Image Credit: Disney
Forgot password
Enter the email address you used when you joined and we'll send you instructions to reset your password.
If you used Apple or Google to create your account, this process will create a password for your existing account.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Reset password instructions sent. If you have an account with us, you will receive an email within a few minutes.
Something went wrong. Try again or contact support if the problem persists.
fun with dick and jane
Image via Sony

An ineffectual remake that should never have cost $100 million under any circumstances lives a double life on Netflix

Where did all the money go?

Movies have been getting exponentially more expensive as time goes by, but there are some projects that come along and leave you scratching your head and questioning why on earth they need to cost as much as they did, with the 2005 remake of Fun with Dick and Jane definitely among them.

Recommended Videos

The 1977 original was a solid suburban caper, with the do-over following pretty much the exact same template – albeit with some inspirations from the recent Enron collapse. Jim Carrey’s Dick loses his job, so he and Tea Leoni’s Jane naturally turn to a life of crime and end up discovering they’re actually pretty good at it, before a revenge plot pits them against Alec Baldwin’s unscrupulous business owner, who may have intentionally tanked his own company for financial gain.

fun with dick and jane 2005
Image via Sony

It’s all by-the-numbers stuff that doesn’t feature extensive visual effects, far-flung locations, or explosive action sequences, but Fun with Dick and Jane somehow still managed to set Sony back a cool $100 million for reasons that don’t seem to make sense. On the plus side, it did recoup those costs twice over and then some at the box office, but critics weren’t left thrilled with the end result.

Regardless, Netflix subscribers have opted to revisit the redux almost 20 years on from its arrival, with FlixPatrol naming it as one of the platform’s top-viewed features. It’s a decent enough distraction, but there’s no chance you’d watch it for the first time and be able to guess that it was a nine-figure investment.


We Got This Covered is supported by our audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission. Learn more about our Affiliate Policy
Author
Image of Scott Campbell
Scott Campbell
News, reviews, interviews. To paraphrase Keanu Reeves; Words. Lots of words.