For Richer or Poorer

Starring: Tim Allen, Kirstie Alley, Jay O. Sanders, Michael Lerner, Wayne Knight, Larry Miller, Miguel A. Nunez Jr., Megan Cavanagh, John Pyper-Ferguson, Carrie Preston, Michael Angarano
Directed by: Bryan Spicer
Rating: PG-13
Genre: Comedy
1997

Times Seen:
Tim: 2

Summary: An unhappy rich couple (Tim Allen, Kirstie Alley) are forced to flee from the I.R.S. then end up in Amish country, where they pretend to be distance cousins. There, they struggle to adapt to life in an Amish community

Review:

Tim: For Richer or Poorer is a fairly bad movie. I first saw the movie in the late 1990s, shortly after it was first released. I was maybe 16 or 17 years old and even then, I recognized this wasn't a good film. I watched it again at 38 and I agree with my younger self. The passage of time hasn't been kind to this movie, but it was never very good to begin with.

The movie borrows from from Witness, but the movie itself is mostly witless (see what I did there?). Two horribly selfish, unlikable people need to go on the run from the IRS. They decide to hide in Amish Country and hilarity is supposed to ensue. Even with these few lines, the problems are already apparent. I'm not sure why the film expected us to like the two main characters. They're awful people and they spend the first half of the movie (at least) being terrible to each other and generally not enjoyable to watch. I think the idea was that the actors could make these characters likable, but the script makes that nearly impossible. It's so difficult to watch a movie that assumes you'll like the characters without giving you a reason to. It's tedious and not much fun. This is the central issue of the film. As we watch them undergo a transformation throughout the events of the film, the impact is blunted because we never cared about them all that much in the first place. There's no emotional payoff because we don't really care about the characters.

The other issue is one that's more prominent in 2021 than in 1997, but was never really okay. The movie really uses the Amish Community as a big joke. Sure, there's some commentary about how hardworking they are and good people, but the big joke is that these city people are forced to live in the Amish world and their struggle to do that. I wasn't a big fan of how this was presented. It often comes across as the outside city folks are more sophisticated, more intelligent than the Amish are (at least through much of the film). It's a tight balancing act the film does and while it never outright attacks the Amish, it doesn't always present them in the best light. This is definitely a movie that would get made in the 1990s, but might have a harder time today.

The other big issue with this film (there are quite a few) is that the movie isn't especially funny. I seem to remember laughing once or twice, but that's not enough for an overly long comedy (1 hour, 55 minutes is absurd). The script wasn't especially intelligent, nor did it deliver entertaining comedy. Tim Allen is a funny guy, so I'm not sure what happened here. You'd think he would recognize the script wasn't especially effective.

Now, I've been ragging on this movie and for good reason. However, as bad as it is, there's still some redeeming qualities. While the approach was awful, the inherent message is good. It's about selfish, awful people who go through a "fish out of water" scenario and learn some powerful lessons. There's some real enjoyment to be had at the transformation these characters experience as a result of their time living like the Amish. That's a strong message and it's not completely lost among the film's flaws.

I do like Tim Allen, although it exasperates me that he makes so many bad movies. He's fine in one of the lead roles. Although he's playing an unlikable character, some of his natural personality seeps through so you don't completely hate him. Kirstie Alley was fine, although her character was fairly annoying. I struggled to find much to enjoy about her character, although Alley's performance was okay. It was nice seeing Wayne Knight in a small supporting role. Larry Miller's character was ridiculously over-the-top, but he brought some enthusiasm to the script. Jay O. Sanders is a solid actor and he did good work as Samuel Yoder. Still, when you look across the cast, you can't argue much of one was established for this movie.

For Richer or Poorer is a movie that's best left forgotten. It wasn't good in 1997 and it hasn't aged especially well. It's a poor comedy, a film that has a memorable premise and that's about it. This is a failed film and I can't believe I've seen it twice.

Rating 1-10
Tim's Rating- 6


If You Enjoyed This Movie, We Recommend: Joe Somebody, Big Trouble