
Funny Money
1966

2006
RDirector
Leslie Greif
Runtime
98 minutes
Average Rating
No ratings yetSynopsis
Henry Perkins, a mild-mannered accountant, accidentally trades briefcases with another man, to find out that there's a million dollars inside. Henry tells his unsuspecting wife of their new-found fortune, but she doesn't embrace it as well as he does. Soon they're joined by their best friends, a cop on the take, a cop on the hunt, and the dreaded Mr. Big, who has come to claim his money.
Overall Score
Limited
Category Breakdown
LGBTQ+ Representation
The film focuses on a central heterosexual marriage and a traditional social circle. There is no evidence of non-cisnormative identities or narratives that critique heteronormativity.
Gender Representation
The story centers on Henry Perkins, a male protagonist navigating a windfall. While his wife offers a different temperament regarding the money, roles align with traditional domestic archetypes.
Racial & Ethnic Diversity
The context offers no indication of a non-white or non-Anglo-Saxon majority cast. Character archetypes suggest a reliance on standard Western genre tropes.
Religious & Cultural Diversity
The narrative utilizes a classic crime-and-consequence framework. It focuses on individual pursuit of wealth rather than a systemic critique of Western institutions.
Disability Representation
There is no evidence regarding the inclusion of characters with visible or invisible disabilities within the provided context.
Strengths
Areas for Improvement
AI Analysis
Funny Money operates as a conventional crime-comedy that prioritizes plot-driven chaos over diverse character development. The narrative relies heavily on established genre tropes, such as the mild-mannered accountant and the corrupt cop, which often favor homogeneous casting and traditional social structures. The film lacks intersectional depth, focusing instead on a central heterosexual marriage and individualistic motivations. This approach results in a story that adheres to standard Western archetypes rather than challenging social hierarchies or providing representation for marginalized groups. Ultimately, the film functions as a straightforward genre piece. It emphasizes situational morality and personal agency within a traditional framework, leaving little room for cultural or identity-based subversion.

1966

1983

1996

2005

2013

1997

1999

1978

2003

2000

1992

1989
No reviews yet. Be the first to share your thoughts on this movie!
Use the rating form above to leave a star rating and optional review.