VividSimon
Simply Perfect
Lumsdal
Good , But It Is Overrated By Some
Console
best movie i've ever seen.
TaryBiggBall
It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.
classicsoncall
Well, Bonnie and Clyde they ain't. I recall this movie getting a lot of fanfare when it was first released back in 1977, hard to believe it'll be forty years old soon as I write this. Today was the first time I watched it and it was sort of underwhelming. I've never seen Ed McMahon in a principal movie role before so that was new for me. George Segal and Jane Fonda had the right chemistry to pull off their roles here, but a lot of times I thought the story was forced and didn't ring true to character. The stereotypical use of black and Hispanic actors in the picture would never pass muster today, though I don't generally have a problem with those kinds of portrayals when used to comic effect.Something I'd like to point out that really has nothing to do with the movie itself, but I've noticed this in other pictures as well. I generally turn on captioning when watching films so I don't miss any nuance in the dialog, and fairly consistently I find that any words that might be considered controversial are 'X'ed out. So for this picture, any time someone uses Dick Harper's (Segal) first name, it appears in captioning as 'XXXX'. You can do the translation, but the only thing that it does is draw more attention to the more prurient use of the word. I have to laugh every time it happens.I guess you can have some fun with this one in a Seventies nostalgic kind of way, but for me it wasn't very memorable at all. I actually know a married couple whose names are Dick and Jane who are friends of mine, and managed to reference the film the last time we got together. It was for a Happy Together concert tour we went to featuring a bunch of bands from the Sixties and Seventies, so at least we kept it in the same era as the picture.
mrb1980
"Fun with Dick and Jane" was released during George Segal's flirtation with real stardom during the mid-1970s. While pleasant in tone and easy to take, the movie loses momentum about halfway through, wandering to a strictly standard ending.Dick (George Segal) and Jane (Jane Fonda) are a couple living the Southern California dream: lots of money, big house, comfortable lifestyle. Then Dick is laid off by his drunken boss Charlie (Ed McMahon), resulting in the couple borrowing money at first, then turning to a life of crime later. The film's conclusion is a predictable burglary of Dick's ex-boss' safe, where huge sums of stolen money are hidden.The film has lots of amusing vignettes, including the initial layoff scene, the landscaping company repossessing Dick and Jane's plants, a bank robbery while Dick is borrowing money, and a funny job interview at Dick and Jane's house. However, the movie turns out to be just humorous situations strung together with very little coherence. Segal is enormously appealing as always, Fonda is her usual professional self, and McMahon is great as the evil, corrupt boss. It's too bad the screenwriters didn't give them more to work with.Many movies are called more than the sum of their parts. In this case, I think the movie is actually less. I think viewing the film will provide a pleasant evening with lots of laughs, but it won't leave you with anything memorable.
thinker1691
In these trying times, when American's financial world is going down the drain, and the dreams, aspirations and livelihood of millions of Americans are evaporating, a film like this one is just what a despairing audience needs. The story of the American Middle Class in jeopardy and is aptly personified in this movie, called 'Fun With Dick and Jane.' There have been several other films based on this theme, but for my money, the stars of George Segal and Jane Fonda are solidly entrenched and not easily replaced by later film couples. Segal stars' as Mr. Richard Harper a Aero-space executive who as his boss (Ed McMahon) states is the very best at his job, but like so many other corporate executives is no longer needed. His position is one which promised security, but has fallen on hard times. Thus he soon learns he is unemployed. The fun begins when Harper and his wife try to adjust to the downward spiral of economic descent. They like so many Americans take what they can get and object poverty is not attractive at all. Thus, when the bottom is ready to engulf them, they turn to a life of crime. Can they do any worse? Not being prepared, they soon realize, they are not cut out to be white collar criminals and decide to quit. That's when opportunity beckons once again. A great movie and one fitted to our time. ****
willmcneil
I waited a long time to finally see what I thought was going to be a fun caper flick and was shocked to discover shoddy direction, awkward dialogue, a lackluster pace, unmotivated slapstick gags and an overall coarseness that permeated the film throughout. Just not funny! The sets looked cheap, the costumes by the usually excellent Donfeld are garish and distracting. Even the title song is annoying. The whole children's book characters doesn't come close to representing the married couple whose life is turned upside down when he loses his job. For a film that seems to aim a dart at the unfairness of welfare and unemployment systems, the filmmakers have no problem in being unfair themselves, allowing Hispanic, black and gay stereotypes played at such a cruel level. The look of the film resembles any episode of Love American Style. This is not a compliment. Tacky seventies fashions abound in this world of white collar theft that only lends an air of implausibility to every situation. Outside of a clever initial idea, and two capable stars in Jane Fonda and George Segal, this dated exercise in social commentary comes off as forced and mean spirited to minorities, especially to gay people. If you want a better caper film, you're better off with The Hot Rock with George Segal and Robert Redford or What's Up Doc with Ryan O'Neal and Barbra Streisand. Now that's funny!