There is a guide that states that the first ten minutes of a film reveals whether or not the work on the whole is any good or not. The theory is, that in this amount of time, the filmmakers must establish the tone, pacing, and characters, thereby letting audiences know exactly what it is they’re watching, and what they can expect more of. As trite as this sounds, I’ve found it more often than not to be true. I remember being absolutely stoked about “The Fifth Element” way back when, but around minute six or seven, well before Bruce Willis even showed up, being overcome with that icy feeling of bad-movie dread. That’s when I first began to put stock in this little theory. The reason I bring this up at all is because the director of this film, “Fun with Dick and Jane”, Dean Parisot, previously directed “Galaxy Quest”, one of the few mainstream films to shatter this theory. The first ten minutes of that film were embarrassing; right down to kids ripping on a teary eyed Tim Allen while he hides in a bathroom stall. “Galaxy Quest”, however, recovered better than any other film in semi-recent memory, pulling itself together to become one of the funniest films of that year. At the ten-minute point of “Dick and Jane”, I was desperately hoping the same would hold true. It didn’t.
I admit that saying all that was a long way to go just to reveal that this movie isn’t any good, but really, there isn’t too much else to say about it. Well, there are a few things. It is the first big Enron scandal comedy that I can recall, and it stars Jim Carrey as Dick, a corporate stooge, and Téa Leoni as his beleaguered travel agent wife, Jane. The couple shares a house in the suburbs, and a young son whose Mexican accent betrays the fact that he’s obviously been raised by the housekeeper (yes, that’s about the depth of this film’s humor). These two are such cardboard specimens that they schedule lovemaking, and compete with the neighbors over material things in passive aggressive ways.
Dick gets a sweet promotion from his big boss man played by Alec Baldwin, prompting Jane to quit her job, and live the good life at home, cooking meals and spending time with their caricature son. Dick’s promotion is immediately followed by a disastrous appearance on a cable financial show, in which the whole company tanks during his three-minute segment. It seems that Alec Baldwin’s boss man character pulled an Enron, leaving all the suited stiffs suddenly on the street. Dick and Jane, faced with no pension or retirement, try a number of kooky low-rent jobs before burning through their savings, leaving them high and dry. Apparently they can’t even sell their $600,000 house, due to some dashed-off plot contrivance. They are, in short, screwed.
So, doing what any screwed couple does, they turn to a life of crime. Petty robbery only gets them so far, until they are presented with the possibility to exact revenge on that greasy weasel Alec Baldwin. So they attempt that plot, which of course becomes far more convoluted that it needed to be. In the end, some of the thieving characters get the justice they deserve; others do not. Guess which is which.
Apparently this is a remake of another movie made in the seventies starring Jane Fonda of the same title and premise, but I admit to being unfamiliar with that. (And I’m not doing any reviewer “homework” for this uninspired dud, sorry.) The legendary children’s book of the title is a reference that feels very dated, as “See Dick Run” references were a lot more common ten or so years ago. Maybe the cardboard and simple quality of the characters and the film are intended to be true in tone to this simplest of books, but whatever the case, the joke isn’t funny, and the reference feels awkwardly shoehorned and unclever.
Also shoehorned and unclever is Jim Carrey’s usual rubber-faced shtick. For reasons never explained, Dick is a corporate monkey-man capable of practically climbing up walls, and taking a pitch-perfect pratfall. For a briefcase-carrying stiff, he’s awfully agile. Leoni’s role is prominent but thankless all the same, as she finds herself in the unfortunate position of trying to ground Carrey’s antics in this uncomfortable pseudo-reality. One would think it fair to expect more from a screenplay with Judd “40-Year Old Virgin” Apatow’s name on it (among others), but upon closer inspection, this screenplay reveals the same rambling flaws and tangents that have slightly marred his previous work. Setting the film in the year 2000 may’ve been intended as a way to predate the corporate greed scandals that sprang up since then, but even this forced relevance feels slightly dated as well. Parisot’s straight-forward direction does nothing to help the proceedings, as the comical weight rests clearly on the shoulders of Carrey and the other actors, all of whom are obviously straining so hard to make this material funny, it practically hurts to watch.
Of course there were plenty of moderate laughs in the audience I saw it with, for example when the family dog is electrically jolted by his shock-collar for barking, or when Leoni wakes up with a muddy handprint on her breast after her husband’s wacky night of rebuilding his repossessed lawn (don’t ask). But mostly, this is the kind of comedy where people slip and slide around a lot, most of the time resulting in falling or at least careening off balance. It’s an inorganic comedy that veiwers rent at the grocery store and watch while folding laundry, chuckle, then forget about. Only thing is, the original aspirations of the filmmakers seemed to be a good bit loftier, with veiled references to Enron, Worldcom, and even the 2000 presidential election (check out all that Gore/Lieberman signage!). For a movie that was obviously built on real-life corporate greed scandals, and the devastating impact they had on their unwitting employees, this movie does nothing to humanize the victims, opting instead to keep them at a distance, as laughing-stock straw men. This is a premise (however thin it is) that screams for humanity in its shenanigans, but only delivers the kind of tired rubber-faced antics that its star defaults to out of desperation.
In a final desperate grab for sharp relevance, the end credits (following the sure-to-be-dated-sooner-than-later capping “zinger”) immediately run a “special thanks” list of notorious companies and executives scandalized by corporate greed. It is most unprecedented that such a massive entity as Columbia Pictures would step up and say thanks for allowing them to profit off of the suffering of the victims of these scandals, but that’s what they’ve in effect done. It’s hard to say what the said victims would think of this wish-fulfillment fantasy of getting back at the thieving billionaire boss, but I suspect it would only serve as a painful reminder of reality in the long run, once the weak escapism wears off.
If you really want to get at the heart of corporate greed by watching a movie, I recommend the documentary “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room”. Jim Carrey’s been better doing the same shtick in half a dozen other movies. It may be pushing it to call Columbia Pictures guilty for attempted profiteering on the corporate greed scandals because they gave them a great idea for a comedy remake, but one thing they are guilty of is faulty advertising – “Fun with Dick and Jane” is anything but fun.
- Jim Tudor