Total parody of "Double Indemnity", with some added twists. The awesome, hilarious team of A. Arkin and P. Falk are together again, seven years after the under-rated "In-Laws". Beverly D'Angelo is "Blanche", the Barbara Stanwyck wife, looking to knock off the husband. Arkin is "Leonard", the insurance salesman, trying to put his sons through Yale. Falk is "Steve", the husband. Robert Stack is Leonard's boss, who refuses to help with the college bills. If you're a big fan of Falk and/or Arkin, you'll LOVE this film; they spend the whole time trying to outdo each other in the over-acting department. Also keep an eye out for Richard Libertini, also from the In-Laws; others will know him as the guru in All of Me (Edwina, Back in Bowl ) and Charles Durning (Tootsie). Written (copied/parodied ?) by Andrew Bergman, who certainly knew comedy... he had written the original In-Laws, Blazing Saddles, Soapdish, and Fletch! Directed by John Cassevetes, who had done a bunch of stuff with Peter Falk already. Seems like quite a departure for Cassevetes... he had always done serious, pretty rough dramas. Fun stuff. On DVD. Never see this one shown on TV for some reason.

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.

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.

This is a demanding comedy, because much of the humor depends on references to classic films, and will be lost to someone who is not familiar with them. It does have many incredibly funny scenes on its own right, and some great performance bits.Plus Beverly D'Angelo is gorgeous and very funny both.See some later reviews for relevent films, and consider seeing the referenced films first to appreciate the humor more. Without understanding the references and parodies of this film-maker's comedy though, it might be confusing.Also consider seeing some of Cassavetes work first, to get an idea of what he is usually about. This film melds his own idosyncratic style with a more mainstream American comic style, but has the timing and structure of Godard film.Big Trouble is a a reteaming of some of the acting same talent that made the incredibly funny The In-Laws. It is much more surrealistic and avant-garde, being directed by that greatest of American directors John Cassavetes. Like the films he himself scripted, it is more character than plot driven. Cassavetes is exploring something in this film; it is not a consistently drop-down funny flim like The In-Laws, nor is the action as suspenseful and spine-tingling, but it has some incredibly funny moments, including one of the funniest scenes ever put on film (try some sardine liquor). Not to be missed by Cassavetes fans or die-hard In-Laws fans who want more.Someone looking for an easy to watch straight-ahead comedy or action/adventure film, however, might be disappointed.