Fun with Dick and Jane is a good Jim Carrey movie, but it surprisingly lacks the amount of humor present in other "recent" Jim Carrey movies such as Bruce Almighty and Yes Man. On this second viewing of the film I found myself engaged in the story to the point that I was not necessarily upset that this movie wasn't was funny as I expected.This movie has an unusually long first act for a comedy. Jim Carrey plays Dick Harper, who works at a company run by Jack McCallister (Alec Baldwin with an atrocious southern accent) and Dick gets promoted right before the company goes bankrupt due to McCallister's embezzlement, which no officials realize even though it is so obvious. The titular couple, Dick and Jane, has to deal with financial hardships since Jane quits her job after Dick's promotion, leaving no breadwinners in the house once the company Dick works for goes bankrupt. It may only take about half an hour, but it seems like a good forty or forty-five minutes for Dick and Jane to get to the point of the movie: the two of them robbing banks.It is enjoyable to watch the couple go from terrible to expert level at the task of robbing money. The segment that deals with the first night Dick tries to rob people shows how pathetic Dick comes across to start, first stealing only a slurpee, then finding himself in weird situations while robbing other stores which includes helping an elderly woman to walk back to her car, and suddenly the excitement hits when the two of them rob a neon-lit shop once Dick explains they will get evicted the next day if they don't obtain the money.It is humorous to see the two act like regular people in the process of robbing, one example being when they order specific drinks at a coffee shop while robbing the place.The second half of the movie seems to go by really quickly, and we find the third act of the film to be more about getting back at McCallister than obtaining a large sum of money, which is a nice turn. When I first saw this film I assumed the couple would just run off with the $400 million McCallister had in his accounts, but Dick and Jane donating the money to the people who worked with Dick seemed a lot more fitting for the light comedy that it was.Though the film could have used more humor and its tone could have been more consistent, Fun With Dick and Jane is a delight to watch since it is a great underdog story that is very easy to watch.

There was an older film of the same name starring Jane Fonda, as well as a kids book that I read in primary school when I was learning how to read. I suspect that the only relation that this film has to the book is the name because I have a feeling that the kids book is not about a married couple running around committing crimes. I have not seen the Jane Fonda film so I cannot comment on that as well though I suspect that the story line is the same, namely that a married couple find themselves without a job so they rob banks to survive.This film came about after a raft of accounting scandals resulted in the collapse of a number of high profile firms, including World-com and Enron. This film, though, was set before these scandals, and I suspect that this has something to do with the joke at the end where somebody drives past Dick and Jane and tells them that he has a new job in a new business that trades energy (and we all know what happened to Enron).Basically, Dick is a high profile salesperson for a technology company and is promoted to vice president only to discover that his company has collapsed and that the owner has then ran off with all of the money leaving the entire staff without any money and without any income. As such the high profile life (and the expensive house) of Dick and Jane comes to a complete halt. After trying numerous jobs (and failing) they decide to go into a life of crime, but after coming very close to getting caught, give that up as well.I guess this is one of those 'wouldn't it be good' type of movies, namely wouldn't it be good if the corporate CEOs that scarpered off with all of our money were forced to give it all up and pay us what was owed to us. Well, Dick and Jane get away with that, but unfortunately in the real world this did not happen. The CEOs of Enron and Worldcom were never forced to give up their money, and the ex-employees were simply left destitute.However, what I have learned from all of the cafuffle is that even though one should save for a rainy day, and not spend all ones money on luxurious living, putting all of your savings into company stocks and a company pension fund does not necessarily protect you. While I do own stock of the company that I work for, I diversify my holdings, and I believe that my pension fund is held in an independent trust and not within the company. I don't think that necessarily happens in the United States, but I guess one way of protecting yourself further is that here in Australia, with compulsory super, is to put it into a fund that has not connection with the company that you work for.

This movie is shallow. The story is shallow. The acting is shallow. As a parody, it is flat, and lacks the cutting edge that could have made it into a great movie. The story just does not lend itself to slapstick; the story is essentially one of tragedy and betrayal. These are not funny themes. Jim Carrey's gesticulations are out of place in what is a grim story about people who are screwed over and then scapegoated. The desperation of the two protagonists is shunted aside in favor of a silliness which belies the seriousness of their plight. These people are victims yet it is difficult to feel empathy for them because they're part of the system too. It was just their turn to be pushed over the cliff, and if anybody thinks that is funny, then this movie is for you.

Yes, it's a remake. But let me hate that else time. The movie is nice; however it didn't utilize many chances to make more laughs. For big instance, the second act; where the thefts are, was a bit hasty and not interesting (The Egyptian copy of Dick and Jane, named "Esapa Hamadda wi Toto", is better in this matter). And for small instance, the leads' kid was nearly unused. The movie ends pretty short. 90 minutes seemed not enough or cut off. Maybe (Carry), the producer, wanted this into the point with no longer time.Moreover, while (Carry) is doing fine in his rationalized phase, where he's not dumb or dumber anymore, (Téa Leoni) was the wrong choice altogether. She got nothing to do with comedy, nothing to do with comedy (My anger just confirms!). Watch this movie to know exactly what I'm talking about, noticing the tragedy of having a comic star as (Carry) beside her all the time too. Albeit nothing is more tragic than her legs, Ugh !! They're ugly to creepy extent, so why to show them naked for half of the movie ?!!!! I WAS SICK, REAL SICK. When I read that (Cameron Diaz) was set to play Jane, but bowed out shortly before production I MOAN. (Diaz) is a real comedienne, lovely beauty, who also has long unforgettable pair of legs, Not mawkish ones that can make you vomit !On the other hand, using The Enron disaster was smart. It is way better than reusing ready-made event from the 1970s movie, and it shows good, rather bitter, touch with today's reality. I loved situations like mistaking the lead for illegal emigrant, trying to steal a stranger who turns out to be acquaintance,… etc. Or swift moments like the one in which they mock at George W. Bush (Alec Baldwin's character talks to the media with grief about his staff during a duck shoot as same as the previous president talked about the war and then invited the press to watch his golf swing!). And when it comes to the scene of (Carry) threatening (Baldwin) with toy gun and tears then it's the best one at all as writing and acting. Then, look at you at the end; we eventually forgive the 2 leads for what they did of steals, not due to their miserable crises or desperate need, but for getting revenge of a huge unfair tycoon who was living untouchable. That's one of the movie's secrets by the way; get the big ones; namely the corrupted businessmen who always get away with it, not the money (or more than it anyway).Among 2005 movies, and from my own lists; as a man & woman's buddy-movie it's better than (Mr. & Mrs. Smith). As a heist, kind of, movie it's better than (Domino). And as a remake it's another nail in the coffin of originality, yes, but at least considered more creative and amusing compared to the other, many, remakes lately. Generally it works, yet on the "not so great" level. For me the only great thing about it though is seeing a comedian like (Carry) doing fine without wacky stuff, and crossing from a phase to another successfully.