Fun with Dick and Jane

This seems to be one of those films in which almost all the funny bits were in the trailer, and the trailer wasn't really all that good. For a pretty short film, I seemed to be looking at my watch quite a bit...and thinking my watch must be broken since it couldn't be possible that not much time had passed by. Jim Carrey was definitely trying, but for as much of a Jim Carrey fan as I am, it generally seemed he has done it all before, and it was better the last few times he did it. Tea Leoni was not bad, but did not add much to the film, either. And Judd Apatow must have used all of his good material in the 40 Year Old Virgin, because I only got a couple of laughs out of this one. Although I would say that there was a bit of laughter around me in the theatre, so some folks must have enjoyed it. This wasn't a bad movie, maybe worth watching on HBO if you have nothing better to do. Just not worth the price of popcorn.

Dick and Jane Harper (Jim Carrey, Téa Leoni) wind up on the unemployment line when the corporation Dick works for is caught in a corruption scandal, and after desperately and unsuccessfully trying to find jobs, the duo turns to crime in order to get them out of poverty. I've always been a fan of Jim Carrey. It's been awhile since he has made a straight up comedy. The last one was Bruce Almighty which was pretty good. He has proved that he can do serious dramas but comedy is his real element. Fun with Dick and Jane proves that he still has it. Even though the film was funny, it was still kind of disappointing. It wasn't as funny as I thought it would be. It's worth watching once though unlike most of Carrey's movies, it doesn't have a good repeat value. Part of the problem is the script. I was surprised the script was weak since this is the same guy that made The Forty Year Old Virgin. Some of the jokes just fall flat and other times they seem to be trying too hard. If Jim Carrey wasn't in it, than the film would have been a lot worse. Next to Jim Carrey is Téa Leoni. She's an okay actress but she just isn't very funny. She doesn't match up well with Carrey and she seemed to be phoning in her performance. They should have gone with someone else. The supporting cast includes Alec Baldwin, Richard Jenkins and Aaron Michael Jenkins. The latter plays Billy Harper and he actually gives a decent performance. He wasn't as annoying as most child stars are. Alec Baldwin was okay and Richard Jenkins tried too hard to be funny. To be honest, I'm a little bias here. The film altogether was pretty average but I liked it more because of Jim Carrey's performance. Fans of Jim Carrey should enjoy it but that's about it. In the end, Fun with Dick and Jane is a fun way to spend 90 minutes but its not very memorable. Rating 6/10

I don't know why, but there is a certain sect of people who are infatuated with pain. More specifically, they are obsessed with masochism, or the desire to inflict pain on oneself. They have been known to cut their wrists with razor blades, jab themselves with pencils or nails, and in the most extreme cases, stab themselves with knives. None of these activities-no matter how severe they seem-are as painful as "Fun with Dick and Jane". Let me preface this by saying that there might not be a bigger Jim Carey fan. Hell, I sat through bootleg copies of "Duck Factory" simply to see the flailing funnyman whip himself up into a frenzy. But now, after baring witness to this horrific concoction, I must first wonder if this was meant to be a joke. Perhaps Mr. Carey is such an unbelievably unprecedented comic genius that it was his goal to make the most unfunny movie possible so that he could sit back and see how many people could be conned into the theater. Then, sitting on the deck of his palatial estate, he could sit back and laugh and laugh when the box office numbers came in. Perhaps that is the only explanation why the star/producer would allow himself to be sucked in to a remake of a sub par movie. This film has exactly three (3) laughs, and none of them are particularly memorable. Without spoiling them, one involves a funny voice, one involves a quick visual gag, and one occurs about twenty minutes into the film when you realize you're trapped and your only reaction is to nervously chuckle for fear of insanity. Heed this warning; Hollywood has tried to force-feed us trite before, but it has never been so vile and so horrifying. Lastly, should you accidentally find yourself in a seat and the lights go down and you see the credits for this film, RUN! Run like you have never run before. In the end, you might as well watch a test pattern, or worse, The Family Stone.

Fun With Dick and Jane failed to entertain on so many levels. There were loose ends with the writing, for example, it seems as though one of the major conflicts was the indictment of Jim Carrey's character DIck Harper, but the writers never follow up that particular conflict. Basically the story is weak and mostly unfunny, but Carrey saves a few scenes with his physical humor, but honestly, Jim Carrey wasn't very funny in this movie, and Tea Leone might as well have been there just for her appearance because she wasn't funny either. This is just another example of Hollywood banking off franchise actors with a lousy unoriginal story.

In what is supposed to be a comedy, I was bored all the way through. The pacing, the gags, the plot, the style were all completely predictable Hollywood. The actors' performances were all very competent -- JC continues to be a genius at physical comedy -- so the problem was with the script and the director. The film never surprised me once. I was so disappointed. Save your money for better films! I wouldn't even recommend wasting money to rent it on DVD. A real shame, because a biting satire on the Enron scandals and greed in America would have been great. This movie just isn't it. We all know the American Dream is BS, and that unless you're one of the lucky few who manage to own property (without being mortgaged to the hilt), life in America can be *hard.* It's almost impossible to live in the US on what most jobs pay. The major problem with this movie is that it was dull and predictable, but a minor problem was that there was something insidious about making light of the economic plight of most Americans. Poverty, the movie says, is about not being able to afford a Mercedes, not having a big-screen plasma TV, not having a hot tub. Yes, it said this tongue-in-cheek, but not really. The premise that "things have really gotten bad when upper middle class people have to resort to armed robbery to support their lifestyle" somehow manages to say that it's really only the problems of the rich that matter, and it ignores what real poverty is like and how common it is now. If this was supposed to be a comment on white collar crime, it was grossly unsubtle.

Jim Carrey has come a long way since his early days on In Living Color. He became a hit actor in the likes of Ace Ventura: Pet Detective (a personal childhood favourite), The Mask and Dumb and Dumber. He tried hard for an Oscar nom, but always contended with winning Golden Globes. And for years now, he has basically been bouncing around dramas, comedies, and dramedies. So now, he has tackled a remake (of a comedy no less), and the results as per the last few years, are mixed at best. Carrey is Dick, an employee at Globodyne (read: Enron) who is promoted just in time to help sail the company into oblivion on television. He tells his wife Jane (Tea Leoni) to leave her job only hours before hand, and upon returning stunning home, realizes that he may be in a bit of trouble. As the months go on, the pair's assets slowly begin to dwindle, and hope for continued survival begins to evaporate. So with nothing left to do, they turn to life of petty crime and hope for the best. It is not an original concept at all, but Carrey and Leoni do a valiant job keeping this boat floating. While the film does have a few hilarious moments, the rest of it is bogged down by mere snicker-filled sequences or just scenes that are totally unfunny. It's not like these two actors are having any trouble being funny, it's that the material is not funny. Judd Apatow did wonders with The 40-Year-Old Virgin, but he fumbles here pretty hard with his writing partner Nicholas Stoller, who does not have nearly enough credits to his name. A parody on what happened at Enron was inevitable, but this just seems lackluster and barely thought out. Subplots are brought in, but barely resolved, and the key storyline just feels very weak by the end. It's not terrible, it just feels a tad bit incomplete. The sorry thing about the entire film is the fact that much of it just feels like an extended montage with little payoff. It is only ninety minutes long, so it feels like a lot was trimmed down or cut right out. But the film suffers as a result. If it was longer, it undoubtedly could have had more potential for more funny moments, and as a whole, feel more complete. While Carrey and Leoni do their best, it's Leoni who gives a stronger performance. Yes, Carrey is right at home with his zany character, and totally overshadows Leoni in every single aspect. But he just lacks that integral element of human comedy here, that made him so famous in the first place. It's unfortunate, and makes me wonder if the old Carrey will ever return, or if we'll have to contend with semi-funny Carrey for the rest of his career. Leoni is much better, and feels more in tune with what she's doing. Even more unfortunate is the wasted supporting cast does very little. Alec Baldwin as the sleazy CEO Jack McCallister is sparingly unfunny, as is Richard Jenkins as the right hand man Frank Bascombe, who spends most of the movie drunk and not doing anything (besides setting up for the finale). The rest of the cast has little to no screen time, or are simply silly supporting characters that just feel like excess waste in the entire scheme of things. For all of it's faults, the film is a worth while watch. As said, I did laugh at some of it. A bit of work on the screenplay would have benefited everyone here. Just do not go in expecting a comedy classic with Jim Carrey. If so, you will be sadly disappointed. 6.5/10.