User Reviews (72)

Add a Review

  • FlickJunkie-221 December 2000
    Paul Newman shines in this implausible, but highly watchable caper flick about three unlikely armored car robbers. It is hard to believe that Newman is 75. He is fitter and more energetic than most men who are fifteen years his junior. He single-handedly elevates this film from mediocrity.

    The story is nothing unique. Henry (Newman) is a bank robber who is delivered to a nursing home after a debilitating stroke. His nurse (Linda Fiorentino) suspects he is not the vegetable he appears to be. After she gets him to admit his ruse, she exhorts him to knock off an armored truck with her.

    Director Marek Kanievska and writer Max Frye leave numerous gaps in the story. We never discover what tips off Carol that Henry is faking. They didn't do enough character development of Carol and Wayne (Dermot Mulroney) to make it believable that they would want to become criminals, no less hatch the scheme. The idea that Carol was pretending to be the dispatcher for the armored car company from a cell phone in the truck is a flimsy concoction. Even with digital technology, most cell phones in moving vehicles sound like cell phones, and you can hear road noises and the engine running.

    Still, despite a lackluster script, the film is enjoyable because of Paul Newman. Newman gives a fantastic rendition of a stroke victim, and his hardened and cantankerous portrayal was marvelous. Linda Fiorentino plays the scheming sex-kitten nurse in one of her better performances. The screen chemistry between Fiorentino and Newman is excellent with undercurrents of sexual desire constantly flaring up between them. Dermot Mulroney is relegated to a role that was essentially a fifth wheel and is adequate as Carol's loser of a husband.

    I rated this film a 7/10. It is good entertainment and an opportunity to see a master at work. Newman hasn't lost a beat in a movie career that spans almost a half a century. It is worth seeing for him alone.
  • This little movie is all about Paul Newman - it's a heist flick, not of the same caliber of The Sting, but good fun nonetheless. Ole Blue Eyes at 75 yrs old still has more charisma than the current, top 5 highest earning movie stars combined. Linda Fiorentino has great chemistry with both her co-stars - no surprise there. She's so good, it's a shame she's not given more dialogue to chew on. Dermot Mulroney is every woman's complete package - OOFA! Catherine Keener (his real-life wife) is a one happy woman. This is worth seeing on the big screen!!
  • This is no "STING" but it is an entertaining Paul Newman film. We are Paul Newman fans from way back and enjoy seeing him in virtually anything. This was an enjoyable romp and we certainly recommend it to any movie goer.
  • For admirers of quality movies, one of the greatest sources of frustration has always been the inverse ration that exists between movies that are good and movies that make money. The essential rule of thumb is that, with few exceptions, the larger a film's budget happens to be, the less likely that that film will have anything new or original to say. The corollary principle is that, given the choice between patronizing a film that is original, complex and meaningful and one that is derivative, simpleminded and thematically empty, the mass audience will go with the latter type every time. Driven by the need for profits, large studios are then forced to cater to this `lowest common denominator' mentality. The result is that wonderful little films are almost invariably squeezed out of the marketplace, left to languish in obscure art houses scattered in a few major cities, while bloated, mindless multi-million dollar monstrosities fill sprawling megaplexes found in cities, suburbs and rural areas stretching literally from coast to coast.

    How many people, for instance, have even heard of, let alone seen, `Where the Money Is'? Yet here is a film dedicated to the spirit of pure fun, a lighthearted black comedy that is blessedly free of the hardboiled cynicism and explicit violence that plague so many such films. The film hooks the audience from the very start with the originality of its plot and setting. Set in a small Oregon town (though the film was, rather inexplicably, filmed in the environs of Montreal), the movie stars the superb Linda Fiorentino and Dermot Mulroney as long time high school sweethearts who have married right after graduation, found their comfortable little niche in the small world they inhabit and now begun to take each other for granted. (The opening scene introduces us to them as they are roadhousing around on prom night in his prize Mustang, the one symbol of a rebellious youth that he still clings to all these years later). It is at her job – as a nurse at a local convalescent hospital – that a measure of excitement reenters their humdrum lives and relights the long dormant spark of adventure that she, in particular, has been missing. This novelty comes in the form of an aging bank robber (Paul Newman) who has apparently suffered a stroke and is sent to the rest home due to overcrowding at the prison hospital.

    The early scenes of the film are wickedly funny as Fiorentino, suspicious that her new patient may just be faking it, plays a clever little game of cat-and-mouse to try to catch him in his impressive charade. Suddenly, having achieved her goal, she is not quite so sure who is really the cat and who the mouse.

    To say more about the plot would really do a disservice to this film, which manages to keep us intrigued by the unpredictability of its most unusual setup. Fiorentino and Mulroney are thoroughly believable as a couple of once-edgy youngsters grown into responsible, comfortable but slightly restless adults. She, in particular, finds herself stifled by the humdrum quality of both their life and their marriage together. Mulroney, on the other hand, seems to have pretty much lost that desire for living on the edge, yet, for her sake and, perhaps, for the sake of that tiny spark for adventure that still lives unquenched somewhere deep inside him, he is willing to meet her halfway – even if a bit reluctantly – on the field of lawlessness. Newman, as the expert bank robber who stumbles unexpectedly into their lives, provides the perfect catalyst for renewed adventure.

    The amazing thing about `Where the Money Is' is that, thanks to its writers, Max Frye, Topper Lilien and Carroll Cartwright, and the director, Marek Kanievska, the film never ends up taking itself too seriously. It always knows that its prime purpose is to give the audience a fun time. This it does with the help of its three dazzling stars, who seem to be having the time of their professional lives (Fiorentino is especially wonderful). It sure must be infectious, because we, in the audience, have a pretty damn good time watching them.
  • lee_eisenberg28 September 2008
    Two days ago, one of the greatest actors of all time left this life. Paul Leonard Newman was best known for films like "Hud", "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" and "The Verdict". But he also starred in small, less noticed movies over the years. One example is "Where the Money Is". Newman plays an aged crook who moves into a nursing home where it becomes clear to the woman (Linda Fiorentino) running the place that he's not as disabled as he claims to be and might in fact be looking for help in pulling off another heist.

    OK, so an elderly criminal going in for one last scheme is sort of a hackneyed plot. But in this role, Newman doesn't even need to talk much; it seemed to me as if his eyes functioned as actors. Not to mention that there's some great chemistry between him and Fiorentino. This might not be the most noticeable movie, but it's worth seeing, if only once. There will never be another Paul Newman.

    Also starring Dermot Mulroney.
  • There is a lot to like here. But unfortunately, that lot is Paul Newman. I wouldn't trust this story because it's so flimsy, but Newman puts it together so well (at the age of 75) it's just so good to see him up on the screen doing what he does best. The co-stars (Linda Fiorentino and Dermont Mulroney) are also good, but they just act as catalysts through the movie. For fans of Newman, this is the treat of the year. For fans of story, it might not be as good. B+
  • It is doubtful this very pleasant film could have been better acted by Linda Fiorentino and Paul Newman. Rave newspaper reviews raised my expectations too high. The film was smaller and flatter than expected. Still, it is very pleasant and accomplishes all it set out to do. Depends on your mood, but this film is probably better enjoyed at home on DVD rather than shelling out for movie tickets, sitter, whatever.
  • Linda Fiorentino is the nurse taking care of Henry, famous bank robber and stroke victim. she and her husband Wayne (Dermot Mulroney) are keeping an eye on Henry, in case he knows more than he is saying. (the last time i saw Fiorentino in was Gotcha from 1985... anthony edwards.) So they get together and pull one last caper, while everyone still thinks Henry is out of it. with mixed results. Dermot Mulroney currently has NINE films in production. wow. it's pretty good. nothing great. directed by british Marek Kanievska, who last directed Less Than Zero, thirteen years before. The first half of this moves SO slowly, then it gets going, about half way through. onward and upward!
  • LeRoyMarko2 April 2001
    Not so bad movie about criminal Newman who fakes to get out of prison and put into a long-term health facility. But Linda Fiorentino has some doubts and she'll try anything to discover that he fakes. Beautiful Linda has a few tricks of her own! This movie is no classic but quite entertaining.

    7 out of 10.
  • I found it sad when I heard that after WHERE THE MONEY IS, Paul Newman plans on doing just one more film. He is one of the greatest actors in history. Having said that, WHERE THE MONEY IS, is only an average film. It's so full of cliches, that there is never a moment where the audience doesn't know exactly where it's going. The only thing that keeps the movie afloat is the considerable charm of Newman himself and his wonderful co-star Linda Fiorentino (THE LAST SEDUCTION). The film is about a nurse (Fiorentino) who hooks up with an old criminal (Newman) to pull off a daring robbery. It's fun and entertaining, without anything really special about it.
  • This is one of the few Paul Newman movies in which even the critics all agreed it was pretty bad. For once, I agree with them; this was not a fun experience watching this garbage.

    Actually, I liked Newman's character "Henry Manning," or at least thought he was a very interesting guy. The problem I had wasn't him; it was the two younger actors, Linda Fiorentino and Dermot Mulroney. Have you noticed how many low-life people Fiorentino plays in films? Check out "The Last Seduction," "Jade," etc. This woman is not appealing to me. Mulroney is another actor who plays a lot of punks, including the guy in here, "Wayne MacKay."

    Both of those people ruined this film for me, although all three leads are not good people. That was a main problem for a number of viewers: no good guys, meaning nobody to root for.

    The story starts out promising but sinks fast, and never recovers. It's tough to like a story when you don't care about any of the characters and it's a weak script to begin with. Still....one wonders why Newman went into this project.
  • This movie, like most caper films, builds slowly to a pretty satisfying conclusion. The three main stars are likable, and of course Paul Newman is a jewel as always. Linda is not as seductive as in some of her roles, but is,as always, a pleasure to watch. Some younger folks might find this too slow, but more mature audiences will probably enjoy it
  • Warning: Spoilers
    For a moment, you'll feel that this movie is about nothing. But fortunately it isn't.

    Here, I preferred Paul Newman's Henry Manning over his Henry Gondorff back in The Sting (1973). True that it seems as ordinary movie, with the word TV written all over it. And true that I thought many times about the irony between the 18 million dollar budget and the 5 and a half million gross! Though, it is a fine entertaining movie, for me, more than that Oscar winning movie of the 1970s.

    I liked Linda Fiorentino's both role and performance. She sensitively understood her character not as an old man's lover, but a mentor's pupil. Just notice her eye look whenever she's with Newman; she's hungry for his brilliance and experience.

    The thing about this movie is in the last 15 minutes, not with the clever twists, but where the meaning completes clearly. The movie's world centers around dead people (the old folks). Live people but subsist as dead (the married young couple). And one truly live man (the master thief). The whole story is about the journey of these 2 love birds through the vivid world of this thief. And who'd have the ability to stand it and continue living it as it should: daringly and smartly. Because outside this way, you'd be either a cowered or a loser; namely dead anyway. So where is the money? As the last shot tells us: It's where the guts, and the lust for life is.

    I believe Newman was one of the best actors who could portray this latent passionate love for life, or precisely being alive. Observe him driving his car at the end chase, Oh My God! This 75 year old man, who was originally famous of riding racing cars, seemed really convincing, mastering his moves as a wild heart of a man.

    This is so simple; just a solid heist with a point of view about life. Yes, again and again, the genre movie can carry out messages. So what could be missing? Maybe more good music score. And that's it.

    For the fans of the heist movies only, besides (Where the Money Is), 2000 got others such as (Reindeer Games) and (The Opportunists). Before a revival that would come with the whole next decade along with 2001's (Ocean's Eleven).
  • Where The Money Is turns out to be a very weak and slightly impossible vehicle for Paul Newman to carry with his talent. It was not one of his better career choices for a role.

    Newman who was 76 when he made this film plays an aging bank robber who was transferred from state prison where he had a stroke and is now in a regular old age nursing facility. His assigned nurse Linda Fiorentino doesn't believe he's as sick as he makes out and she eventually finds out her suspicions are correct. How she does it you have to see the film for.

    But when she does it she's just intrigued by the rogue life Newman has led. Life for her as the prom queen who married football hero Dermot Mulroney has turned really dull. Linda needs some excitement.

    She should just have let Newman go his merry way and played dumb when the authorities would have asked her did she suspect anything. But she doesn't, in fact she plans a caper and actually gets Mulroney roped into it as well.

    After this the film becomes just way too preposterous for my taste. Newman's role essentially is Butch Cassidy or Henry Gondorff now as a senior citizen and he does well, but his talent just does not carry an incredibly preposterous story to success.

    Paul Newman had some good roles late in his career like Twilight, Road To Perdition, and Message In A Bottle. But this one in no way stacks up to those films, let alone the things he did in his prime.
  • MuteMae15 April 2000
    Age has pared Paul Newman's fine features to a sketch - it's also honed his huge movie appeal to such basics that he can pretty much maintain our attention while in a coma. But as if to test his powers, in the shagging and intriguing caper "Where the money is", Newman plays Henry, a former famous bank robber and current guest of the prison system who actually is in a coma, or at least a stroke like state of suspended animation. Slumped and glazed, Henry sits for hours in his wheelchair at the nursing home to which he has been transferred tended to by Carol (Linda Fiorentino) a less than angelic nurse and onetime prom queen. Carol lives with her husband, in the same drab town where she grew up. She's bored as a former prom queen always is. And she's convinced that Henry - who had led the only interesting life around - is faking his stupor. So she bamboozles him into dropping his act, then promises to keep the secret, if he'll include her on just one more Bonnie and Clyde size heist. British director Marek Kanievska counts on the audience knowing that Newman's fame is tied to playing heist pros and hustlers, and that we're not just seeing some gravel voiced coot in a wheelchair - we're seeing what Butch Cassidy might have become had he not messed up in Bolivia. The minimalist acting the star has done in recent films like "Message in a bottle" and "Nobody's fool" serves him well, because he's confident - rightfully so- that the audience will fill in the blanks. Incorrigible Henry is fundamentally opaque, but canny Newman lets his eyes do the talking. As for Fiorentino, the star of "The last seduction" reprises her dangerous, restless woman persona as if to remind us (and casting agents) that if she got every role currently going to Catherine Zeta Jones, movies would be a lot more interesting. The payoff is the clash between a taciturn bandit faking feebleness and an angry Florence Nightingale, faking compassion, played by two actors who are the real thing.
  • Retirement home nurse Carol Ann MacKay (Linda Fiorentino) is married to her high school boyfriend Wayne (Dermot Mulroney). They were the Prom King and Queen. One day, Henry Manning (Paul Newman) is brought in from prison. He had been incapacitated by a stroke. Carol starts to wonder if the legendary bank robber is faking to get out of prison. The allure of a criminal life is just the antidote to her blend life with Wayne.

    Fiorentino is great sexy fun. There is an appealing mentorship with Newman's criminal character. He's a solid sly fox. The main problem is that her husband Wayne keeps blocking the flow. I certainly do not want a romantic relationship but Fiorentino makes for a fun eager student. I would alter Wayne or eliminate him altogether.
  • This movie had some real laughs here and there, but the caper itself was merely competent, and seemed foregone. As much as I love Paul Newman and Linda Fiorentino, I just couldn't bring myself to care about their characters. If you're looking for a caper with comedy to spare, try the much maligned Hudson Hawk.
  • Paul Newman stars as an aging bank robber who stages a different type of prison escape; Linda Fiorentino and Dermot Mulroney are the small town couple (former king and queen of the prom) who are bored and decide to go along with Newman's new life of crime. All the actors are good, especially Newman, but the material isn't: it's very slow, and a weak story. An example of when the actors are much better than the material.

    Vote: 5
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Where the Money Is (2000): Dir: Marek Kanievska / Cast: Paul Newman, Linda Fiorentino, Dermot Mulroney, Susan Barnes, Anne Pitoniak: We don't really care where the money is but rather where the screenwriter was. Title possibly references Linda Fiorentino's view of Paul Newman in her quest to flee her lifestyle. He is a notorious bank robber transferred to a nursing home. She is a nurse who doesn't buy the act and attempts to expose him. Her marriage to Dermot Mulroney lost its passion in favour of merely functioning. Central plot regards robbing armoured trucks but this becomes repetitious with a shameless ending that not only applauds theft, but also allows the wrong participant to take the fall. Director Marek Kanievska does well with touches of humour but production seems flat. Newman is in top form as a patient whom is tested in very funny sequences with regards to his condition. He takes command but at the cost of someone else. Fiorentino as the nurse seeks excitement and adventure and does so at the careless cost of her marriage. Mulroney as her husband goes along with the scheme in hopes of reconnecting with his wife but ultimately must sacrifice himself for the wrong happiness. This is where the film hits a moral issue that some viewers will likely resent. We are ask to celebrate a conclusion that reeks. The film never arrives at any moral conclusion or purpose. Score: 4 ½ / 10
  • I became a fan of Linda Fiorentino from watching her on Dogma over and over again on Comedy Central. I hope she's getting residual checks and new fans all over again. In this film, she plays Carol Ann McKay, a bored nurse in a retirement or nursing home who meets Paul Newman's character who is a retired professional heister. With her husband played by Dermot Mulroney, the three plan the ideal heist with an armored car. I read that Fiorentino and Newman got along very well on the film and both live in the same town in Connecticut. Fiorentino would have been willing to do a sex scene with him if she was given the opportunity. Anyway, the three are a great team. The story is pretty good because Fiorentino, Newman, and Mulroney make the lines come alive. I wish Fiorentino and Newman were still working making movies. As you get older in this business particularly females, you are over the hill over 40 years old. For men, it's different but even Newman has given up the acting part of the business because it's so uninspiring. Films like this never do well at the box office. It could have done very well on television or cable. Fiorentino is stunning at the end of the film. It's not all about the money as it is about getting away with it and the thrills and adrenalin of being and feeling alive.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    It's pretty much a lock that if you have Paul Newman in your movie, you're not going to have to worry about his performance - no matter how weak the script is.

    In "Where the Money Is," Newman is spectacular. He plays a convicted bank robber put into a nursing home after apparently suffering from a stroke and becoming incapacitated. A nurse (Linda Fiorentino) at the home, however, begins to suspect that Newman's character is actually only faking his illness.

    While Newman is stupendous, Fiorentino is only adequate in her role. She tries to play a charismatic character with a rebellious nature, but the script never provides for enough incentive for her to make the radical choices she makes in the movie. She in fact plays her character with a reckless mixture of ditziness and brilliance. Her character doesn't really have any character.

    Lots of other problems litter the movie, as well. The aforementioned script is weak not only in structure, but also in dialogue. It's depressing to see talent such as Newman's not used to its potential.

    But it's also depressing to see a relatively fresh idea spoiled (warning: reading past this point might ruin some of the surprises in the film).

    If you've seen any of the trailers for the film, you've seen the scene where Fiorentino's character pushes Newman's wheelchair-bound character into a river. Newman's character is then seen climbing the ladder of the dock and telling her, "OK, so you're smart."

    The most intriguing part of this movie is the question on whether Newman's character is actually incapacitated, or simply faking it. This spoiler makes the first half of the movie - the best half - completely irrelevant.

    But this is a problem seen way too often with Hollywood movies. Action movies show the best action sequences (which usually occur at the end of the movie) during their previews. Comedies use all of their best jokes in their previews. If Hollywood could have learned anything from last summer, it was that the best publicity a movie can get is word of mouth. Two of the largest money-makers, "The Sixth Sense" and "The Matrix" made their plots completely unclear during their previews, much to the delight of audiences.

    If viewers are lucky enough to go into "Where the Money Is" without seeing the previews (or reading this far into my review) the movie could be interesting for quite awhile, although it still lacks any original thought in the end.

    If for no other reason, avoid "Where the Money Is" to show Hollywood where the money should be - in not spoiling films before audiences have an opportunity to see them.
  • My girlfriend took me to an advance screening of this film so we had no idea what we were in for. I had just seen Nobody's Fool so I was well prepared for the pace of the film, and Newman's sly, charming style. Fortunately, he didn't disappoint, (he's still as reliable as ever), and the film still held plenty of surprises for me. I will admit I was less than interested for the first 20 minutes, but by the end, I was impressed.

    Newman plays Henry Manning, a old thief who crosses paths with Carol Ann MacKay (Fiorentino) who is a restless nurse at a rest home. As you can guess, it's a heist film with plenty of hilarity and real suspense. Keep in mind, it's a mild hilarity and suspense, with subtle exchanges and real emotional investment. The scenes play slowly and meticulously, like a heist, waiting for the exact moment to give us the payoff. They hit the mark more often than not in both arenas of comedy and suspense,

    The chemistry between the principles is strong, especially with Fiorentino and Newman, with intelligent dialogue that takes the plot through a natural progression that doesn't betray the two lead characters.

    Make no mistake, Newman's presence elevates this film, as he often does, and he does it with such ease that it's a joy to watch. If you like Newman's recent work, this film will not disappoint you.

    As I have indicated, it's a slow film, not too deep, not overly witty, but subtle. It works on many levels, so I have no problem recommending it to fans of Paul Newman.
  • Was this supposed to be a comedy? The idea of it is funny, but no one moment in it conjured up so much as a giggle.

    There are several reasons for this I think. One is that no one really seemed to be enjoying themselves. Especially Dermot Mulroney, who must be the most dull actor in the business. His role, the reluctant partner in crime/ cold and uncaring husband--about as close as the film has to a villain, had its opportunities to provide some much needed comic relief. Had they cast the role with someone who had more personality, it would have made a world of difference.

    Linda Fiorentino is adequate in her role as Carol, bored small town wife/physical therapist. She's right for the role, but doesn't command your attention the way a lead character should. She's always been a bit of a stiff anyway.

    Not surprisingly, the best performance here is Newman, playing ex-bank robber Henry. He's been at it so long he could pull this stuff off in his sleep. For much of the movie, he literally does.

    To its credit, it moves along nicely and actually contains a few surprise twists. Credit the writer and director for this. I was disappointed, though. This could have been much better.

    Grade: D+
  • jpaisan3 September 2001
    In playing a small town girl taken by the world wise con man, the chemistry between Fiorentino and Newman is perfect. Mulroney is basically Bud Bundy while Paul Newman is, well Paul Newman, and Fiorentino effortlessly falls for him, as does the audience.

    Well cast, well acted caper flick that runs on Newman's star quality.
  • If it hadn't been for Paul Newman, I'd have voted this a 1.

    I struggle to find the required four lines.

    Very implausible.

    Yoda got it right.
An error has occured. Please try again.