What’s this all about?
Given a taste of what could have been had he made different decisions, a wealthy, high-powered financial wizard in New York City wakes up on Christmas morning to find his fancy apartment, job, and Ferrari have been replaced by a house in Jersey, a wife and kids, and a minivan.
As he adjusts to the realities of diaper changes, small paychecks, and working in his Father-in-Law’s tire store, he learns a valuable lesson about what’s really important, and what really makes him happy.
It’s all a very Hallmark affair.
Who is Nick in this one?
Nick plays “Jack Campbell,” a typical 2000’s movie rich guy, who works in downtown NYC, drives a Ferrari, sleeps with beautiful women that he’s just met, and forces his co-workers to work on Christmas Day.
Through a series of shenanigans and divine intervention, he finds himself married to his college girlfriend, the father of two kids, and living a reasonable facsimile of a middle-class suburban life. The bulk of the movie surrounds Nick’s transition between the two lifestyles.
Nick plays this role well, and if anything, gives the character a bit of a reserved reaction to the bizarre events.
Who else is in this one?
Téa Leoni plays “Kate,” Nick’s college girlfriend and alternate universe wife. There’s a real risk in casting Nicolas Cage and Téa Leoni in a film with a wacky premise, as both of them can have a tendency toward overacting. Happily, like Cage, Leoni delivers a convincing, well-measured performance. Her motivations are clear and understandable, and she comes across as a person you might actually encounter in middle class America.
Don Cheadle (Iron Man 2) plays an angel named “Cash Money,” who inflicts the weird scenario on Nick. Don Cheadle is an excellent actor, and he delivers a solid performance. There’s a fair bit of stereotyping in the role that was typical of the early 2000’s, but Cheadle gives the role more gravitas than it probably deserved.
Jeremy Piven (PCU) plays “Arnie,” Nick’s best friend. It’s a “functional” role, in that it adds very little in the character department, but it’s needed to move the plot along. Piven is fine. He’s barely a douchebag at all in this.
Saul Rubinek (Unforgiven) plays “Alan Mintz,” one of Nick’s co-workers. Saul Rubinek is a master character actor, and I love him in literally everything; this included.
Did you see that?
This film includes Robert Downey, Sr. in a single scene, as a man who lives in the house where Nick and his family lived in the alternate universe. This seemed like an odd role for Downey, who is better known as a director, but he’s fine.
When the credits rolled, I watched carefully to verify that I had correctly identified him. He was, indeed, credited as “Man in House.”
Strangely, though, as his name rolled up the screen, about halfway the parenthetical words “(A PRINCE)” appeared after his name. Nothing like this happened anywhere else in the credits. I did some Googling, and learned that Downey sometimes credited himself this way. Apparently, it was meant to be some sort of joke.
I don’t get it. -Michael
I’d like to point out the great on-screen chemistry that Nick had with Tea. They were absolutely incredible together. Maybe this stood out so much to me due to the stark comparison to last week’s leading lady, Angelina Jolie. The difference was just night and day. And can I also add that Tea looked fantastic as well. There was this scene where Nick looked in on her dancing in the shower and enjoying her “day off” from the kids that I was just plain jealous of. -Sarah
What were Nick’s best parts?
Early in the film, while he’s still rich, we see Nick getting ready for work in his fancy apartment. He’s running around in a towel and singing along loudly and badly with an Italian opera. His pronunciation is awful, his singing is terrible. It really feels real to me. It seems like the kind of thing that people do when they’re alone and comfortable. Nick nails it.
Perhaps more impressive, though, is that we know that Nick can sing (see Peggy Sue Got Married) and I suspect that he speaks at least a little Italian. None of that shows here. At all. It’s a fine acting job. -Michael
Any scene with Tea, but the top of the list was the one where they were out for their anniversary dinner and having an emotional discussion on where life ended up and where it could have gone. It was emotional with highs and lows and both Nick and Tea gave such strong, realistic performances, it just sucked me into the moment. -Sarah
What were Nick’s worst parts?
It’s tough to pick a worst scene, as the acting in this film was solid across the board. There’s one scene in which Don Cheadle picks Nick up in Nick’s own Ferrari to give Nick a little bit of an explanation of what is happening to him. Nick plays it full on “wacky.”
I don’t necessarily have an issue with the performance. He doesn’t scream about buttoles or anything. The tone, though, is wildly different from the rest of the movie. In fact, one of my very few complaints about this movie is that it’s billed as a comedy, has a wacky premise, yet isn’t really funny at all. There are a couple of scenes that are a little comedic (Nick gets work guidance from a fellow employee at the tire store who has only been working there since Tuesday himself, Nick’s interactions with his daughter) but the movie is largely played as a drama.
It would be like if Freaky Friday was all about how important a science test was, or something like that. The movie is still very enjoyable. It just delivers a very toned-down vision of a supernatural premise, and Nick overdoes it in this one scene. -Michael
This one is tough. I’m going to go with a scene where Nick returned to his office for a job interview and one of his old co-workers tries to play a tough, threatening role on him. His reaction is funny for the movie, but just a bit weak. A little phoned in with the classic Nick Cage crazy/yelling thing. Like they just had to come up with something to allow him to throw in one Wacky Nick scene. -Sarah
How was the movie?
Movies like The Family Man are a large part of what makes me hate movies like Gone in 60 Seconds.
The Family Man cost $60 million to make. It’s a funny, well-made comedy/drama set more or less in the real world. The acting is good. The screenplay is well-written. It makes you think a little bit, and overall, is a good time.
Gone in 60 Seconds cost $100 million to make. It’s a loud, stupid, testosterone-filled car crash. The acting is awful. The screenplay is complete nonsense. It blows out your eardrums, and leaves you wondering what the hell that was all about.
The Family Man doubled its budget at the box office, and made $60 million in profit.
Gone in 60 Seconds did a little bit better, earning about 1.4 times its budget, and made about $140 million in profit.
Guess which type of movie we’re going to get more of?
Movies like The Family Man are the kind of movies that I used to watch at home on VHS or on cable, or walk down to the neighborhood theater with my parents to see. They were fun, enjoyable for the whole family, and memorable.
Most of the theaters in my neighborhood are closed, but the closest one is currently playing a John Wick spinoff, a Disney live-action remake, a Mission Impossible sequel, a Final Destination sequel, and what appears to be yet another Karate Kid remake (I had no idea that was still a thing). Where’s the comedy? Where’s the “regular life” movie? Where’s the movie that requires no CGI or stunt coordinator? It seems like they’re all gone.
I like movies like The Family Man. Arguably, the Hallmark Channel is still cranking out this kind of thing, but they all star a washed up soap opera star, or have a Jesus-related theme, and generally lack the heart of a movie that wasn’t a “factory” effort.
Give me more mid-budget comedies, buddy cop movies, and screwball comedies, and I’d be a happier man. -Michael
The movie was great! I highly recommend it and would happily watch it again. -Sarah
Yeah, but did you like it?
I liked it. I would have preferred a little more humor, but I liked it. -Michael
Loved it! – Sarah
Where can I watch it?
You can rent it on Amazon Prime.
Leave a Reply