On her deathbed, a mother makes her son promise never to get married, which scars him with psychological blocks to a commitment with his girlfriend. They finally decide to tie the knot in ... See full summary »
Sarah Jessica Parker
Ben Sanderson, a Hollywood screenwriter who lost everything because of his alcoholism, arrives in Las Vegas to drink himself to death. There, he meets and forms an uneasy friendship and non-interference pact with prostitute Sera.
Charlie and Muriel Lang have led simple lives - for most of their existance. That's until they win $4 million on the lottery! There is a problem, however. Prior to winning the lottery, Charlie had eaten at a cafe and hadn't been able to tip the waitress. He had promised her, jokingly, that if he won the lottery he'd give her half of it. This is why his wife, Muriel decides to leave him. She doesn't want the waitress to get a cent of their money. Infact she wants all $4 million for herself! Written by
Michael Feller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
The front page of New York Post with the headline Cop Gives Waitress $2M Tip! Is obviously a fake story for the movie but the back page with the sports was real and published in the Monday June 14th 1993 New York Post, the New York Mets made that days headline and a top column says Suns Rise In 3 OT s after their game 3 win that year in the NBA finals against the Chicago Bulls. See more »
When you see the first pictures of the two cops the number on Charlies shirt collar is 22. Later in the movie it changes to 33, which was the number on his buddies shirt collar in the first scene. See more »
You should be locked up in that looney bin on Staten Island that Geraldo Rivera is always exposing!
See more »
This film was inspired by the generosity of detective Robert Cunningham (ret.) and his wife, Gina. Mr. and Mrs. Cunningham have been happily married for 31 years. The waitress and her husband have been happily married for 37 years. See more »
"Cop Gives Waitress $2 Million Tip!" was working title
I've read that,among other people,critic Roger Ebert liked the afore-mentioned title for this movie as opposed to the name it actually got. Am I alone in the only one who thinks that the original title was NOT a good idea? Think about it:how easily would the title of above roll of the tongue when discussing movies or going to the ticket window? Titles that have indirect subjects in their sentences to me,seem like they're trying to test the memory of the viewer wanting to see the film as much as they are trying to get his or her attention.
OK,'nuff said about that.
As for the movie: Unapologetically sweet,this is one part fairy-tale,one part morality lesson(like those two elements COULDN'T be one and the same thing!),using none other than the Big Apple as its backdrop.
Honest beat cop Charlie Lang(Nicolas Cage in possibly one of the least conflicted and cleanest character portrayals he's given)is short of change one day and,while stopping for coffee at a street diner,uses in lieu of a tip,part of his lottery ticket to the harried but pretty and good-natured waitress(Bridget Fonda,in a word:likable). When that ticket wins a large,metro-area jackpot,Charlie does the right thing and splits his portion of the winnings with the waitress,who needs that money desperately: she's in debt to her ears and has a mooch of an ex-husband(Stanley Tucci)who won't leave her alone. This act of generosity does not sit well at all with Charlie's vain wife Muriel(a screechy,believable Rosie Perez),who eventually acts to have Charlie--and in the process Yvonne the waitress--cut from the winnings entirely.
People who like to complain that movies these days have no sense of either morality or sentimentality would be wisely steered in the direction of this flick. Even though it's over a decade old,it's story is easily transferable and,while I am usually loathe to suggest remakes,would actually be receptive to a remake of this film(provided the screenwriter and director were willing to change some elements of the story,like location,circumstances or even genders). A film that seems to have been made by the ghost of Frank Capra,who would've been possessing Andrew Bergman(who successfully directed Mr.CAge in "HOneymoon in Vegas" a few years before). A good rent for anyone who likes a little sentimentality in their comedy.
17 of 19 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?