Yes, three generations from the Douglas family show up in this film as the "Grombergs" a dysfunctional family whose members just do not how to communicate with each other. Grumpy Kirk Douglas is the center of the family (and the film) while his son Michael Douglas's character faces the crisis of the family (in the shape of the suspected infidelty).

Each member has his/her problems, as this kind of film always show. So, you also see Diana Douglas (Michael's mother) playing against Kirk Douglas while Cameron Douglas (Michael's son) appears as ... er ... Michael's character's son, who is not doing well in university, and got into troubles, one drug-related.

Now, the troubles with "It Runs in the Family" is that the film ALMOST touches the very biting truths about being in a family -- you cannot get away from your children, siblings, or parents no matter what they are, or how they act. You sit through the embarrasing moments of the family's annual gatherings, wishing that this would end soon, and the film tries to show such moments. But what it reveals in the overlong running time is nothing original or truthful to us. One example shows: when a quiet, very introspective boy Rory Culkin (cast as Cameron's younger brother) falls for a girl in school, she must be a wild, goth girl who has a pierce in nose. The film is full of such cliched elements that you can tell who is going to die, and how, before it happens.

I don't think acting is bad, and it is good to see Kirk Douglas after he suffered from a stroke (and he still has the daredevil personality seen in, say, "Doc" in "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral"). Cameron Douglas is good and looks natural as rebellous college student, and there are some memorable moments from the cast, especially from the dance scene of Diana and Kirk. But after watching this long film, you will remember almost nothing in it, perhaps except the fact that you saw four Douglases in one picture. It sounds harsh to say, but what else can this film be proud of?

This film is a study of three generations of a well to do family, and this family's inability to deal openly with years of unspoken conflicts. This certainly isn't the first movie to tackle this subject, and it won't be the last. There isn't a great deal in terms of plot twists, surprises, astonishing performances or writing. It's look and feel are on a par with a high quality made for TV movie. Many of the non family members in the story are not well developed, and don't really contribute very much to the story.

However ... it would be difficult to think of a father and son who have contributed more to the film industry than have Kirk and Michael Douglas, and it is highly unlikely that this pairing will ever be seen again. This is, in and of itself, a good enough reason for me to see this film. But there is something else that this film does extremely well. It depicts the pain of an elderly man who is facing the kind of losses that are to be expected as one ages, and in doing so, Kirk Douglas makes it abundantly clear that he is still a substantial force on screen. I hate to fall back on the old sports analogy, but I am reminded of the last few years that Louis Tiant pitched for the Red Sox. Sure, he was past his prime, yet he was able to offer perspective, experience and a positive mind set that only years in baseball could provide. In other words, his value to the club what about more than statistics. It was about character.

Kirk Douglas invests this film with just this sort of extra ingredient. If you are someone who has paid close attention to American cinema for the last 50 plus years, you understand what I am trying to describe. Whatever its shortcomings; I couldn't have missed this film.