The Problem of this movie is, in two words: Jim Carrey. Yes, he's a great comedian. Yes, he's a great serious actor. But when he tries to do both in a movie, It is a problem. This flick just can't decide whether it wants to be a broad comedy or a satire. So we get side by side scenes in which Carrey and Leoni dress up in silly costumes to rob gas stations, coffee shops, whatever with Carrey doing his face stretching thing, and scenes in which (the surprisingly bad) Alec Baldwin does a George W. Bush impression (remember the Fahrenheit 9/11 scene, which ends with Bush saying "Now watch this shot") and in which the financial world is made fun of. The movie could have worked individually as both, but mixed together it doesn't add up. It's always a bad sign when the best gag comes in the credits (a thank you to scandal firms like Enron, WorldCom, etc.)...

C

B+

Wow, I actually liked this movie a lot more than I ever thought I would. Very surprising. Like Levy said, the movie is very much two-sided. But I feel they pulled off both equally well. What made this film so enjoyable to me was that it was so lighthearted, it didn't take itself seriously. If the Family Stone was the comedy that went the way of being serious and real, Fun With Dick & Jane is the comedy that went the way of just being enjoyable and a treat to watch.

Carrey pulled off his job as he usually does, though this is kind've new ground for him. He isn't nearly as much of the slapstick funny-faces Carrey that we normally see, he's much more straight-man than he normally is. Of course theres still the outline of his usual self, but he seems to be moving his game in the right direction. Leoni was annoying, but much more bearable than she's been lately. Alec Baldwin didn't have all that many lines, but for a normally serious actor he handled himself relatively well.

They got down all their points in the movie relatively fast-paced, and they almost never drag. There's a couple of good costume montages, poking at the Beatles/Cher, and at Amish people. Yes, a lot of the longer robbing scenes are already in the commercials, but they hold back enough to the point where you don't mind. And yes, the film is short, it is only 86 minutes. But it really did not need to be much more. By keeping it this length, I'd say it makes it more appealing. It keeps the lighthearted factor up, and it lets the audience off liking the movie.

Overall, much better than I expected. All that dreadful marketing had me prepared for the worst, but it wasn't so. This is not Carrey's downfall guys, it's far from it.

Funny, funny, story-driven comedy!

With a surreal flare set amidst a realistic corporate slavery setting, Fun With Dick and Jane sets a wild pace and maintains it for 90 some odd minutes. I myself, unlike many others it seems, have always appreciated Tea Leoni, and here once again she does fine work beside the current reigning master of ti---ming and physical comedy.

This movie is very nicely done.

5 out of 5.

Enjoyable but not perfect. It had its moments, but it also dragged a bit from time to time. Carrey hams it up a bit too much, though he and Leoni have decent chemistry. Overall it was good, but lacking at times. B

Your usual Jim Carrey comedy. Which is why I liked it a lot.

B+

So, why did the film cost $100 million to make? I understand Jim Carrey's salary, but what boosts this up to 100Gs? Even Bruce Almighty only cost in the $80 million range, and I would assume Jennifer Aniston would get a bigger paycheck than Tea Leoni. Maybe I'm missing something, since the commercials make it seem like just a normal comedy.

I didn't like it all that much. It was just an unfunny, almost terrible movie experience. I laughed maybe twice, and both times it was more like a giggle fit than a laugh. The commercials really made this look a lot funnier than it turned out to be. I love most of Jim Carrey's movies, and I am a proud fan of Tea Leoni, but I just did not like this movie.

C- is the grade I thought of just as the credits began to roll, so.. that's all from me.

Absolutely nothing in this movie warranted a $100 million budget.

This isn't classic Jim Carrey, unless you thought Bruce Almighty was some kind of revelation.

When Jim Carrey's going over-the-top in an over-the-top movie, it's all good and fine, but in keeping with Bruce Almighty, it seems like he's trying to walk this line between light drama and heavy comedy, and it rarely works. I'd say Carrey's falling into that category with Will Ferrell where anything the character yells or dances or screams is automatically... 'hilarious'?

I just didn't find myself laughing.

D+

They reshot about half the movie, taking an extra 25 days and more money to do so after poor test screenings.

Is this closer to Bruce Almighty or something like Liar Liar?

I'd say Bruce Almighty.

Liar Liar's my favorite from Jim Carrey, though. I don't think most of his others compare.

Bruce.

I also found Tea Leoni occasionally awful. Not Spanglish awful, but yanno.

So wait. As FUNNY as Bruce Almighty or as annoyingly "sweet" neu-religiousy as Bruce?

If you didn't like Bruce Almighty, you might not like this one. Let's put it that way.

I liked Bruce a lot, and Dick and Jane was just as funny.

Dick and Jane is less sentimental yet less funny.

Less funny? That sounds weird.

I loved Fun with Dick and Jane and Liar Liar, but was severely underwhelmed by Bruce Almighty...

I don't think it's possible to compare this movie to ANYTHING Jim Carrey has done. It's not a kids movie, like Grinch and Lemony Snicket. It's not an oddball comedy like Ace Ventura, Dumb and Dumber or The Mask. It's not a straight comedy like Liar, Liar and Bruce Almighty. It's not dramatic with funny moments like Eternal Sunshine or Man on the Moon. It's really different from other Jim Carrey movies. He plays a character that really isn't likeable, and I don't think it's his fault. There's no real reason to like the character. He fucks up, the company goes under, and he resorts to criminal behavior and revenge to obtain money. Usually, he's the nice guy in every movie he does, but he isn't here.

Sadly, it doesn't work. Jim doing something a bit different in comedy (while using his usual oddball antics here and there) is refreshing, but I guess he just can't do it. Tea Leoni isn't all that bad, but she's not all that good either. I've never really been a huge fan of Alec Baldwin, unless it's on Saturday Night Live, and he's nearly embarassing to watch here. I only really liked Richard Jenkins. Mainly because I'm used to him being the dead ghost dad (not nearly as "Bill Cosby" as it sounds) on "Six Feet Under".

Anyway, the film isn't a complete mess. It has moments here and there, but mainly, it sucks. Certainly Jim's worst effort since coming into the spotlight with Ace Ventura. I'll still eagerly await his next film project, but for now, I'll just forget about this film.

Grade: C-

I thought it was terrible...I only saw it cuz I was gonna see the producer's afterwards...but for the first time EVER at this theater they had someone INSIDE (by the little hall thing) checking tickets. Maybe cuz it was christmas and stuff...but I couldn't get in...what a waste of time and money.

Basically, I'm with the consensus...rarely funny, often stupid (in a bad way) and very uneven. not to mention predictable, boring, not funny, and stupid.

(ps, i dont know if that's the consensus, I only read about three line's of Levy's review and the grades of a few others.)

I would have gave them extra points for sticking with Baldwin giving them the hundred dollars, and then they'd realize that they have to work with a lot less than they used to have. But that would be a non-traditional ending, and we can't have those!

It was a passable, forgettable, somewhat bland affair, but it was still better than I was expecting. The movie had a few good laughs but the movie's problem is that it can never seem to find a consistent tone. Are you supposed to feel sorry for Dick and Jane when they sink into poverty or laugh at them? Either way, a good video rental. C+

BJs Grade:

B+

enjoyable but highly forgetable, I imagine my self lowering my grade on this film over time.

I laughed constantly throughout mainly because I was in a laughing mood. The jokes and gags weren't great, but looking back on the movie just makes it seem funnier. I am so glad they didn't show hardly any jokes in the trailers. The payoff is greater. The supporting cast is bare.. (only Alec Baldwin & Missi Pyle) I found it hilarious that the whole movie is set in 2000 just for a single joke at the end...

Grade: B/B+