---
title: "Fun with Dick and Jane"
year: 2005
kind: "film"
canonical: "https://film.one/film/fun-with-dick-and-jane"
fi1m_id: "fun-with-dick-and-jane"
imdb_id: "tt0369441"
tmdb_id: 7552
wikidata_id: "Q132266"
fi1m_score: 50
critics_score: 51
critics_reviews: 12
published: "2026-10-05T04:02:11.401776+00:00"
updated: "2026-10-05T04:02:11.849892+00:00"
region: "HU"
licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL."
---

# Fun with Dick and Jane (2005)

Directed by Dean Parisot · 1h 30m · NMHH 18 · Comedy, Crime

## Identity

Fun with Dick and Jane

- **Canonical:** https://film.one/film/fun-with-dick-and-jane
- **Type:** Film
- **Fi1m ID:** fun-with-dick-and-jane
- **IMDb ID:** tt0369441
- **TMDB ID:** 7552
- **Wikidata ID:** Q132266
- **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369441/, https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/7552, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q132266

**Fi1m score: 50** · Critics 51 from 12 reviews

*In a sentence:* Jim Carrey pulls faces while corporate greed gets a polite telling-off

> Jim Carrey and Téa Leoni make an agreeable pair, but Dean Parisot’s comedy lets slapstick blunt its attack on corporate greed. A few laughs survive a script too fond of the comforts it wants to mock.

## Synopsis

Dick Harper (Jim Carrey) and Jane Harper (Téa Leoni) want money and the life it buys. Corporate greed and dishonesty complicate that ambition, and the couple’s own appetite for wealth becomes part of the trouble. Jack McCallister (Alec Baldwin) and Frank Bascombe (Richard Jenkins) also feature in their story. The couple have to consider how far they will go to protect their interests, and what they can justify to themselves along the way. Money is their immediate concern; remaining respectable is another.

## Review

Dean Parisot’s *Fun with Dick and Jane* aims its jokes at corporate greed, a subject with plenty of room for anger and absurdity. Jim Carrey and Téa Leoni give it an appealing central partnership. We get occasional laughs, but the satire is too mild to earn a recommendation. The film spends so much effort keeping things cheerful that its complaints about dishonesty seldom amount to much.

Jim Carrey and Téa Leoni are the main reason to persist. Her calmer delivery gives his restless antics somewhere to land, and she can suggest a shared understanding without joining him at full volume. We laughed at Jim Carrey’s *I Believe I Can Fly* moment: his enthusiasm is funny because it is so pleased with itself. These performers can make a broad joke feel like something happening between a couple, and their ease together briefly makes the material seem more substantial than it is.

Judd Apatow and Nicholas Stoller’s screenplay is less persuasive about why we should care. Dick Harper and Jane Harper want wealth, and the comedy is reluctant to ask much of them beyond that. There is room for a sharp joke about people who resent dishonest money-making chiefly when somebody else benefits, but the film does not push that discomfort far enough. Their appetite for the good life is treated too indulgently for the attack on greed to carry much force.

The slapstick creates another problem for Dean Parisot. Jim Carrey’s excess can be funny when Téa Leoni has room to answer it, but the mugging too often becomes the entire joke. We find ourselves waiting for him to finish, which is a poor position for a comedy to put its star in. The broader routines keep interrupting whatever interest the corporate dishonesty has generated, without consistently supplying enough laughter in return.

Jerzy Zieliński’s cinematography and Barry Robison’s production design give the film a gloss that suits people attached to material comfort. That polish works as an attraction, though it does little to make the couple’s priorities look ridiculous. Everything remains agreeable enough for the complaint about wealth to feel safely contained. We do not need a comedy to punish its characters for liking money, but we do need it to notice what is funny about their priorities.

Don Zimmerman’s editing cannot quite turn the separate comic episodes into a story that gathers pace. At 90 minutes, this ought to be a brisk diversion, yet it keeps seeming to start again. Theodore Shapiro’s music cannot make the switches from satire to slapstick feel more natural, either. The trouble begins with the writing and direction, and neither the cutting nor the scoring can make an uneven sequence of gags feel properly connected.

The crime-comedy premise ought to let bad decisions build on one another, but the film keeps settling for another turn from its star. That is frustrating because the partnership could support something tougher without losing its warmth. If the cast alone is enough to settle the evening, lower expectations of the satire and accept that the laughs arrive separately.

*Fi1m score 50, published 5 October 2026.*

## Straight answers

**Is Fun with Dick and Jane worth watching?**

*Fun with Dick and Jane* offers occasional laughs from Jim Carrey and Téa Leoni, but we find its corporate satire too mild to recommend and score it 50/100. Their appealing partnership makes it a possible choice for admirers of the cast, provided broad slapstick matters more than sharp writing or a story that gathers pace.

**How long is Fun with Dick and Jane, and what is it rated?**

*Fun with Dick and Jane* runs 1h 30m and is rated 18 by the NMHH in Hungary. It is a comedy and crime film.

**Where can I watch Fun with Dick and Jane in Hungary?**

*Fun with Dick and Jane* is available to rent from Apple TV from Ft 799. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.

**How violent or frightening is Fun with Dick and Jane, and is it suitable for children?**

*Fun with Dick and Jane* has a UK 12A certificate, so children under 12 need an accompanying adult at the cinema, and parents should judge its suitability individually. The comedy centres on greed, dishonesty and broad slapstick, but we cannot give a specific account of violence or frightening material; the certificate alone does not establish how mild those elements are.

**How does Fun with Dick and Jane compare to The Lavender Hill Mob?**

*Fun with Dick and Jane* is the weaker choice beside [*The Lavender Hill Mob*](https://film.one/film/the-lavender-hill-mob), whose patient comic construction and Alec Guinness’s quiet precision make it our recommendation. Neither offers satire as sharp as we would like, but the earlier film builds its criminal ambitions into a brisk comedy, while Carrey and Leoni’s appealing partnership has to sustain disconnected gags.

**What should I watch after Fun with Dick and Jane?**

After *Fun with Dick and Jane*, try [*The Lavender Hill Mob*](https://film.one/film/the-lavender-hill-mob) (1951, Fi1m 82): A modest man’s criminal ambitions get the patient comic construction missing here. Then [*Trading Places*](https://film.one/film/trading-places) (1983, Fi1m 80): Money and class provoke sharper jokes, with an equally useful comic partnership; and [*Office Space*](https://film.one/film/office-space) (1999, Fi1m 80): Corporate indignities receive drier treatment, with less mugging and more recognisable irritation.

### Reviews we read (12)

- **Empire**, Simon Braund (75/100, inferred): Braund finds the remake funny and morally sharper than its glossy surface suggests. He praises Carrey and Leoni’s chemistry and the film’s timely jabs at corporate greed. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/fun-dick-jane-review/)
- **Variety**, Justin Chang (70/100, inferred): Chang finds the remake breezy and uneven, but says its fresh political context gives it a reason to exist. He singles out Tea Leoni’s smooth, winning performance as an ideal complement to Jim Carrey’s antics. [Read](https://variety.com/2005/film/reviews/fun-with-dick-and-jane-3-1200519579/)
- **Screen Daily**, Brent Simon (64/100, inferred): The page identifies this as a review, but its body is hidden behind a paywall, so the critic’s verdict is unavailable. The accessible text does not reveal what the critic singles out for praise or complaint. [Read](https://www.screendaily.com/fun-with-dick-and-jane/4025564.article)
- **The New York Times**, A.O. Scott (64/100, inferred): The page text is blocked, so the critic’s verdict cannot be verified. No specific praise or complaint can be reliably identified from the available content. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/movies/stranded-on-the-flip-side-of-the-american-dream.html)
- **Time Out** (64/100, inferred): The available page identifies this as a review, but provides no accessible verdict. No praise or complaint can be established from the supplied excerpt. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/movies/fun-with-dick-and-jane)
- **Slant Magazine**, Nick Schager (2.5/5): Schager finds the film flaccid and humorless, arguing its critique of corporate greed is undermined by its indulgence of the couple’s desire for wealth. He especially criticizes Jim Carrey’s excessive mugging and pratfalling. [Read](https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/fun-with-dick-and-jane-dvd/)
- **Radio Times**, Stella Papamichael (2/5): The review is mixed early on but turns negative as the comedy lurches from satire to slapstick. It notes a few early chuckles, but singles out the badly aimed gags as the film’s downfall. [Read](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-sknqij/fun-with-dick-and-jane/)
- **The Guardian**, Philip French (40/100, inferred): French finds the film mildly amusing but largely toothless as satire. He singles out its attack on corporate greed and dishonesty as ineffective. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2006/jan/22/review.features27)
- **Total Film**, Total Film (2/5): The review finds the remake toothless and comedically bankrupt, with its satire too shallow to inspire sympathy. It singles out Jim Carrey’s “I Believe I Can Fly” moment as a small comic gem. [Read](https://www.gamesradar.com/fun-with-dick-and-jane-review/)
- **The AV Club**, Nathan Rabin (20/100, inferred): Rabin calls the remake a slick, pandering misfire that abandons its satirical promise. He particularly faults Jim Carrey’s shrill, over-the-top performance for overwhelming the satire. [Read](https://www.avclub.com/fun-with-dick-and-jane-1798201353)
- **Digital Spy**, Daniel Saney (60/100, inferred): The review finds the film entertaining but says its slapstick undercuts its corporate satire. It praises Carrey and Leoni’s comedic chemistry while noting that the tonal shifts weaken the film’s bite. [Read](https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a28373/fun-with-dick-and-jane/)
- **Eye for Film**, Angus Wolfe Murray (25/100, inferred): The critic finds the comedy a promising idea wasted by predictable gags and an episodic, unfocused story. He complains that the film tries to cover too much and singles out Jim Carrey’s familiar antics as wearing thin. [Read](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/fun-with-dick-and-jane-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray)

## Details

- **Director:** Dean Parisot
- **Director:** Dean Parisot
- **Screenplay:** Nicholas Stoller, Judd Apatow
- **Story:** Gerald Gaiser, Nicholas Stoller, Judd Apatow
- **Cinematography:** Jerzy Zieliński
- **Editor:** Don Zimmerman
- **Music:** Theodore Shapiro
- **Production design:** Barry Robison
- **Costume design:** Julie Weiss
- **Producer:** Brian Grazer, Jim Carrey
- **Cast:** Jim Carrey as Dick Harper; Téa Leoni as Jane Harper; Alec Baldwin as Jack McCallister; Richard Jenkins as Frank Bascombe; John Michael Higgins as Garth; Angie Harmon as Veronica Cleeman; Richard Burgi as Joe Cleeman; Carlos Jacott as Oz Peterson
- **Runtime:** 1h 30m
- **Certificate (NMHH):** 18
- **Release (Hungary):** 12 January 2006
- **Genres:** Comedy, Crime
- **Budget:** $100 million
- **Box office:** $202 million

## Where to watch in Hungary

- Apple TV: rent Ft 799, hd
- Apple TV: buy Ft 1,790, sd

*Checked 2026-10-05.*

Also available in: AE, AR, AT, AU, AZ, BE, BG, BR, CA, CL, CO, CZ, DE, EC, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HK, HR, HU, ID, IE, IL, IN, IT, JP, KR, LT, MX, MY, NL, NZ, PA, PE, PH, PL, PT, RS, SE, SG, TH, UA, US, ZA. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country.

## If you liked this

- *The Lavender Hill Mob* (1951), Fi1m 82: A modest man’s criminal ambitions get the patient comic construction missing here. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-lavender-hill-mob.md)
- *Trading Places* (1983), Fi1m 80: Money and class provoke sharper jokes, with an equally useful comic partnership. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/trading-places.md)
- *Office Space* (1999), Fi1m 80: Corporate indignities receive drier treatment, with less mugging and more recognisable irritation. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/office-space.md)
- *The Ax* (2005): Employment anxiety turns murderous in a much harsher account of middle-class desperation.
- *Sorry to Bother You* (2018), Fi1m 81: Workplace ambition leads somewhere stranger, angrier and less reassuring about getting rich. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/sorry-to-bother-you.md)

---
© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/fun-with-dick-and-jane