MAD MONEY: A LONG REVIEW
MAD MONEY (2007)
This is a movie that defies the usual Hollywood film formula that ultimately ”crime doesn’t pay.” This is done with a lighthearted, whimsical style that seduces the moviegoer into being a sort of “armchair gangmember.” Hence, one may easily find oneself “rooting” for the misappropriating female troika. I really have turned over in my mind exactly how to describe their offense. I believe the law would dub it some form of unlawful expropriation of funds.
There is a persistent refrain in this film, “Prove it!” [This is a popular term employed by many powerful, and not so powerful, people.]
I thought that this film was sealed by the fine work of Diane Keaton as the wealthy housewife turned “criminal mastermind.” As the name Martha Stewart came up in this film–and such things aren’t accidental–the moviegoer can safely assume that this Keaton character was inspired to a certain extent by the Stewart personality, image, and frailty. Since there is a certain lack of confidence in their film’s audience, the director Khouri and screenwriter Gers take the time to point out their inspiration in no uncertain terms.
The support given by Queen Latifah and Katie Holmes was sufficiently good to allow Keaton to “run for daylight” and score. I found the filmtale enjoyable, even though neither morally nor ethically sound. That’s why it’s seductive. Not only does crime pay in this film but one is invited to enjoy the sin. The primary males were somewhere between credible and stereotypish. Ted Danson on occasion was very effective. Adam Rothenberg did a rather good job playing a Kansas “dude.” Some humor was undoubtedly intended to be derived from his vain and sometimes “goofy” ways. Further, he does seem to have “dumb luck.” He works in a beef-processing plant where “meatheads” are implied to have a natural home.
His wife, Jackie, is a lively sort. She is no shrinking violet. Her brainpower probably won’t intimidate her hubby. Katie Holmes as “Jackie” uncorks some odd facial expressions, which don’t suggest an accomplished actress. Still, she can “move it, move it, move it.”
On the otherhand Latifah’s Nina is a “decent, single-mother” trying to act as responsibly as she can. Yet, this character “set-up” seems to be rapidly overtaken by Nina’s resort to a ”wild gamble” whose merit isn’t one that clearly justifies her doing so. Is the education of her sons in an elite school a justification for jeopardizing her life and that of her children? And the same can be said of the security guard who becomes her boyfriend. Given his personality and responsibilities to his mother, is the risk justified? I don’t think so. Still, the movie couldn’t have been made if viewers weren’t willing to suspend rational analysis. Sometimes people just go crazy and do crazy things. That is the filmmakers’ explanation, no doubt. Most people will accept it.
Furthermore, The filmmakers have Bridget at the outset state her theory that “criminal acts are contagious.” One person commits a crime. Soon, people nearby are also committing crimes. It isn’t too long after that an epidemic of crime is noted, and politicians and journalists are inveighing against the “causes of crime” (usually poverty, poor education, broken homes, lack of discipline, etc.). This seems to be “keyed” upon by the filmmakers as “motivation.”
The storyline: Successful couple find themselves separated from their successful ways. As debt piles up, the wife (Keaton) decides that she must get a job. It’s not so easy. Hubby (Danson), too, is about to join the “discouraged drop-outs among the unemployed.” A former maid-service worker at her house gives the wife a tip where she might get a job as a cleaning service person. It turns out to be the Federal Reserve Bank facility in Kansas City. There, she is employed. She notes that there is a lot of money being destroyed (too old and worn). What a waste! She begins to plot. She needed confederates. She begins to scan the other workers for potential allies in “recycling the old money.” Her view seems to be humane: Don’t burn money; spend it! She spots a “flakey” moneycart pusher (Katie Holmes) who seemed to have the right “moves”. Then she spots Queen Latifah at the money-burning station. There’s a likely lass, she thinks. Diane Keaton as “Bridget Cardigan” proves to be tenacious in pursuing her future gangmembers. The issues are answered and the team gets on board. Crime, as with business, works best when there is a plan of operation, and Bridget has planned well. Things go swimmingly. Loot piles up. Hubby and boyfriend get on board. After all, it isn’t stealing; it’s recycling. There is a moment of danger when a security guard at the “Fed” (Roger R. Cross) confronts the Queen. He is “soft” on her, and she flipflops him into a boyfriend and gangmember. Things continue along very well. The gang had promised to abide by the rule not to spend the money ostentaciously. Bridget’s hubby, Don, advises them that if they had some nominal, or even fictional, jobs that would provide an alibi, then they could spend some of the loot. Jobs were assigned, and soon the loot was, indeed, being recycled. Yet, mistakes are made and bank examiners, et al, begin to investigate. Bridget’s clever and has an unforeseen ally in the head of security at the Federal Reserve Bank. She also has a neighborhood friend who is a tax attorney and who understands how useful untraceable cash can be to a “legal eagle.” Well, once again we perceive the truth of Mr. Robert Burns: “The best-laid plans of mice and men oft go aglay…” The Bridget gang has to settle with the I.R.S. and government prosecuters in such a way that they will face no charges but will lose all the money they “squirrelled away.” Dang! Things were so right! Now its “tap city” again. All the goodies and toys were gone. What a sad waste. The moviegoer may prefer that the gang not revert to dire need. If that is the case, the end of this film will provide some reassurance.
The moviegoer watches as Bob Truman (Rothenberg) and his wife, Jackie (Holmes), move on up from a glorified can of a mobile home to the latest RV. Bob also buys a new, custom-built, motorcycle. Parenthetically, one might note that last name.
At one point, prior to the jobs agreement and spending relaxation, Bridget had bought a $60,000 diamond ring, which Queen Latifah’s “Nina” had flushed down a toilet. Bridget almost had “withdrawal” symptoms. Now, she could spend some of that loot! Her status as a wealthy person restored, she could return to the party-throwing and entertainment she relished. But who was that strange man at her backyard party?
Hubby Don was deemed to be so successful as a fictitious ”business consultant” that he was offered a position as head of a corporation.
Nina Brewster (Latifah) was able to send her two sons to private academies and do a bit of philanthropy, as well.
For the merry moneychangers things seemed to be going well. At times both Don and Nina had suggested that they stop now and walk away with plenty of undetected loot. Bridget wanted to continue and won the argument (helped by the piles of money).
Still, the Federal Reserve Bank had a security system that had been patterned off the procedures used in the maximum security prisons operated by the Bureau of Prisons. Its head was always at the monitors–a veritable “all-seeing eye” incarnate. There were cameras everywhere. Yet, as the object of the scam operated by the Bridget gang was aimed at money intended to be burned anyway, there was no evidence of theft, unless they themselves were found with concealed money on their person. And, as a matter of fact that was brought out in the film, “strip” searches were randomly executed. Therefore, when the security guard at the Fed joined, he could provide reassuring information. Relieved of this concern, no one saw a compelling reason to quit.
Incidentally, not only did the security guard have a “crush” on Nina, he apparently had a mother in need of medical care. So, he was doubly inclined to get involved. He could use the money.
One of the points made in this film is the underpaying of ordinary people. This was amply demonstrated by the character “Selina” (Sylvia Castro Galan), who wanted her earned money from Bridget. Of course, Bridget didn’t have it. When people don’t have any money, they are in a weak position relative to the few that have “gobs” of money. Therefore, this film tries to imply a sort of “Robin Hood” merit to the Bridget gang. Yes, they take from the rich bank, but they do good and they enjoy. Further, the money circulates around stimulating the economy.
This whole process is contrary to the Establishment’s formula of impoverished wage-slavery for the many and excessive wealth for themselves. They are smart and will use the money well. Its benefits will “trickle down” to the near-starving masses. This is the way God and Nature intended: the Fittest prevail.
This movie should not be perceived as “heavy.” It is a comedy. Still, there are implications that pierce the veil of humor.
All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2008.
