Fun With Dick and Jane

Posted on December 20, 2005 at 2:59 pm

B-

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for brief language, some sexual humor and occasional humorous drug references.
Profanity:	Brief strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking, character abuses alcohol, drug reference
Violence/ Scariness:	Comic peril and violence, no one hurt
Diversity Issues:	None
Date Released to Theaters:	2005
Date Released to DVD:	2006
Amazon.com ASIN:	B000E8N8H0

The first “Fun with Dick and Jane” was the popular reader that millions of first graders used to sound out words like “Oh” and “Run!” Dick and Jane were perfect suburban children in an idealized world of smiling parents, sunny lawns, and purring kittens.

The second Fun with Dick and Jane was a satire that introduced us to a married couple who were victims of the economic recession so decided to turn to a life of crime. Its most memorable scene had the couple’s lawn being repossessed — it was rolled up and carted away.

And now we have the third version, updated for the post-dot.com bubble, post-Enron era. This time, Dick (Jim Carrey) works for a huge conglomerate that “consolidates media properties.” Jane (Tea Leoni) is a travel agent. Dick is overjoyed to receive a sudden promotion to Vice President for Communcations until, in his first day on the job, he is appears on a television program to announce the company’s projected earnings, only to be attacked by Ralph Nadar because the CEO (Alec Baldwin) has been secretly selling his stock and the company is under investigation for financial shenanigans. The company tanks. Soon, Dick and Jane are failing at various efforts to earn money, and finally — the lawn repossessed and living off of all-you-can-eat buffets and visits to the soup kitchen, they take up a life of crime. See Dick steal. See Jane drive the getaway car.

In corporate terms, here is the movie’s balance sheet: On the asset side we have two exceptionally talented and attractive performers in Carrey and Leoni. His loopy physical humor in the rendition of “I Believe I Can Fly” in an elevator and the portrayal of a marionette are perfectly matched by her more understated but equally precise comic timing. Further assets are some sly pokes at contemporary life — Dick and Jane have a son who speaks with a Spanish accent (like the nanny) — and some surreal detours (as when Jane signs up as a guinea pig for a new beauty treatment that goes very wrong and when Dick tries to get work as an illegal immigrant and is deported).

On the liability side is a script that relies too much on easy jokes like silly costumes and expects us not to notice that, for example, Dick and Jane are completely incompetent as crooks (hello, fingerprints?). If they had just had to rely in some way on the skills they had learned on the job — if they had just been clever instead of lucky, this would have been a better, funnier movie.

But if it isn’t an Enron-style spectacular failure of a 2005 holiday comedy (that would be Rumor Has It…) it has enough smiles in it to keep the family feeling cheerful. Dick and Jane are still fun to be around.

Parents should know that this is a movie in which some characters feel a sense of entitlement, in part because they feel cheated and stolen from, that they believe justifies stealing from others. There is brief strong language, and the movie includes sexual references and non-explicit sexual references. Characters drink and one abuses alcohol to help numb his feelings.

Families who see this movie should talk about the corporate scandals listed at the end, including WorldCom, Enron, Adelphia, HealthSouth, Global Crossing, and Tyco. What is the difference between a corporate crook and a bank robber? What will Dick and Jane do next?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy the original, starring Jane Fonda and George Segal and Woody Allen’s Take the Money and Run.

Related Tags:

The Producers

Posted on December 15, 2005 at 4:05 pm

B-

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for sexual humor and references.
Profanity:	Crude language for a PG-13
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking
Violence/ Scariness:	Comic violence and peril
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the movie but sexist and homophobic humor
Date Released to Theaters:	2005
Date Released to DVD:	2006
Amazon.com ASIN:	B000BMY2LU

The 1968 version of The Producers was a brilliantly funny commercial flop about an outrageously offensive and atrociously appealing play that became a hit. The screenplay won an Oscar for director/writer Mel Brooks. It was fall-out-of-your-chair-gasping hilarious and a cherished cult classic.

Then, in 2001, the little, low-budget film about crooked producers who think a sure-flop will make them rich became a Broadway musical that did make its producers rich. Very, very rich. The Broadway show became one of the most successful in history, with a record-breaking twelve Tony awards and a scheduled run that seems to extend into 22nd century.

So, of course they made it into a movie with the stars of the Broadway cast and a couple of movie stars added in for marquee value. From the Broadway show, we have Nathan Lane as king-of-the-flops producer Max Bialystock, who raises the money for his shows by wooing lonely widows, Matthew Broderick as timid accountant Leo Bloom, Gary Beach as wildly flamboyant director Roger De Bris, and Roger Bart as his sidekick/significant other Carmen Ghia. From television and movies, Will Ferrell as Franz Liebkind, the playwright of “Springtime for Hitler,” a merry musical romp that Max and Leo think is the answer to their prayers.

Leo tells Max that no one checks the books of a flop too carefully. So if they raise too much money for a play, selling more than 100 percent of the profits, they can keep all of the money — as long as they have a surefire flop. And what is a better recipe for theatrical disaster than a musical about the 20th century’s worst villain? Just to make sure, they bring on the worst director they can find and cast playwright Liebkind himself in the title role.

It’s all pleasantly flashy and fun, but it does not come close to the original. In the first place, the original movie didn’t know how funny it was, which is part of what made it funny. It was brash and audacious and irreverent. The new musical is none of those things. In making a movie of a success, it is too careful. It hits every joke square on the beat instead of striking a contrapuntal sidelong whack.

In the second place, the actors don’t have the same crazy genius. Nathan Lane’s performance is shtick-y. He doesn’t have Zero Mostel’s fearlessness. Matthew Broderick looks puffy and uncomfortable. He doesn’t do shlub very well and he doesn’t have Gene Wilder’s manic little trill. Thurman and Ferrell try hard but don’t add much.

In the third place, having the director of the Broadway show as director of the movie means that the movie is essentially a filmed version of the Broadway show with some scenes shot outdoors.

Most important, partly because of the cult status of the original and partly because of a general coarsening of society, it just isn’t that shocking any more. The flouncy, over the top gay characters aren’t very outrageous in a world where you can turn on the television and watch “Will and Grace” or “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.” The original came out less than twenty-five years after World War II. Partly because of the success of that movie and partly because we’ve had a lot of other murderous tyrants, making fun of Hitler seems almost conventional. There was an episode of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” featuring Mel Brooks and his late wife, Anne Bancroft that included a twist on “The Producers” that was truly twisted and demented and shriekingly hilarious.

But this movie is not directed at the audience that wants something truly twisted and demented or shocking and outrageous. This is directed at people who are looking for something safe that makes them feel a little bit twisted and outrageous — sort of like the little old ladies who want to play “hold me, touch me” with Max. More like “Springtime for the Redhead on Desperate Housewives.”

Parents should know that this movie has some very crude humor and that it both makes fun of and revels in outrageous bad taste. There are sexual references and some stereotyping of gay characters that some people might consider homophobic. In the context of this intentionally offensive comedy, however, it is not intended to reflect bias. There are some strong (and vivid) sexual references for a PG-13, characters drink alcohol, and there is some comic violence. Oh, and the main characters are crooks who are stealing money from (wealthy) old ladies.

Families who see this movie should talk about why the original was not successful at the box office while the musical play is one of Broadway’s all-time champs. Is it because times have changed? If you were going to put on a sure-fire flop, what would it be? What were Max’s motives for doing the show? What were Leo’s? What will happen to them next?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy the original version as well as other Brooks movies like Young Frankenstein (co-written by Gene Wilder) and Blazing Saddles (all co-starring Wilder).

Related Tags:

Comedy Movies -- format Musical Remake

Cheaper by the Dozen 2

Posted on December 12, 2005 at 12:49 pm

C+

Lowest Recommended Age:	Kindergarten - 3rd Grade
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG for some crude humor and mild language.
Profanity:	Brief crude language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Social drinking
Violence/ Scariness:	Comic, cartoon-style peril and violence, including fire, no one hurt
Diversity Issues:	Brief anti-gay humor
Date Released to Theaters:	2005
Date Released to DVD:	2006
Amazon.com ASIN:	B000EHSVFU

As synthetically generic as a “Happy Holidays” card from your realtor, this by-the-numbers pratfall-fest is, at least, a teensy bit better than the 2004 original. I’ll explain why in a moment. But first, I want to say something about montages.

Montages are the music-video-style interludes in movies. One you see quite often is the falling-in-love montage, with some sweet pop song in the background as our lovebirds ride a bicycle built for two, squirt water pistols at each other and squeal with laughter, walk hand-in-hand through an outdoor market, and smooch in the moonlight. Once in a while they genuinely help to tell the story, but most of the time they are just a lazy way to keep the audience feeling good without doing any actual work by writing, you know, dialogue to show us why these two people really like each other.

Then there are the trying on clothes montages (Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman) and the getting yourself or your team or your house in shape montages (Rocky running up the steps) and the passage of time montages. Again, it’s usually just laziness.

When I tell you that this movie features not one but three montages, you get the idea. On the other hand, it’s kind of a relief to be spared the sitcom-style dialogue.

Steve Martin and Bonnie Hunt return as Tom and Kate Baker, parents of 12 children. As their children are growing up, with the two oldest girls moving out of town, they plan one last family vacation at a house on a lake they used to go to when the children were younger. At the lake, they run unto Tom’s old nemesis, the ultra-competitive Jimmy Murtaugh (Eugene Levy), with his beautiful trophy wife Serina (Carmen Electra) and eight high-achieving children.

Tom feels diminished by Jimmy, though their children get along very well, especially two budding romances between the 8th graders and the college-age children. Various fracases and pratfalls later (not once, but twice a guy in a wheelchair who has no other connection to the story falls into the water), the two families square off in a pentathelon of camp contests, a battle of egg-toss, three-legged race, volleyball. Everyone learns again the importance of family. Martin even gets a chance to shed a tear about how wonderful it all is to love your family so very, very much.

I’m still angry that these films appropriate the title of two of the best books for children ever written and then give us something that has no relationship whatsoever to the books or the astonishing, hilarious, and touching real-life story they portrayed about “motion study” pioneers Frank and Lillian Gilbreth and their twelve children.

Put that to one side, and it’s just a super-sized “Brady Bunch” episode with a lot of dumb-daddy pratfalls and some crude humor (including two completely inappropriate anti-gay jokes). Hillary Duff, now that she’s lost the babyfat that gave her face some sweetness, just looks horsey in a thankless part.

What it does have going for it is a trophy wife (Electra) who is not a stereotype. She is generous and tells her husband when he is behaving badly. Martin and Hunt have an easy chemistry, and one of the kids, Alyson Stoner, is a stand-out who makes a real impression, a genuine achievement amid all the crowd and noise. But the movie’s fundamental superficiality is clear in the absence of any notion of what family really is. There’s some sloppy sentimentality, but not a single moment of genuine parenting — no instruction, guidance (even when a child shoplifts, which is treated as evidence of insecurity not as theft), support, generosity, or even listening. The movie’s idea of what it means to be a parent is not much more than affectionate proximity. What’s cheap here is the sentiment.

Parents should know that the movie has some crude language and jokes, including potty humor, a hit in the crotch, and homophobic references. One girl calls her young sister “butch” because she doesn’t like make-up and it is supposed to be funny that when a man puts his arm around another man’s shoulders, people think they are gay. Character drink (including drinking to make themselves feel better). Misbehavior is endorsed (even encouraged) or overlooked, including shoplifting and destructive pranks.

Families who see this movie should talk about what the best — and worst — parts of having such a large family would be. Why did Tom care so much about what Jimmy thought of him? Why did Jimmy want Tom to care so much? Families should also talk about how they feel as the children grow up and what families do to stay close to each other.

Families who enjoy this movie should read the book and its sequel, and see the original movies.

Last Holiday

Posted on December 11, 2005 at 12:57 pm

B-

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for some sexual reference.
Profanity:	Some strong and crude language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking
Violence/ Scariness:	Comic peril, theme of fatal illness
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	2005
Date Released to DVD:	2006
Amazon.com ASIN:	B000ERVJJK

Every night, Georgia Bird (Queen Latifah) cooks a spectacular meal, arranges everything perfectly, takes a picture of it for her “possibilities” scrapbook and then feeds it to the boy who lives next door while she microwaves a frozen diet dinner for herself. She works at a store where she meekly goes along with whatever her nasty boss tells her and she can barely speak when dreamboat Sean (LL Cool J) walks by.

Then she finds out that she has a serious condition and only three weeks to live. So she takes all of her money out of the bank and decides to blow it all on a trip to a fabulous resort. The woman who has been so careful for so long has no reason to be careful anymore. The woman who has been saving everything for someday decides that the time has come to spend.

Queen Latifah has a warm and lovely screen presence and it is a pleasure to see her light up as Georgia comes alive. We are immediately on her side as the caterpillar and we can’t help thrilling as she begins to kick up her heels and spread her wings as a butterfly. Yes, there will be a trying-on-fancy-clothes-montage when Georgia decides to replace her drab wardrobe. Yes, Georgia will run into her hero, the resort’s French chef (Gerard Depardieu) and the mega-millionaire who owns the store she works in, visiting the resort to hobnob with bigwigs. And yes, everyone will assume she’s a bigwig, too (why else would she be throwing so much money around) and yes, everyone will be charmed by her freshness and honesty. And yes, Georgia will wonder why it took dying to teach her how to live.

And yes, we enjoy seeing it all unfold. The script is pure formula, but Queen Latifah is having such a ball that we are happy to be invited along. At times it feels like an extended trailer for itself with silly set-pieces (Georgia base-jumps! Georgia cooks with the chef!), but we are on her side all the way and when the happily-ever-ending arrives, we’re as happy as she is.

Parents should know that the movie has an extremely crude joke about oral sex for a PG-13 movie. There is some comic peril, some strong language, and some social drinking. The theme of a fatal disease may be disturbing to some audience members.

Families who see this movie should talk about what they might put in their own “possiblities” books — and what they can do to make those possibilities into realities. Why did it take a diagnosis of a serious disease to make Georgia brave enough to try out her dreams?

Families who appreciate this movie will also appreciate Queen Latifah’s fine performances in Chicago and Living out Loud (both with mature material). They might enjoy the original version of this movie, starring Alec Guiness (the original Obi-wan Kenobi in Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope.

Casanova

Posted on November 22, 2005 at 10:40 am

C+

Lowest Recommended Age:	Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for some sexual content
Profanity:	Some strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking
Violence/ Scariness:	Action peril and violence
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters:	2005
Date Released to DVD:	2006
Amazon.com ASIN:	B000EDWKXI

Mistake number one may be the title. There may be times in history when it is possible to have an appealing lead character whose primary interest in life is women, but this doesn’t seem to be it.

For centuries, people have been fascinated by Casanova, an 18th century adventurer who made and lost fortunes, escaped from prison, worked as a cleric and a spy, and whose legendary romances with hundreds of woman, as detailed in his autobiography, have made his name a label (both scornful and admiring) for generations of lotharios. His legend has inspired a number of films going back to a 1918 silent version, including portrayals by Donald Sutherland (in Il Casanova di Federico Fellini and by Richard Chamberlain in Casanova — and even impersonated by Bob Hope in Casanova’s Big Night).

In this film, Casanova’s womanizing is attributed to youthful high spirits and a supposedly endearing inability to turn down any woman who is enraptured by his charms — meaning any woman. Director Lasse Hallstrom recognizes that contemporary audiences will not have much patience with this, so he hedges his bets, making his Casanova (Heath Ledger) just a hopeless romantic ready to become completely faithful when he meets the right woman. Having abandoned the real-life Casanova’s most defining characteristic, Hallstrom and Ledger might have been better off creating a completely fictional character.

The fundamental disconnect in the personality of the movie’s hero runs straight into a collision with the movie’s tone. It tries to be a mildly post-modern version of a very traditional door-slamming farce, with a headache-inducing mish-mash of false identities and near-misses, all of which seem more of a distraction than an entertainment. Even the pleasures of on-location scenery in Venice are diminished by staging so artificial it might as well be a stage set.

Then there is mistake number two — an idea which must have seemed daring in a story conference — casting the ravishing Sienna Miller as Francesca Bruni, the spirited feminist heroine (so far, so good) but doing its best to make her look plain so we would appreciate how much Casanova loves her for her mind and spirit. Miller is still anything but ordinary, but for this kind of high-gloss romp, she there should have been no stinting on the glamour.

For the same reason, despite its subject matter, this might also have worked better as a PG-13. The sexual material in the film is not as explicit as many R-rated films, but given the choices of scenes, it is explicit enough to detract from the light-hearted and romantic tone the film is trying for.

There are moments, though, when it does achieve that light-hearted and romantic tone, and it rises like the hot-air balloon Casanova and Francesca take for a ride. Oliver Platt is sweetly silly as a clueless but open-hearted suitor, Jeremy Irons purples it up as a draconian Inquisitor, and Lena Olin contributes one of the movie’s most genuinely romantic moments as a woman who is surprised to find herself capable of being smitten. And it has swordfights and scenery and smooches. It isn’t a very good movie and it makes some fatally poor choices, but audiences in search of a cinematic bon bon may find its failures forgiveable.

Parents should know that this is the highly fictionalized story of one of the most notorious womanizers in history. While it is a light-hearted portrayal, the movie is about promescuity and what might in a less silly movie be called debauchery. The movie includes frequent sexual references and situations, some strong language, and drinking.

Families who see this movie should talk about why Casanova felt differently about Francesca than he did about the other women he had met.

Families who enjoy this movie will enjoy the Oscar-winning Tom Jones and Shakespeare in Love.