I just watched it on DVD a couple of days ago but I really don’t feel like rewatching it to answer one minor question.
Most of the characters used Shaw’s theft of their pension money as justification for robbing him. But Fitzhugh (Matthew Broderick) didn’t work in the building. Was there any mention that Shaw had caused Fitzhugh to lose his investor job or was otherwise responsible for his financial problems?
I gathered that Fitzhugh simply had nothing to lose at that point. He’d lost his job, his home, and his wife and kids (I think).
Saw the movie, enjoyed it, but sure didn’t remember the characters’ names. Eddie Murphy was freaking funny. I almost didn’t recognize him.
It just seemed like a dangling plot hook. We could root for the other characters (besides Slide) because they were stealing money that arguably should have been theirs anyway. Fitzhugh, on the other hand, was just stealing. It would have tied it up better if there had been a line about how Shaw had caused Fitzhugh to lose his job.
Same thing with Fitzhugh’s family. You’re correct, he mentioned that his wife took the kids and left him. And this was never mentioned again. It would have been better if we had seen him getting his family back at the end of the movie.
Another dangler was Slide. We saw him try to betray the others. But after they foiled his plan, they all worked with him and his betrayal attempt was never mentioned again. (And I had no problem recognizing Murphy. But that’s because I’m old. This role was a flashback to the kind of parts he played back in the eighties.)
Minor points I know but a movie works better when little things like this are resolved. It just makes the movie “feel” right to the audience.
Yeah, Fitzhugh wasn’t entirely sympathetic, and he had selfish reasons, but at least he was assisting a ‘good cause’? Stiller needed another person, and Fitzhugh had motivation to help.
As you suggest with Murphy, this felt very much like a by-the-book 80s-90s action comedy despite clearly being set in/after the recession, so I’m not too surprised that some things like Slide’s betrayal got glossed over. Stiller’s character was enough of a ponce that I imagine once Slide started to cooperate Stiller was happy to just give him his share and call it quits from there. Slide was a jerkass, but he seemed just harmless enough that I doubt he would have pursued the rest of the money once he had his share.
Yeah, that’s all handwaving, and with audiences being as savvy as they are today they might be large holes. But even if the holes were closed it’s not like it would have been a fantastic movie, just an amusing way to kill 2 hours.
Well, like I said they were minor points. But they could have been fixed with maybe a minute of extra screen time. They did manage a couple of follow-up scenes like when Iovenko appeared as Josh’s lawyer or when we saw Simon still inside the closet or when Fitzhugh was walking Mrs Cronan’s dog when he was arrested. Little things but they tie the movie together as a whole.
“…and with audiences being as savvy as they are today…”
I wonder if this is really true. Have there ever been so few films made directed toward adults? Have there ever been so many films made directed toward adolescents and reduced to their lowest common denominator?
I don’t know. I feel this was a movie directed at an adult audience.
How many kids or adolescents are going to relate to a plot based on getting your own back from a financial adviser that screwed you out of your life savings?