For Richer or Poorer

Pop this one in the VCR (after adjusting the tracking, naturally), and you're immediately plunged into the kind of late-90s excess that felt simultaneously aspirational and slightly ridiculous. We meet Brad and Caroline Sexton, Manhattan socialites drowning in wealth, couture, and mutual contempt. Their marriage is colder than a forgotten Blockbuster return slot, and their lavish lifestyle is about to come crashing down thanks to a crooked accountant and the looming shadow of the IRS. It’s a setup practically designed in a Hollywood lab for maximum fish-out-of-water potential.

The core gag, of course, is the Sextons fleeing the feds and impulsively hiding out in the last place anyone would look for them: an Amish community in Intercourse, Pennsylvania (yes, really). Posing as distant relatives, the Yoders, this hopelessly materialistic couple must trade designer threads for plain bonnets and suspenders, swap champagne flutes for milk pails, and somehow convince their new, deeply traditional neighbors (Jay O. Sanders plays the stoic, watchful Samuel Yoder perfectly) that they belong.

It's pure culture clash comedy, mined for every predictable but often amusing scenario you can imagine. Watching Allen, channeling his Home Improvement bewildered-but-trying persona, attempt manual labor is good for a chuckle. And Alley, fresh off Veronica's Closet and still radiating that Cheers energy, trying to navigate a world without Neiman Marcus or hairdressers provides the film's main comedic engine. Their chemistry isn't exactly electric romance, but their shared knack for exasperated banter and physical comedy mostly carries the film. You absolutely bought them as these larger-than-life TV personalities dropped into an alien environment.

Directed by Bryan Spicer, who previously gave us the high-energy, effects-heavy Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie (1995), For Richer or Poorer feels visually competent but very much like a studio comedy of its time. There's a certain gloss to the NYC scenes, contrasting sharply with the genuinely beautiful, authentic locations used in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. You have to appreciate the effort they went to filming on location; it lends a necessary grounding to the otherwise outlandish premise. It wasn't a cheap venture either, reportedly costing around $35 million – a hefty sum back then for a comedy relying more on situational humour than big effects – which perhaps explains why it didn't exactly set the box office alight, pulling in just under $33 million domestically. It found its real legs, like so many films of this era, on home video.

This is where the VHS charm kicks in. It’s the kind of movie that felt made for a weekend rental. It wasn’t trying to reinvent the wheel, just offer comfortable laughs with stars you recognized. Critics at the time weren't particularly kind (it even nabbed a Razzie for Alley), but audiences looking for light entertainment often found it perfectly serviceable. Does anyone else remember the slightly fuzzy warmth of watching these kinds of comedies on a CRT, the colours maybe bleeding a little, feeling perfectly cozy?

Retro Fun Facts Woven In: Interestingly, this film reunited Allen and Alley on screen after they both appeared in John Carpenter's less-than-stellar Village of the Damned (1995) – quite a shift in tone! The script, penned by relative newcomers Jana Howington and Steve Lukanic, feels very much like a successful high-concept pitch – "What if two rich snobs had to live Amish?" – executed straightforwardly. There's an earnestness to the portrayal of the Amish community, even amidst the comedy, that avoids outright mockery, focusing more on the Sextons' ineptitude than the community's way of life.

Look, For Richer or Poorer isn't aiming for comedic genius. It's predictable, occasionally cheesy, and relies heavily on its stars' familiar screen personas. The plot wraps up exactly how you expect it to, with lessons learned and reconciliations made amidst the manure and barn raisings.

But there's an undeniable nostalgic comfort here. It represents a certain brand of late-90s studio comedy: star-driven, conceptually simple, and designed for broad appeal. Allen and Alley deliver what's asked of them, the culture clash provides reliable smiles, and the underlying message about finding value beyond material wealth, while delivered with a feather-light touch, lands gently. It’s like finding that favourite comfy sweater in the back of the closet – maybe a little worn, definitely dated, but it still brings a certain warmth.

Justification: The rating reflects a film that succeeds reasonably well as light, nostalgic entertainment powered by its leads. It's far from a classic, hampered by predictability and a lack of sharp wit, but it offers consistent chuckles and executes its simple premise competently. Its value now lies mostly in its nostalgic charm and as a time capsule of late-90s comedy sensibilities.

Final Thought: It won't change your life, but like discovering an unexpectedly decent B-side on a cassette single, For Richer or Poorer offers a pleasant, harmless trip back to a time when big TV stars could carry a movie on premise and personality alone. Sometimes, that's all a Friday night rental needed to be.