dhagenadha l rented this movie by accident, recommending my girlfriend rent the other film entitled "Big Trouble" (2002). Well, it turned out we were lucky as Alan Arkin and Peter Falk are some of my favorite actors. The chemistry between Arkin and Falk is magical. The plot parallels some old Hollywood movies such as "Double Indemnity" in an odd fashion. I would describe it as "quirky", a throwback to the 1980's and a "must see" for all fans of Arkin, Falk, and Beverly D'Angelo, who looks fabulous in a variety of sexy outfits and carries her part with typical aplomb. Some of the scenes had me laughing so hard I had to stop the tape to recover (see Sardine Liquor). Charles Durning plays his important supporting role to perfection as well. Look for the uncredited cameo by Samuel L. Jackson near the beginning. This is a winner!

zsenorsock This is a pretty disappointing movie, coming on the heels of Alan Arkin and Peter Falk's terrific performance in "The In-Laws". That was a great movie. This is not. It seems like the entire production was under financed and thrown together. The production values are sloppy. In one scene you can actually see the lighting cables and c-stands as the stars chase through a hallway. I can only assume Arkin and Falk agreed to do this film out of friendship for John Cassavettes. This "Double Indemnity" parody is just not worthy of any of them though. However, there is one great, great moment in "Big Trouble" that stands out: the world's longest spit take. This is done early in the picture when it seems the movie might actually recreate the fun and excitement of "The In-Laws". Watch as Alan Arkin samples some of Falk's herring liquor. It's a show stopping, side splitting moment.But after that, stop the tape. There's nothing else worth seeing.

Robert J. Maxwell Spoilers. This movie is weak mainly when measured against the standard set by "The In Laws," which sets the bar pretty high. The chief problem is that "The In Laws" follows a definite, if lunatic, narrative line. One things leads logically to the next, each more bizarre than the last, but each incident building on previous ones. "Big Trouble" doesn't have that cumulative quality in its gags. It's episodic and seems to owe too much to farces like "Airplane." Some of the gags are flat. And the writers have descended at times into a hyperactive but unfunny madness in which all the characters are shouting at once, as if that were in itself amusing. With that out of the way, I still recommend the film. Falk and Arkin play essentially the same characters as in "The In Laws," and Richard Libertini does a reprise of his Latin-American character. There's a certain amusement quotient built into the film right there. And some of the gags are as good as anything in "The In Laws." I will give two examples. First -- the "sardine liquer" scene in which Falk's host more or less forces Arkin's guest to drink this concoction imported from Norway -- "Kipitinsk, as they call it." There are spit takes and then there are spit takes. The usual protocol would require Arkin to take a mouthful of this poison and then look around frantically for somewhere to spit it out. At the next rung upward on the ladder he might swallow it and say something in a hoarse whisper. Here he goes completely over the top and, with scarcely any expression on his face, helplessly spits the stuff out in streams, not once, but over and over again, all over his clothes and the table, like the puking fat man in Monty Python's "Meaning of Life." The second example I will mention only briefly because a complete description of the context would take too much space. A body in the morgue has been "reconstructed" by a "plastic surgeon" to resemble Falk. (Don't even ask.) The witnesses examine the body with interest. "I have a theory about this case," says Charles Durning as an insurance investigator. Arkin: "Oh, really? What theory is that?" "My theory," says Durning, "is that this b*****d is still alive." And he begins tickling the feet of the dead body which then comes to life and jumps from the table.I can't see any evidence that this is in any way what is usually thought of as a "Cassavetes" film. I just don't see his hand in it. It's clearly not improvised, and it just isn't original enough, as most sequels aren't. And I assume that there are multiple references to other films in this one and that I missed most of them. It's basically a spoof of "Double Indemnity," and an extremely funny one at times. (Arkin trying to do an impression of Falk's distinctive voice while pretending to BE him on the train. "Oh, yeah.") The first hour, which sticks closest to "Double Indemnity", the funniest part. After that the story begins to run out of steam.Judging from some of the comments, there wasn't much to expect from this film, but I was rather pleasantly surprised.

chez-3 "Big Trouble" is a mediocre film. You will laugh occasionally but that's about all. And that's crushing considering the two leads, Alan Arkin and Peter Falk, and the writer, Andrew Bergman, previously teamed or "The In-Laws" an all-time great film comedy.Here the two leads play basically the same parts. Falk is the one in control with his devious ideas while Arkin is the meek, unsuspecting one thrown in over his head. This time around the needlessly complicated plot follows an insurance scam.The film was directed by John Cassavettes, one of our great directors. But comedy is not a genre he handled well. There were numerous reports of problems during shooting. It shows on the screen.The one bright spot is Beverly D'Angelo looking as sexy as ever. Maybe they should have relegated Falk and Arkin to backup and made her the lead.