Where the Money Is

Carol is a sexy and smart woman. (This is the first of Fiorentino's movies I remember seeing. Sh'es incredibly attractive, and will have to look for her in other movies.) One of Carol's causes for displeasure is her husband, Wayne, played by infrequent star Dermot Mulroney.

The plot plays out out very well, though the beginning stumbles a bit. The acting isn't great, though the charismatic and smooth Newman mostly carries the film. While the story at times is inplausible, it's a very watchable and light movie.

What I really enjoyed was the aftermath: while the bank caper movie is a bit formula, this incarnation is twisted with life-purpose and satisfaction crisis storylines, and an interesting resolution. The story comes off as a spirise to those who'd take it as cookie-cutter for the genre.

The cameara work is great, and the production quality is outstanding. The audio is a little muddy, but fits its genere very well.


a pretty good way to spend 90 minutes   September 3, 2002
 1 out of 2 found this review helpful

A clever caper, "Where the Money Is" stars the inimitable Paul Newman as Henry Manning, a bank robber who went untouched for 20 years before bad luck landed him in the pen. Not one to call it quits, he fakes a heart attack and is transferred to a nursing home, where the only thing that stands in his way is a nurse named Carol (Linda Fiorentino).
This clever caper flick seems somewhat out of time, like a classic film and I enjoyed it immensely for this reason. The best part of this film is the performances. Linda Fiorentino is still the ... woman acting today. It's not about how she looks, but the way she carries herself


kansas needs to lighten up.   July 23, 2002
 2 out of 2 found this review helpful

This movie is a hoot and of course, Paul Newman, is superb. You watch a movie for entertainment. Don't take everything so seriously!


Good acting in a fluff plot   June 19, 2002
 2 out of 2 found this review helpful

I like a fun caper movie when all the right elements that go with it are in place. This movie has a plot that flat out wouldn't work, which would be ok in a movie like "Sugar and Spice", where we just care about how the cheerleaders look. But this one is trying to be more serious, and with it should come grittier crime scenarios.

The serious part is to show Paul Newman faking paralysis in order to get to a rest home instead of prison as a means of making an escape. While very unlikely in itself, he plays it seriously. Also played seriously is the attempt by Linda Fiorentino to unmask the charade. The chemistry between the two actors is excellent, both here, and throughout the entire movie, and that's what gets it three stars. Paul Newman shows he's still very much worth seeing, and I hope they give him a few more higher quality films before he packs it in.

But while I liked the interraction between the two main characters, unfortunately everything else is, well, fluff. Dermot Mulroney has a completely thankless role as the husband who feels he's losing his wife to the much older Newman. Since he isn't really a bad person, I don't like that the movie makes him do something to make us dislike him by the end.

But the part I disliked the most was the crime caper they go on. Newman once again shows marvelous talent as an actor as they go on it, but it's the heist they do that doesn't convinvce me for a minute that it would work. Nor does the ending when confronted by the police, nor does the very final few minutes. With the recent quality filming of Elmore Leonard novels, the bar has risen in the way movies need to portray the criminal world.

Linda Fiorentino has proven she can do great work, and Paul Newman is a national treasure. Let's give him the respect he deserves with a few more quality roles.


Worst motion picture of all time candidate   June 10, 2002
 1 out of 14 found this review helpful

In this film a bored female registered nurse (RN) attempts to drown an invalid entrusted to her care. She attempts the drowning out of boredom. She does it for kicks because she's depraved. She shoves the invalid's wheelchair into a lake. However, the surprised invalid survives. Then this RN manipulates the abused patient into helping her hijack and rob an armored car. That felony leads to a fatality.

The RN character, portrayed by Linda Fiorentino, violates most important state and federal RN licensing laws throughout the film. When it was released I was surprised that RN promotion organizations around the country did not condemn this movie and call for a boycott.

Because RN's did not publicly condemn the movie, I expected that RN's must have shared my feeling: the movie was so bad that few watched it and therefore they did not want to draw more attention to it. However, the first RN I asked about this movie told me that she was as bored and lonely with her life as the RN character in the movie. I quickly excused myself before she asked me to help attempt to murder an invalid and rob an armored car.

The first physician I asked about this movie -- she had seen it -- said that she found not only the movie, but the lack of public condemnation of it, disturbing.

Other reviewers, you'll note, mention that the film did not portray certain events, such as how the RN knew that her patient would not drown when she pushed his wheelchair into a lake. The viewing audience did NOT know whether the patient would drown. The point the filmmakers were making by omitting such evidence, I thought obvious, was that the nurse did NOT know. It would have been fine with her if the Paul Newman wheelchair-bound character had drown. She's depraved. She should be locked up. She's the villain. Instead, some confused reviewers celebrate her as the protagonist, even heroine.

Only a contemptable villianous character would have participated in these heinous activities. It's shocking that a story where an apparently ordinary RN who first attempts to murder a helpless old man entrusted her care, and who then manipulates him (the Paul Newman character) into helping commit a felony murder, would be celebrated by most of the audience as the heroine. I write this review because I was jaw-droppingly surprised that some reviewers admit that they are confused by the film, but nevertheless give this [movie] a four or five star rating.

Everyone that I have spoken with presumes that Paul Newman must have needed the money badly, and he either helped deliberately confuse and confound the audience or only knew his part of the script. Regardless, the feeling is that afterward he and the filmmakers smiled all the way to the bank, caring only for the clink of coin in their bank accounts, and nothing for the art of the motion picture.

Unfortunately, in this movie the art is not served, justice is not served, and the bad guys not only win, but are celebrated as sympathetic by much of a confused and compliant audience. I suppose in a sequel the majority of a still confused compliant audience would be pleased to see handsome and stylish Linda Fiorentio and Paul Newman get away with more domestic terrorism.

This is an appallingly bad film with an appallingly bad message. We can expect no better from Linda Fiorentino, but Shame on you, Paul Newman, for selling yourself in this abomination. We expect better from you. Did you not read the entire script before you agreed to the acting?