Fun with Dick and Jane - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Fun with Dick and Jane Reviews

Page 1 of 7
Super Reviewer
½ September 6, 2010
I liked this movie for the most part, there are a lot of funny scenes, but it also has lulls in the story. It could have been better, and surprisingly the remake was better.
Super Reviewer
April 4, 2007
Jane Fonda and George Segal have an easy going charm and likeability that's at the core of this light comedy, but opportunities for wit and social satire are glossed over by a toothless script. Watchable but vacuous.
December 22, 2007
This Dick and Jane is the all time classic. It is a hoot. One to see. Jane Fonda and George Segal gelled.
July 16, 2007
Definitely superior to the silly 2005 remake. It starts off somewhat blandly, but about halfway through it starts picking up and from there to the end is solidly fun, if never hilarious. I wouldn't watch it again, but it was definitely worth seeing once.
½ July 6, 2007
not a great movie or funny when you realize this happened to people at Enron but they didn't get their happy endings
½ February 20, 2007
This flim was hot and great evern know jane Fonda was in it and I'm not a big fan of henry fond'a daughter but it was great
June 4, 2006
I recently found an old vhs tape of this at a flea market, and I had to have it! An old favorite of mine since the 70's.
June 28, 2015
not particularly funny
January 18, 2015
Fonda y Segal muy divertidos nada que ver con Leoni / Carrey.
November 4, 2012
So much better than the remake
½ December 14, 2010
**1/2 (out of four)

I really liked Jane Fonda and George Segal. Their charms and charisma make up for the weaknesses in the story. As good as they are, they don't quite save it.

When Dick (Segal) loses his job, he and his wife (Fonda) won't give up on their luxuries. Instead they take to a life of crime, stealing and robbing cars and banks.

Fun to a point, but it runs out of plot way too quickly.
½ November 14, 2010
Itīs funny, not great, but enjoyable.
July 28, 2006
6.5/10. Fun With Dick and Jane is far better than it?s sequel, the characters are more defined, the comic situations are funnier and Jane Fonda is terrific. Great fun, clever plot with some fine writing.
½ May 5, 2006
Make, remake. Hollywood at its usual self.

Or not so. Carey wanted to remake this to make a point about how he did it tough when he was a kid, being pissed off and all about Enron and other corperate cowboys getting away with almost murder.

Fun with Dick and Jane, the Fonda/Segal, is the story of how Stagflation hit an upper-class family in the US. It is the story of how to abuse the welfare system (murdered by Clinton, or so I hear), steal, screw your boss, then get away with it. And it works. It works as it was written for the late 1970s when wives and houses were usually one and the same, domestic servants were more the norm, and the sociopolitieconomic situation works with the film. And because they get away with their criminial activity, it is a good film. If they had a 'change of heart' and the moral of the story was 'everyone has a good heart and would not steal from their boss', it would become a cr*p film.

It isn't perfect. It moves slowly. It looks rather dated. It's rather silly. If it took itself more seriously and made social commentary, it could have had a real impact. Instead it went for the cheap 'n' easy route of being liked rather than respected. Despite this, it works, and if you want to know/know a bit about the 70s, or LIVED there (like I would have liked to), then this film is quite informative about sociopolitiecononomics of the period.

Fun with Dick and Jane, the Leone/Carey version, is about how corperate fat-cats got the blame for a company's poor performance laid on a single spokesperson, embezzled company assets and screwed the employees in a time when the economy was dipping, and how this affected an upper-class family in the US. It shows the corruption of the US welfare system, stealing, taking jobs out of desperation like medical guinepigs, and how if you really try hard enough you can get money back from your boss, despite the government taking no action against him.

Fundimentally, the film is flawed. It is flawed for its minor stab towards the corrupted US Administration, making it appear a rather thoughtless inclusion (The Bushes and former Enron Chief Ken de Lay went back a long way, he was supposed to get Energy Portfolio in the Administration at one point) when, really, the government should have had a lot more to do with investigating the folding of the company Dick worked for than the film suggested. It is flawed for its dogged social commentary about illegal immigrants and lack of tackling of real issues to do with immigration, corruption, and man's place on earth. It is flawed for its cheesiness such as the son learning spanish. It is flawed for Tea Leone, whose acting is flaky at best. It is flawed because the audience fail to really care about Dick and the liveihood of his family, and at no point does it really seem he will wind up destitute, or worse, dead. And finally, that stupid dog...ugh, I hate dogs. In the original Dick and Jane, the dog shut up. I wish the dog in this version would. And the ending is a bore, that 'everyone gets a pension'. Woopdido.

The 2005 film was throughly disappointing in comparason to the 1977 version, of which I saw first. It may seem that the films contain the same elements- upper-class, losing work, stealing, happy endings, but really they paint a completly different reality and tell very different stories. Sadly, the Carey adaptation didn't work because it was thoughtlessly adapted. Had the original and message from the original been dissected on a deeper level rather than simply superficial changes slapped on willy-nilly til it resembled cross between a donkey and a frog, the finished product would have been far more furfilling.
½ July 22, 2005
[font=Arial][font=Verdana][color=white]George Segal and Jane Fonda, playing [font=Arial][color=white][font=Verdana]an upper-class married couple who resort to robbery when they?re faced with unemployment,[/font][/color][/font] have interesting chemistry in this lightweight farce that never quite rises above its dated material.[/color][/font][/font]
Page 1 of 7