You might think Kirk Douglas incapable of appearing in really bad movies but he's done a stinker or two and this one definitely qualifies. It borrows liberally from another movie where Dan Akroyd played Kirk's troubled adult son and Kirk, having suffered a recent stroke, had to make him believe before the credits rolled that he always loved him and did the best he could for him. That movie wasn't bad, as I recall, whereas this one stinks to high hell and there's nothing to be done about it. Almost every emotional moment comes off forced and false. That said, even with his speech impediment and other post-stroke problems, Kirk hands in by far the most competent performance. Unfortunately, it is clearly not nearly enough to elevate the horrible writing, stupid plot line, and pathetic performances of his fellow actors. Michael Douglas is a total turkey in this abysmal flick, in which he fends off another aggressive female intent on "raping him." You've done that one already, Mike, remember? Bernadette Peters, although looking surprisingly fit for a woman her age, is photographed from some very poor angles and just looks odd too much of the time. Her part is completely forgettable. The youngest Douglas comes off as a complete jerk (to use a less offensive term than the one I actually have in mind). The scene in which he's finally going to make love to the cute young girl he's been after for half the movie, then decides he can't have sex with her after all because "it wouldn't be right," is almost as shmarmy but not nearly as offensive as the scene where the same girl goes to his dorm room and finds him enthusiastically disco-dancing with his male roommate. Douglas really gets into it and I vaguely felt like throwing up. The part where Kirk and Michael send Kirk's dead brother across a suburban lake in a boat that they have torched, ala "The Vikings," is just kind of dumb but hardly the dumbest moment in a flick chock full of dumb moments. The Seder scene with everyone in their yarmulkes is just plain silly, in my opinion. OK, granted I'm not Jewish, but I think that is one tradition that ought to go the way, the skull caps on grown men, I mean. The youngest Douglas looks absolutely ridiculous in his because he plays an unrepentant dope dealer, but gee, he's got to wear his yarmulke for Seder to keep the older folks happy. It's ridiculous. In short, this movie is phony, false, forced, and exploitive of Kirk Douglas's various handicaps following his stroke. The entire Douglas clan ought to be thoroughly embarrassed for appearing in this piece of dung, because that is what it is. Kirk is capable of standout work and doesn't even scratch the surface of his capabilities simply because this movie, itself, is dead on arrival and nothing he does to resuscitate it has a chance to succeed.

This is a movie about fathers and sons - It's ALL relative, in fact, and not just the male kind. It deals with the importance of keeping in touch and coming closer together before death or ideals conspire to separate you permanently.It would be foolish to deny that it has a pedestrian pace; but careful viewing will reveal that each member of this family is manfully wrestling in different ways with the prospect of getting old before their time, so with such preoccupations it was never going to be swinging giddily from one mishap to the next. When people get self-absorbed and need to find direction in life, they often slow down to take stock; and the deliberate manner with which the screenplay tends to unfold things is a reflection of that. Certain people were no doubt disappointed, I feel, because they might have sat down expecting a more purposeful plot - whereas what is delivered instead is really more of an episodic musing on familial bonds.For all those old-school Kirk Douglas fans who moan that here he's nothing like he was in his 'glory days' - they're right, he isn't; but the scene where his character finds his wife dead was still without doubt the most affecting in the movie. Even if he does give an "old man's" performance, he's playing an old man; so there's nothing more appropriate, is there?!"It Runs in the Family" is a slow-burner with abstract themes - it never had 'box-office hit' written all over it in the first place. There's nothing particularly revelatory to be found in this film, but it's well-written and well acted; comfortable in its own skin, and sometimes that's good enough.

I watched it 2 times, very endearing, each plot if carefully paid attention to can make you either sympathize or laugh or even cry, it's sweet, the father/son/grandson is adorable, funny, witty, and I think it touched my heart during the deaths of Pappys wife and brother.. It's hard to imagine your life partner gone after so long...and then to lose your brother within the same time, I think Michael and Kirk did a wonderful job, and "Asher" was an eye opener to anyone trying to stay as a teenager even when they should have priorities. Culkin was sweet as the conscience yet innocent child, their traditions were upheld, the characters were in depth, making the plots more understandable if you really pay attention and try to enjoy the movie instead of sit and criticize every action they make.

"It Runs in the Family" is a boring comedy. There is some element of a tribute to the great acting career of Kirk Douglas, who plays an elderly father of Michael Douglas. His stroke producing hemiparesis and dysphasia is amply displayed by this veteran. One can enjoy some few sentimental moments, but it is not worth the rental. The Douglas family probably received some handsome remuneration for this film. They probably also are enjoying the fact that nearly their entire family is featured in this fiasco. One should avoid this film if possible. If not, be prepared to take a brief snooze. Don't waste your money on this boring tribute to a great actor.