Jack Campbell has a problem. He is rich, successful, and utterly miserable. Nicolas Cage plays him as a man who has traded everything for a corner office, and the movie wants him to see the cost. That is the setup for The Family Man, a 2000 romantic fantasy comedy-drama from director Brett Ratner, and it is a setup that should work. It does not.
The film opens with Jack and Kate, his college sweetheart, at JFK Airport. She begs him not to leave for a twelve-month internship with Barclays in London. He tells her their love is strong enough to survive. Thirteen years later, Jack is a wealthy bachelor and Wall Street executive in New York City. He is putting together a multi-billion dollar merger and has ordered an emergency meeting on Christmas Day, ignoring his employees’ desire to be with their families. The movie spends its early runtime establishing that Jack has everything and nothing at once. Then Cash shows up.
Cash is a young man who walks into a convenience store claiming a winning lottery ticket worth $238. The clerk calls it a forgery. Cash pulls a gun. Jack offers to buy the ticket, calling it a “business deal.” Cash agrees. Outside, Jack tries to help him, and Cash asks if anything is missing from Jack’s own life. Jack says he has everything he needs. Cash replies enigmatically that Jack has “brought this upon himself” and walks away. A puzzled Jack returns to his penthouse to sleep. The next morning, he wakes up on Christmas Day in a suburban New Jersey bedroom with Kate, two children, and no memory of how he got there.
That is the premise. Jack’s former life no longer exists. His apartment is gone, his office is closed, and even the doorman and his neighbor refuse to recognize him. The movie wants Jack to choose between his high-power career and the woman he loves. It also wants him to learn that family is more important than success. That is a noble idea. The execution is not.
Trailer, via Icon Film Distribution.
Nicolas Cage and Téa Leoni
Nicolas Cage plays Jack with a weary precision that suits the role. He is not a man who has found his path; he is a man who has lost it. Téa Leoni plays Kate as the woman he left behind, and she brings a warmth that the script struggles to justify. Don Cheadle, Saul Rubinek, Jeremy Piven, and the rest fill out the supporting cast, but the movie belongs to Cage and Leoni, and the chemistry between them is the film’s best asset. It is also the only thing that keeps the middle section from collapsing entirely.
The supporting cast deserves credit for doing what the script cannot. Jeremy Piven plays Arnie, Jack’s friend, and he delivers some of the funniest lines in the movie. Don Cheadle plays Cash, and his performance grounds the film’s central mystery. The rest of the cast fills out the suburban household, and they are competent, but they are not asked to do much. The film is built around Jack and Kate, and everything else is window dressing.
The Convenience Store Holdup
The holdup is the engine of the film. It is the moment that triggers the shift, and it is the moment that defines Jack. He is a man who has never faced a real threat. He is a man who has always had a safety net. The holdup strips that away. He offers to buy the ticket, and he does it quickly. That is a small act of courage, and the film needs it to work. It does not.
The film also uses the holdup to set up the fantasy device. Cash’s actions trigger the shift, and the film never explains why. It is a convenient device, but it is not a satisfying one. The film could have used a more deliberate mechanism. It could have given Jack a choice that mattered. Instead, it gives him a random encounter. That is a missed opportunity.
The Alternate Universe
The alternate universe is the film’s biggest weakness. Jack wakes up in a world where he never made the choices he did, and the movie expects the audience to believe that this is a meaningful change. It is not. The alternate universe is a thin construct, and the film spends more time explaining why Jack’s old life no longer exists than it does exploring what the new one means. The tagline promises that Jack can make different choices, but the movie never really follows through on that promise. It tells Jack what to think instead of letting him discover it for himself.
“What if you made different choices? What if you said yes, instead of no? What if you got a second chance?”
That is the question the movie poses. It is also the question it fails to answer. The fantasy device is a trick, not a tool. It allows the film to avoid the hard work of character development. Jack does not change because he sees the error of his ways. He changes because the world around him forces him to. That is a cheap trick, and it is the reason the film feels hollow by the end.
The Message Machine
The message machine is the other problem. The film is relentlessly moralistic. Jack’s career is shown to be empty, his friends are shown to be shallow, and his apartment is shown to be cold. The suburban home is presented as the antidote to all of it. The film wants the audience to feel that Jack has been living a lie. It wants us to root for him to find his way back to Kate and the children. It does not succeed because the film never builds a case for why Jack’s old life was wrong. It just asserts it.
The film’s message is simple: family is more important than success. That is a reasonable position, but it is not a particularly interesting one. The film treats success as a disease and family as a cure. It does not explore the trade-offs. It does not consider the cost of leaving a career behind. It does not ask whether Jack is really happy in the alternate universe. It just assumes that he is not, and it moves on.
The Children
Annie and Josh Campbell are the children in the alternate universe. They are played by Makenzie Vega and the twin Ryan Milkovich and Jake Milkovich. Their presence is meant to humanize the alternate world, but the film does not know what to do with them. They are props more than people. The film uses them to show Jack what he has missed, but it never lets them become characters in their own right. That is a failure of imagination.
The children are also a plot device. They are the reason Jack cannot go back to his old life. The film wants Jack to be trapped in this world, and the children are the anchor. That is a valid structural choice, but it is not a compelling one. The film could have found a better reason for Jack to stay. It could have made the alternate universe more appealing. It could have made the choice harder. Instead, it makes the choice easy. That is a mistake.
The Final Word
The Family Man is a film with a good idea and a bad execution. It is a film that wants to be a romance, a comedy, and a fantasy all at once. It cannot hold all three together. The result is a movie that is pleasant but forgettable. It is a film that is worth seeing once, but not twice. It is a film that is better than its reputation, but not by much.
The film is not a disaster. It is not a masterpiece. It is a middling effort that occasionally reaches for something higher. The performances are solid, the direction is competent, and the premise is interesting. None of that is enough to save it. The film is weighed down by its own message, its own fantasy device, and its own unwillingness to let Jack be a fully realized character.
The film is also a product of its time. It was released in 2000, and it reflects the anxieties of that moment. People were worried about the Y2K bug, and they were worried about the future. The film taps into those fears by showing Jack a future he never wanted. It is a dated concern, but it is a real one. The film is not wrong to address it. It is just wrong to handle it poorly.
The Verdict
The film is a mixed bag. It has moments of genuine charm, and it has moments of pure drivel. It is a film that is better than its reputation, but not by much. It is a film that is worth seeing once, but not twice. It is a film that is pleasant but forgettable. It is a film that is a missed opportunity.
The film’s final scene is a quiet moment where Jack chooses to stay in the alternate universe. It is a bittersweet ending, but it is not a great one. The film has earned that ending, but it has not earned the weight of it. The film is a film about choices, but it is a film that never lets its protagonist make a real one. That is a failure of storytelling.
- The film is pleasant but forgettable.
- The performances are solid, especially Nicolas Cage and Téa Leoni.
- The fantasy device is a gimmick, not a tool.
- The message is moralistic and unearned.
- The children are props, not people.
- The film is a missed opportunity.
The film is a 4 out of 10.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.
