Starring: Jennifer Lopez (I), Michael Vartan, Jane Fonda

4 out of 10 stars

There are many words you could use to describe Jane Fonda's performance in Monster-in-Law – admirable, fearless, funny, daunting, impressive – but good isn't exactly one of them. In between falling face first into a plate of tripe, guzzling cough syrup and martinis with equal fervor, and hatching nefarious mind games with an almost satanic glint her eye, Fonda proves that she's still able to fill a screen better than most any actress of her generation or since. However, while Fonda's first screen appearance in 14 years is a nice return to form, this role isn't exactly one for the ages. And with its limp screenplay and wan direction, Monster-in-Law is, from the get-go, almost set up for disappointment for any Fonda fan who reveled at her dramatic prowess in Klute or even her unsung gift for comedy in movies ranging from Barefoot in the Park to 9 to 5. Somehow with Jane, even after all this time, we expected better – something really good, not just okay.

Strangely, this concept of greater expectations also extends to Fonda's co-star, Jennifer Lopez, albeit in a much different, more insidious way. About halfway through the movie, as gimmicky set-up led to yet another gimmicky set-up without any satisfying payoff, I kept wondering why Ms. Lopez had downgraded herself yet again to playing another everygirl, Jenny-From-the-Block wallflower who makes mushy goo-goo eyes at yet another unattainable guy. And at about the point where my imagination involuntarily began exchanging Lopez's face with that of Brittany Murphy's, I snapped out what has to be a years-long reverie and asked: why do I have such high expectations for Jennifer Lopez? The woman has had exactly one great leading role (Out of Sight) back in 1998 and hasn't done well by herself since then, despite ample opportunity. Where did I get the idea she deserved better? What was I expecting? I mean, what has she done for me lately, besides bedeck the pages of my Us Weekly in a variety of outfits? When did her diva-ness overtake her slowly evaporating pool of talent?

So, thus ensnared by its two leading ladies' offscreen personas does Monster-in-Law sink like so much waterlogged chiffon from the weight of its two vastly different icons. A listless comedy that, aside from Fonda and Lopez, has all the earmarkings of a B movie, this is essentially a romantic comedy gussied up with a sex-changed, Meet the Parents twist. As such, it's neither romantic enough nor comedic enough, with the love story as compelling as soggy oatmeal and the warring between future spouse and in-law never cranked up enough to be either frenzied, funny, or even stressful. If this weren't Fonda's comeback, Monster-in-Law would be a blip on the radar, but as such, at least a little attention must be paid. And while never truly stellar, Fonda does rise to the occasion. Too bad the occasion is more of a backyard picnic than a formal dinner.

As Viola Fields, Fonda is a hard-nosed and hard-assed TV journalist who's become a legend in her own time – so much so that she's canned by her network in favor of a young, bosomy upstart who's more demographically appealing and far less intelligent. Already strung so tight that she would make a Stradivarius look relaxed, Viola is determined to go out with dignity, but when her last guest – a 17 year-old pop star barely wearing her spangled top – remarks that she didn't really follow Roe vs. Wade because she hates boxing, Viola snaps and lunges for her throat. Watching Fonda go all out in this scene is itself worth the price of admission, and drops a promising if unfulfilled hint of wilder things to come. Her next victim, though, isn't a professional nemesis but a personal one: the sweet-faced Charlie (Lopez), an aimless and amiable temp who's snagged Viola's handsome and successful doctor son, Kevin (Michael Vartan). Itching for a fight of any kind, Viola arms herself to the teeth with all her cunning to break up the suddenly engaged couple. As TV Guide would put it, hijinks ensue.

Were that the movie actually pitched this way. Instead, the focus of the movie is initially on the blank Charlie, one of those stock girls in trade whose DNA aggressively overlaps with that of Lopez's working-class character in Maid in Manhattan. Before we even get to Viola, we're subjected to Charlie's meet-cute encounters with Dr. Kevin, and between Lopez's lack of energy and Vartan's opacity (when exactly did this actor go from hunky to dull?), their pallid shorthand of a romance has all the sparks of watching two blocks of wood being clapped together. Lopez brings a similar detachment to her scenes with Fonda, and despite professed hatred, the heat never really rises in the battle between these two, and the result is decidedly unbalanced. With Charlie all sweetness and light (read: boring) and Viola all fire-eyed and desperate (read: wacky), the audience immediately warms to Fonda, the more interesting combatant – the one with spark and fury.

Though Lopez really never does anything, and the screenplay is as by-the-numbers as a connect-the-dots book, the lion's share of the blame for Monster-in-Law falls squarely in the lap of director Robert Luketic. A filmmaker who lucked into directing Reese Witherspoon's star-making turn in Legally Blonde, he's proved himself to be an extremely weak director whose fortunes rise and fall on the prowess of his leading ladies. Accordingly, Blonde sailed on Witherspoon's charm, while Win a Date with Tad Hamilton sank under the inexperience of Kate Bosworth, a good actress still as yet incapable of carrying a film by herself. With Fonda and Lopez at the helm, Monster-in-Law rises and falls like a particularly brutish boat ride in choppy waters, with some great highs (Fonda sparking with co-hort Wanda Sykes, playing her assistant) and terrible lows (Lopez smirking as dogs tear apart Fonda's couture). Being tossed from one end to the other results in some awful, dizzying whiplash, and after a while, you just want it all to stop.