ROTTEN TOMATOES: "Dick and Jane" Budget Balloons to $100 Mil

"Dick and Jane" Budget Balloons to $100 Mil

by Jen Yamato | December 02, 2005

The LA Times reports that the forthcoming suburban caper remake, "Fun with Dick and Jane," has somehow rung up a $100 million production tab despite a lack of enormous special effects or complicated filmmaking usually involved in big-budget films.

"Dick and Jane" is a remake of the 1977 laffer of the same name that starred George Segal and Jane Fonda as a suddenly indebted upper-class couple who turn to armed robbery to maintain their lifestyle. This time around, Jim Carrey and Tea Leoni play the thieving duo, forced into a life of crime when an Enron-esque scandal lands them in the red. Among the reported "special effects" are voice-distortion devices the robbers use in their heists.

That being said, it's rather perplexing that such a low-concept movie could spend quite so much money. Some speculate that last-minute scenes, improvised gags and reshoots explain the insane budget boom. That, or the 40-odd takes perfectionist producer-star Carrey demanded during his own scenes.

"Fun with Dick and Jane" opens in wide release December 21, and is directed by TV/film vet Dean Parisot ("Northern Exposure," "Galaxy Quest"), written by Peter Tolan ("Analyze This," "Just Like Heaven") with a screenplay by Nick Stoller and Judd Apatow ("Freaks and Geeks," "The 40-Year Old Virgin").

Related Items

Movie:	Northern Exposure
	Fun with Dick and Jane
	Galaxy Quest
	The 40-Year-Old Virgin
	Analyze This
	Freaks and Geeks - The Complete Series
	Just Like Heaven
Celeb:	Téa Leoni
	Peter Tolan
	Judd Apatow
	Dean Parisot
	Jim Carrey

(1-8 of 8 posts) | Reply

Senh Duong writes:
on Dec 02 2005 03:07 PM

[b]Holy moly...[/b]
It's like Rush Hour 2, which cost $80M but definitely didn't look it. Salaries for Jackie Chan, Chris Tucker, and Brett Ratner took up $40-50M of the budget.

(Reply to this)

r.kellydoodoobutter writes:
on Dec 02 2005 03:09 PM

[b]PURE 100% DOPE![/b]
this will be dope going back to the old days of Jim Carrey Stupidity but combing it with some of the serious aspects of his recent dramas.I got the second post before you super nerds get on and argue about loser stuffer like uwe boll movies that you love to bitch about but will never watch. loser stuff gets the most posts on the site and great movies only get a few such as king kong, x-men3, narnia, jarhead, history of violence. But super shit gets the most posts such the doa the movie, uwe boll, aeon queers, Superman th return of the ass-goblin , white noise, just horrendous crap. you losers probably just whine on here all the time, the same posts are from the same dumb people!

r kelly's doo doo butter rules!

(Reply to this)

lpbreeze writes:
on Dec 02 2005 04:23 PM

[b]crazy[/b]
good people behind this movie but you just can't spend that much on a comedy.

(Reply to this)

Rock_The_Luau writes:
on Dec 02 2005 05:31 PM

In reply to this comment (#828429)
Wow. That sounded just like a loser rant.

Doo doo butter. Idiot.

(Reply to this)

HoneycombSAFARI writes:
on Dec 02 2005 07:53 PM

probably due to reshoots.

eg:

Cursed- original budget: $40 mil, final budget: $90mil

get the drift?

(Reply to this)

Callpacas writes:
on Dec 02 2005 11:40 PM

[b]Hahaha[/b]
Like i give a crap!...unless they raise the ticket price.

(Reply to this)

lovelykeira writes:
on Dec 04 2005 06:04 PM

This film looks hilarious but it's insane that it cost that much. I'm sure it will make profit though if it's good and mabey evan if it's not(Meet the Fockers made a ton of money at this time last year and it was just allright).

(Reply to this)

neumdaddy writes:
on Dec 04 2005 06:28 PM

I'm a Jim Carrey sympathizer, but this budget seems to foretell total under-performance. Unfortunately. Really, now, where the heck has been the advertising for this film? They better get on the ball.

(Reply to this)