the audience applauded

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Long time buddies from Actor's Studio days John Cassavetes and Peter Falk collaborate on this humorous send up of Billy Wilder's Double Indemnity. Wilder's whose humor could be grimly ironic was still around when Big Trouble came out. I wonder what Billy thought especially since Double Indemnity classic that it is has very few laughs.It was one fateful day when Alan Arkin met up with Beverly D'Angelo who had that low cut come up and see me ambiance that got Arkin hooked. Up there for a homeowner's policy discussion, Arkin sells them a life insurance policy for husband Peter Falk with that ever fateful double indemnity clause for accidental death.Our first meeting with Falk should tell you this won't work out quite like Double Indemnity did. Both he and D'Angelo like to live large, check out the mansion they have. And I won't say what it is that Falk does for a living to bring in the Benjamins, but trust me he's one shady character. In fact not unlike the man he played in my favorite Peter Falk movie The Brink's Job, but far more upper class or at least he's used to living like that.Now a man used to privilege is Robert Stack, CEO of the insurance company that Arkin works for. Arkin's having trouble and who wouldn't paying tuition for his teenage triplets who MUST go to Yale to study music. Stack's a hearty and hateful privileged WASP snob who tells Arkin it's better that people make it on their own. No help from him getting into his birthright alma mater. After that Arkin is as easy prey for D'Angelo as Fred MacMurray was for Barbara Stanwyck in the original.All I will say is that Big Trouble doesn't quite work out the way the original did. Funniest scene in the film for me is the Medical Examiner's office where the post mortem is conducted by Dr. Richard Libertini who is in on the plot and who's a character himself. The Edward G. Robinson insurance investigator role is Charles Durning. Durning is as smart as Robinson, but it wouldn't have taken a Barton Keyes like genius to blow this one up.Big Trouble will not be a Billy Wilder like classic, but it's pretty funny and director Cassavetes and actor Falk work well together with the whole cast. Cassavetes and Falk had almost 35 years of experience together and they function like a well greased machine.In addition to Billy Wilder both Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck were also still with us when Big Trouble hit the big screen. Wonder what they thought too?

'Big Trouble' is an unfortunate letdown, it reunites the dream casting of Alan Arkin and Peter Falk, who first paired off together in the classic comedy 'The In-Laws, Sadly this re teaming is not as funny as one would expect, Andrew Bergman, allegedly was inline to direct this, but Bergman, unfortunately dropped out, and was replaced by the father of independent cinema John Cassevetes,Granted there are some amusing scenes with the pair,but somewhere out there on the cutting room floor, there's a lot more to answer for, Plot has Arkin doing his usual sch-tick as a hapless insurance salesman trying to get his sons in to prestigious Yale, he gets a lot more than he bargains for when he becomes embroiled in a bizarre insurance fraud scam,

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.