane Fonda is, after a
fifteen year absence from the screen. Or to see how Jennifer Lopez will tackle another role different from the others she has been doing with versatility, from the martial
arts empowered abused wife in Enough to the graceful enchanting dance instructress in Shall we Dance? In this film, both are not at their best as they are
stilted and overacting at times but for a light comedy like this, their performances will do, Michael Vartan has the looks and persona of a "dreamboat" but there is little
chemistry between him and J. Lo. Elaine Stritch as Gertrude the prototype mother-in-law has only a few minutes screen exposure but she perks up audience interest. The
same can be said of Wanda Sykes as Ruby, Viola's assistant. Some jokes and attempts at humor are in bad taste and are strongly sexually oriented though they may have
elicited laughter.
Monster-in-Law portrays the mother-in-law as she is frequently depicted in media: someone who meddles, plots against the daughter-in-law, tries to make her look foolish, searches for her defects and weaknesses to expose them. She is a creature who is so possessive that she would like to drive a wedge between her son and his wife. All of these are presented for a good laugh. Could that be the reason why the good mother-in-law (about whom there is nothing to ridicule) is never presented? Perhaps a film about a good one would be more value oriented though this film about a "monster-in-law" shows that in spite of all animosities between in-laws, these is still the possibility of a harmonious relationship if each is willing to give the other a chance to show good faith. Very objectionable in this film is the way the "living in" before marriage is presented. The arrangement (which is sexual among other considerations) is treated very casually and made to appear acceptable. But this practice goes against traditional Filipino social mores and Catholic values.
(Date Reviewed: 23 June 2005)
|
