An account executive (Rudd) discovers the only way for him to get a promotion at his company is to find his own "special person" (Carell) and invite him to a company dinner. If you go off just the main 2 stars alone this is a must rent. This is one of those movies that come out where the script alone has a chance of being really funny, but it all comes down to casting. In this case the casting of every part, even the little ones, is what pushes this movie over the top into one of the funniest movies that has been released in a while. It's hard to imagine what the movie would have been like with out Rudd and Carell but I'm guessing not as good. This part seems written for Carell, he plays it perfectly and it is his funniest role since Brick in "Anchorman". The one downfall of the movie is that it is entirely predictable (most comedies are), but it is still a fun ride till the end. It seems like every comedy since the "Hangover" promotes itself as "The funniest movie since the Hangover", this one can actually live up to that standard. A definite must watch and I dare you not to laugh. I give it a B+
Add a Review
-
franciscoraposo7229 April 2012Let me cut the chase, I do know which movie I'm reviewing, I do give Dinner for Schmucks a 10 out of 10 and I do consider it my 6th favorite movie, let me tell you why. Dinner for Schmucks it's not only a clever, well-acted and hilarious comedy, it's comedy with lots of heart and although it's a bit stupid it's definitely my 6th favorite movie. Jay Roach (The Fockers) did a terrific job with everything. Steve Carell, well, I'll have to write about him on a single paragraph, cause he was just... Paul Rudd was great, he played mature and funny. Zach Galifianakis, well, I'll join him to Steve's paragraph. Sow, Dinner for Schmucks is a terrific movie, it's not for everybody but it is for me, it's a light-hearted hilarious and stupid comedy that I just have re-watched thousands of times and I can't seem to get tired of. The soundtrack by Theodore Shapiro was excellent and gave this movie a certain atmosphere that I just loved 100%, the song "Fool on the Hill" (The Beatles) right at the beginning is genius and along the movie goes on you find many appealing themes and then at the credits you here an amazing song from Theodore, overall, I loved the soundtrack. STORY: Tim (Paul Rudd) has a great job and a great girlfriend and they're both in a great place at life. Tim is about to get a new office and an awesome promotion, but first, he'll have to appear at his boss' dinner that he hosts once a month, that dinner consists on every worker bringing an idiot person and the most idiot person of the dinner will win. Tim was definitely not going, but later, he has second thoughts when he accidentally runs over Barry (Steve Carell), a harmless guy who's work is at IRS and who's hobby is to make sets and pictures with dead mice. MY OPINION: The plot was amazing, it was full of hilarious stuff and fun stuff, I loved it.
Steve Carell was purely fantastic, his glasses, his teeth and his blonde hair, he was just fantastic and he stole me a bit of oxygen if you know what I mean, Steve was extremely hilarious and no one could play his role better than he did, he was funny and idiot but he played a sweet guy that we all wish to meet, he was unforgettable. Zach Galifianakis was truly genius, his orange ... (I think it's worth being seen without knowing) and his hilarious laugh makes his performance be unique and highly unforgettable. The chemistry between Steve and Zach was fantastic and the scene where they both imaginary fight is a movie classic.
Overall, Dinner for Schmucks is my 6th favorite movie without any doubts, it's funny, heart warming, very well-acted, hilarious, entertaining, fun, very well directed, very well written and still, I don't know how is it so much underrated- Highly recommended. Unforgettable comedy. 6th Best Movie of All Time. -
adam_unwin1 June 2011This film shocked me. A new premise of cinema I am not familiar with, and had a very silly, very quirky style of story telling. I have to stick my neck out on this one but I enjoyed it.
I like my comedies, from the classics to the obscure, and this feature manages to slot itself in there somewhere. It's not rip roaringly funny but it makes you smile, makes you giggles and still manages to create a personal attachment to the characters. When they feel bad, we feel bad. When they put themselves through awkward, cringe-worthy situations we cringe along with them and we all end up laughing at the other end.
Stop trying to take this film seriously, it's not trying to be a serious film. It's about a group of idiots being shown of for being idiots by a bunch of corporate idiots. It's silly, fun and worth seeing.
I found the acting was good, little ropey in places but general was to standard, the direction was well thought out, the cinematography was clever and the set design and props (especially the mice) were all manufactured so well and realistically they helped to hold the film together.
This is no Godfather II but it'd no Manos: The hands of Fate either, it's a very silly, very goofy, very fun film to watch with friends, family or on your own. Everyone knows a Schmuck and everyone can relate to this film. -
eneyeseekaywhy22 August 2010In order to impress his girlfriend, Tim (Paul Rudd) needs to secure a promotion. So he decides to accept his bosses challenge; bring an 'idiot' to their annual 'Dinner for Winners'. A competition run by white-collar executives and disguised as a celebration of brilliance in unrecognised individuals. In reality, the meal is simply an opportunity for elitist senior-management types to laugh at some quirky and eccentric members of society. Tim's girlfriend tries to convince him the whole idea is abhorrent. Just as he is beginning to agree with her, he meets Barry (Steve Carell). An IRS worker, with a passion for creating art from taxidermied mice, Barry might just be the perfect man to help Tim win the competition.
The US version of The Office has shown us that Carell can do awkward better than most and Anchorman proved his capabilities of making stupidity funny. However, his character here is completely unlikeable and, more often than not, irritating. His bowl haircut, glasses and protruding teeth, evoke bad seventies sitcoms. A time when this look would have been a stylists shorthand for 'socially inept'. Paul Rudd, on the other hand, is given little opportunity to make us laugh, playing two-dimensional straight man, Tim. Director Jay Roach's previous franchises (Austin Powers, Meet the Parents/Fockers) may not have been the greatest comedies of the past fifteen years, but delivered as and when expected. The problems with Dinner for Schmucks lie in the pacing and the writing. With a 114 minute runtime, it is simply too long. Entire characters and subplots are superfluous. It also suffers badly from second-act-drag, believing that given enough on-screen time we will somehow empathise with our two leads.
Producer Sacha Baron Cohen (Borat, Bruno), seems to have called in a number of favours from celebrity friends and cast them in every available role. The idea, presumably, is that good performances can boost a weak script into something amusing. Of Course, this is not the case. Jemaine Clement (Flight of the Conchords) as avant-garde artiste, Kieran, makes the most of his characters nonsequiturs but only manages to raise a smirk at best. The same cannot be said for David Walliams (Little Britain), whose Swiss, aristocratic character, Mueller, is completely redundant in every way. The only worthy gag in almost two-hours is provided by Chris O' Dowd (The I.T. Crowd) as a blind swordsman. However having only a handful of lines and appearing twenty minutes before the credits roll, its far too little, far too late.
Dinner for Schmucks starts with a premise full of comedic opportunities, but spends the next hour and a half ignoring these. The original, a French film from 1998 entitled The Dinner Game, was a social satire focusing on the ridiculous measures the aristocracy will go to amuse themselves. It was full of witty dialogue and, at 80 minutes long, it worked. As often happens, Hollywood seems to have missed the point and delivered a broad and bland remake. -
Jonathon_Natsis1 February 2011An Americanised remake of the French comedy Le Diner De Cons (1998), Dinner For Schmucks puts together an admirable cast of comics, including Paul Rudd, Steve Carell, Jemaine Clement (of Flight Of The Concords fame) and Zach Galifianakis. I understand that his star is growing rapidly, but his name is just too hard to type, so for the rest of this article he will be 'Fat Jesus.' Nonetheless, this film delivers laughs and emotion in satisfying doses, and something I would definitely recommend.
Paul Rudd plays Tim, who works a nothing job in Generic Financial Firm #17, until his superiors offer him the chance at a promotion. The catch? He must impress at a dinner hosted by his boss, at which all employees must bring along the most idiotic guest they can find in the hope of taking out first prize. Enter Steve Carell's Barry, IRS employee and amateur taxidermist, whose unique 'skill' with turning dead mice into works of art makes him the perfect candidate. Also circling the plot is Tim's diminishing relationship with girlfriend Julie, who no longer has feelings for the corporate drone Tim has become.
The acting is competent overall, but two performances stand out and really give this film a kick. Clement seems to take great pride in his character: a pretentious artist whose hobbies include tantric sex and living amongst goats. In fact, his character is reminiscent of Russell Brand as Aldous Snow (Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Get Him To The Greek), but Clement comes right out of left field with excellent line delivery and tone, coupled with some fantastic physical comedy.
Paul Rudd may receive top billing, but make no mistake Steve Carell drives this film. Just about every line that comes out of Barry's mouth is gold, and a testament to the effort put into the screenplay. But it is the dimension, as opposed to just the humour, of Barry's character that makes him so engaging. He invokes real sympathy in a couple of emotional scenes that prove him to be much more than just a 'schmuck.' And his absurdist chemistry with Fat Jesus during the climactic scene is nothing short of hilarious.
As soppy as it sounds, the film drives home a nice moral about how all people, regardless of hobby or intellect, all crave the same feelings of friendship and compassion in their lives. One scene in which Barry effectively questions all that he has achieved in his life is particularly heart wrenching and although it sets the foundation for an admittedly cliché ending, it is pleasing to see a film that markets itself as a first-string comedy still putting emphasis on genuine affection and character.
When using a number system to rate films for as long as I have, one begins to develop a conscious idea about what number represents certain films. In my book, anything ranked at eight or above typically constitutes either a classic, or a film I think will be looked upon as a classic in the next twenty years. Dinner For Schmucks dosen't rank quite so high, but it puts up a great fight.
*There's nothing I love more than a bit of feedback, good or bad. So drop me a line on jnatsis@iprimus.com.au and let me know what you thought of my review.* -
It's remarkable how quickly the new comedy Dinner for Schmucks disappears from your brain. I can recall laughing my way through the vast majority of the film--mostly soft laughs, but there were more than a few big, hearty laughs from deep down in the diaphragm. (One might more economically call such a laugh a "guffaw," but guffaw is such a silly word I refuse to acknowledge I might ever participate in one.)
Despite the inarguable fact that I was entertained throughout the entirety of Dinner for Schmucks -- a film that never actually uses the word "schmuck," but we'll get to that -- I can't deny feeling rather empty while considering it a little more than a day later. I think this must be why many reviewers are giving the flick fairly lukewarm marks, though they had to be laughing their respective asses off on occasion just as I was.
There are lots of reasons not to respect the movie. There's the fact that it's reportedly a fairly pale "reimagination" of a French film, Francis Veber's Le dîner de cons (The Dinner Game). (I haven't seen the original, so I can't compare.) The screenplay is inarguably mediocre. Some of the characters, especially those at the eventual dinner, are lazily imagined. And it's disappointing to see Paul Rudd, who's capable of much more interesting, brilliantly caustic characters (in Wet Hot American Summer and Anchorman, for starters) relegated to playing yet another purely-reactive straight man.
And yet... Dinner for Schmucks is funny. Very funny. Occasionally laugh- out-loud funny. It's like a frozen Snickers bite-size bar when you're having a chocolate craving: Incredibly satisfying for about five minutes... after which, you'll forget all about it.
Yet I can't help wanting to recommend Schmucks, and dammit, that's exactly what I'm going to do. Because for the ninety minutes you're in the theater, it is a lot of fun. It's a much better date night film than, say, the relentlessly mediocre Date Night.
Those two films don't just share a star in Steve Carell. They also share a philosophy: Take a half-interesting situation, flesh it out a bit with half-written characters and a half-written screenplay, and let the stars make it sing. Date Night was only moderately tolerable because it had Carell and the always-entertaining Tina Fey as its leads. With Carell and Rudd joined by a far more interesting supporting cast (and a much sharper director), Schmucks is like Date Night done right.
Carell and Rudd are consummate comedic pros with perfect chemistry together. You can't help but figure working together in Anchorman and The 40-Year-Old Virgin played a role there. With the expert guidance of director Jay Roach (helmer of the Austin Powers and Meet the Parents/Fockers series), they mine every possible laugh out of every line, every expression, every reaction shot.
That's especially impressive because neither actor is working with a particularly well-crafted role here. Barry (Carell) is an amalgam of all sorts of odd eccentricities and levels of confusion, though his meticulous talent at turning dead mice into works of art suggests he's some sort of idiot savant. As many a commercial has already informed you, he gets invited to a very different sort of social dinner by Tim, a finance executive desperate to impress his bosses.
Tim is virtually indistinguishable from the other "straight men" Rudd has played in recent comedies. Only the goofball buddy and the gorgeous girlfriend change. In Role Models, Rudd suffers through Seann William Scott's crazy schemes, which threaten his relationship with Elizabeth Banks. In I Love You, Man, Rudd's new "bromance" with Jason Segal threatens his engagement to Rashida Jones. And in Schmucks, Rudd's dinner plans with Carell threaten to derail his planned engagement to fresh face Stephanie Szostak.
Schmucks ramps up the funny thanks to Roach's direction and some extremely well-chosen supporting players. It's very strange that Zach Galifianakis' name doesn't even appear on the Schmucks poster, especially given how hot he is following The Hangover and how heavily he's featured in the commercials. Though he appears in what amounts to only two scenes, the actor hijacks the film wholesale, and not in the wild, over-the-top sort of cameo you might expect from, say, a Will Ferrell or Ben Stiller.
Following suit, albeit with much more screen time, is Flight of the Conchords' Jemaine Clement, who does do the over-the-top thing as avant garde artist Kieran, and it's perfectly brilliant. (One can easily foresee a Get Him to the Greek-type spin off for the character.) Every time Schmucks threatens to stall, it wisely finds a way to weave Kieran back into the proceedings.
The longest period in which we don't see Kieran is also Schmucks' weakest stretch, the actual dinner itself. The French original apparently never included the actual dinner, and maybe that was a good move. The boss who puts on the dinner actually considers it a "dinner for idiots" -- the word "schmucks" is never used, and one figures that term came from some studio exec worried about the word "idiot."
Barry's fellow idiots at the dinner aren't particularly funny, and this is where the film goes for some fairly broad laughs that are only fitfully amusing. In fact, the best part of the dinner is when Barry gets to show off some of his "mousterpieces," a segment that's more than a little touching.
Despite such faults, Schmucks plays it smart most of the time. It's sad that Office Space's Ron Livingston doesn't have much to do as Tim's nemesis, but two Daily Show personalities, Larry Wilmore and Kristen Schaal (also of Conchords), are pitch-perfect in small roles.
On the whole, Schmucks isn't one of the decade's great comedies. But if you're satisfied with laughing for 90 minutes, and enjoying talented actors rise (well) above their material, it's definitely worth your time. -
gotku20 December 20101st time i'm writing a review on IMDb, but i had to say how bad is this movie.
Im french and the original movie "Le diner de con" was one of the funniest movies have ever seen. I still can remember the 1st time i seen it in theater 12 years ago. Like all the people in the room i laugh my ass of. I cry by laughing so hard during all the movie (sorry for my English). And every time i saw it again on video, the magic still working
The only time i laugh in "Dinner for Schmucks" was in the very beginning when we see the mouses pictures. I thought it was well found , a good idea for the lobby of the "idiot". After that, nothing... Few smiles in the first part of the movie but thats all.
Im a big fan of Steve Carrel but in this movie his character is too idiot, its too much. The reason why the original movie was that funny its because its was realistic in a way. Her its just too much and for me it make it loose all the fun. And its like that for all the character and the situation.
The reason the original was so funny, and was such a huge success when it was released in France,it is because the writing was very well done, very subtle. "The idiot" is funny because he is clumsy, do some stuffs too quick without thinking of the aftermaths, but he is not in any way somebody that look like he escape from an asylum with 10 of IQ like Carrel character in this remake..
Very hard to go to the end of this movie.. In fact during watching it i had to check on IMDb to see some reviews to see if i was the only one who didn't laugh at all. Im surprise to see that many people finding this one hilarious. May be the fact i see the original movie, knowning the mecanic of the script. But i try to see this one with a fresh eye.
Anyway it doesn't work, and this one is the worst movie iv seen this year. My English isn't good enough to express what i fell about this movie but for me its a waste, a shame consedering the original material, as i said its my first review her but i had to warm people. My only advice, watch the original.
It is a typical Hollywood failed remake when the writter thought "let's make the schmuck even stupidier so it will be even funnier!!!" Nope... it doesn't work like this.
Again, sorry for my English, i just hope you get the the point. -
Just finished watching "Dinner for Schmucks". To me it's a typical rom-com, but there's this weird guy in it that steals the show. I really liked the "mice"-en-scenes, the ones at the dinner were lame, but the scenes Barry recreated from his marriage were beautiful in an odd way. I liked Steve Carell, as Barry, because surprisingly of all the over the top characters in this movie, he was the most believable and lovable and I'm not a fan. It took me a lot of time to like him in "The Office", but thanks to Comedy Central over here in Holland and after a lot of sleepless nights with absolutely nothing else to watch, he kind of grew on me. Zach Galifianakis character was great too, but the only things that had me laughing out loud was some of the slapstick. S o was it a good movie? Yes, enjoyable enough for a Sunday afternoon. I tried to watch the original "Le dinner du cons" before I saw this remake but I couldn't stand it, because of the slow pace. Now I have seen the remake and was pleasantly surprised, I just had to watch the original, because everyone keeps saying it's so much better. I used to love Louis de Funes and the Pink Panther movies when I was a boy (and yes I know Clouseau wasn't really French!), so I gave it another go. I was happy to see Jacques Villeret, the sidekick of Louis de Funes in a couple of movies, but I guess that's also the problem. He needs someone else to shine and he didn't really on his own. The dialogs were more tongue in cheek than laugh out loud funny and I really feel sorry for people who think this is the funniest movie ever I was also very disappointed that the actual dinner wasn't in the movie, because I expected the French to outshine the remake in it. So if you like Steve Carell you'll love this movie and as a remake I think it did improve on the original even though they gave it a typical Hollywood ending. If you really want to see a train wreck of a remake, I still think Louis de Funes' "Oscar" by Sly Stallone is the worst remake ever!
-
jmleger-830-56635428 August 2010The French original was a scream, which is why they bought the rights. Instead of subtitling the original, they went for a remake à la sauce américaine. Just as in the case of The Vanishing, La Femme Nikita, Un Indien Dans la Ville, Le Grand Chemin and a dozen other films (at least), the remake is just plain awful. Steve Carell is reprising the late and much-regretted role played by Jacques Villeret. While the latter was believable as tax inspector with an interest in building structures out of toothpicks, Carell as a half-looney artistic taxidermist is way over the top. Bollywood made a version which was watchable, but the Hollywood version is a mess.
-
The worst thing that can happen to a movie is high expectation i think this what made people so angry with this movie i mean the cast alone should have been enough to create a hit comedy right ? ... wrong
this movie is a solid 6.5 its not bad or horrible if you just sit back and watch it for what it is a sweet light comedy
but people go into movies these days with lists of previous hit comedies to compare it with .. which causes them to miss-out on the movie they are coming to see.
i used to be like that and I reached the point where no movie was good enough ... well not any more.
this movie is good with light lovable characters and thats just fine ..! -
Painfully unfunny. As a fan of Steve Carell and Paul Rudd (not to mention Jermaine Clement and Zak G) and sometimes of director Jay Roach, it's hard to reckon how none of these talented people noticed how strained, mean-spirited and downright ridiculous this comedy is. No one behaves like an actual human being, and Carell's "loser" character is so annoying you're insulted when the script asks us to find him lovable-- you'd rather strangle him. A deeply cynical, formulaic farce without a shred of anything resembling reality. Even the broadest comedy has to be based in some recognizable behavior. It mocks the bad corporate villains for making fun of the fools invited to the party, and does the same thing itself. A few scattered laughs is the best you can hope for. What a waste of talented people. The producers should be spanked.
-
pogoddess10 July 2018Not only is it hilarious, it has a great message. To be able to tell a meaningful story about friendship, acceptance and triumph over adversity surrounded by physical comedy and ridiculous characters isn't easy to do. This one nails it!
-
"Dinner for Schmucks" has a clever title but it needed to spend more time on the main course. The audience is subjugated to almost one and a half hours of build up time before the dinner bell rings. It's not time wasted though, the story does make good use of its two hour run time. However, I felt like I was on a plane taxiing down the runway trying to get up enough speed to take off and once in flight the plane kept dipping and then pulling back up; then it finally it made an abrupt landing and the flight was over.
We are first introduced to Tim (played by Paul Rudd), an investment analyst, who is presented an opportunity to pounce on a new promotion at work. The story is set up as most business tales are told. The boss has an important client, the main character is presented with a once in a life time opportunity to prove his worth and so on and so forth. While in the process he learns something about himself.
The business men (one of whom is played by Ron Livingston from "Office Space" fame) are the typical jerks who will do anything to keep on top of the dog pile. In this particular dog pile they also like to pick on the smaller, weaker dogs. It just so happens that the big dogs are having their "dinner for winners" in a few days. Tim now has a great chance to prove to his boss he will go to any length to earn the new position. The catch is that he has to find a loser to bring to dinner. They then have a contest, unbeknown to the losers, to see who the biggest schmuck is.
Tim finds his loser immediately the next day not by chance but because as Tim so wisely says "everything happens for a reason". Welcome aboard, Barry (played by Steve Carell), here the story starts picking up a little steam. Barry has a unique talent of finding the positive in almost any situation, he mispronounces words that any 5th grader knows, works for the IRS and in his spare time works on his "Mouseterpieces". A perfect fit for Tim. A "Mouseterpiece" is Barry's taxidermy side projects where he takes dead mice and mounts them in familiar historical and everyday scenarios (i.e. The Last Supper, mice having a picnic, Whistler's Mother, etc).
A lot of activity happens in that single night before the big dinner; Tim and Barry break into one of Tim's girlfriend's biggest clients' homes and finds him in a weird sexual perversion act. Next Barry accidentally invites Tim's ex-fling, Darla, over to the apartment and the first laugh riot is finally given to the audiences through a funny fight scene between Barry and Darla. Then it is on to the IRS to talk to Barry's boss, Therman (played by Zach Galifianakis), who is also a self proclaimed mind reader. Have you noticed they still haven't made it to the dinner yet? The next day Tim has a brunch appointment with a potential multi million dollar client where Barry and Darla show up trying to smooth things over. Again the straight man, Tim, and goofy man, Barry, routine starts up and we are given another good laugh. It was a pretty easy set up; take a high pressure situation and place it in any restaurant that has a Maitre d' next mix in a socially inept character such as Barry and something funny is bound to happen.
After all of this we are finally taken out to dinner. The peculiar thing was that the dinner only lasts 15 minutes. This was a shame because the story could have spent more time on the losers that came to dinner. There was some great talent there, one being Jeff Dunham, a humorous ventriloquist who has been working stand up clubs for the last two decades. It felt like the director (Jay Roach) should have pumped the brakes, slowed up and gave these losers some more screen time. We did get another laugh riot when Therman and Barry had an invisible shoot out between their mind reading capabilities. Then it was over with a nice epilogue to the story through Barry's "Mouseterpieces".
Should you see this movie? Ummm OK, why not? There were some funny bits to it, the storyline was solid and the comedic actors were funny but didn't have to try too hard for the jokes. Rudd plays a good straight man in these situations where Carell and Galifianakis can play off of him quite easily. -
littlemartinarocena31 July 2010As I'm in Los Angeles at the moment, I was overwhelmed by the amount of publicity. If you switch on the TV there's bound to be a clip of the movie telling us, how funny the movie is. So, can you imagine the surprise. The film is remarkably "unfunny" Didn't the marketing geniuses knew that we were going to find out. Were they just trying to make a killing at the box office for the opening week end? Knowing that this thing couldn't possibly have legs, presumably that was the strategy but, I think that if they had been more honest about what they were selling, the movie could have more of a chance with a knowing audience. How infuriating! I saw it at the great Arclight theaters in Hollywood, a full house with only scattered giggles every so often. I must confess I don't get Steve Carrell. A comic genius? A comic wonder? Please! When we finally get to the actual dinner, the premise gets contradicted immediately and the whole thing becomes a total confusing mess. There are a couple of good moments and Paul Rudd, that's why 4 out of 10 and not a resounding 1.
-
I think it was the great comedian Edmund Gwenn who made the statement that "Dying is easy, comedy is hard." That is probably true but I am convinced that there are some actors who can make comedy look easy. At his best, Steve Carrell does just that. In 'Dinner for Schmucks' he occupies the role of Barry Speck, a blithering idiot for whom life is a jolly holiday and cynicism is a notion that seems to have passed him over. Barry's view of the world is devoid of irony or whimsy, he stares blankly with wide eyes and a stupid grin and never seems to understand what is happening right in front of him.
Let me give you an example. Near the beginning of the movie, Barry is being seduced by a blond bimbo who tells him that she thinks she needs a spanking. We get this exchange:
The Blond: "I'm a naughty school girl. I've been bad." Barry: "You look a little old to be a school girl" The Blond: "You're my schoolmaster. I need to be punished." Barry: "I'm not really qualified for that. I work for the IRS."
That kind of idiocy makes Barry the perfect tool for Tim Conrad (Paul Rudd), a mid-level financial executive who curries favor with his implacable boss Lance Fender (Bruce Greenwood) when he manages to sell a Swiss billionaire on the idea of turning defective bombs into effective, yet unattractive, lamps. Fender is impressed and invites Tim to an annual dinner party at his mansion, a "Dinner for Winners" in which the purpose is for each guest to bring the biggest idiot they can find. The guest with the most entertaining idiot wins a trophy.
The journey getting to that dinner party mostly involves Tim trying to survive Barry's idiocy. He has a way of saying and doing the most outrageous things while maintaining a demeanor that lets us believe that he hasn't the slightest clue that his behavior is the least bit odd, even his hobby of making cute dioramas with dead mice.
The first half of the film is genuinely funny, as it observes Barry and his world as he looks out with wide eyes, a goofy smile. Yet, the rest of the movie is spotty. Once we get to know Barry, the movie tries to mix a riot of slapstick comedy with moments of sentimentality that are mostly made up of half-baked speeches about the value of friendship.
The third act gets the film back on track somewhat as we finally arrive at that dinner party. What works are the simple observations about Barry and the other morons in attendance (one of whom is Jeff Dunham who is in a marital spat with one of his dummies). Those characters are funny but the scene goes overboard with a very long battle involving Barry and a nitwit mind-reader named Thurman Munch (Zach Galifianakis) who wears Dickies over his shirts and has a self-satisfied autobiography called "Your Mind Is My Puppet". The scene quickly spirals into a very bizarre area reminiscent of some of Monty Python's lesser sketches.
Steve Carrell is the the entire reason for seeing 'Dinner for Schmucks'. His wonderful performance is pitch perfect, playing a lovable dolt who genuinely believes what he says, even when he confesses to Tim that the reason his wife left his that "I lost her clitoris". To see the deadpan look in his eyes is to understand that Barry believes this statement completely. It is also possibly to understand why his wife really left him.
*** (of four) -
Being a fan of the cast, I will admit that I didn't like the trailers for this. The premise seemed a bit too mean-spirited and didn't seem like one we could really relate to, and Steve Carell seemed to be presented as a cross between Michael Scott and Sandra Bullock's character from All About Steve, in other words, very annoying and irritating. So I caught a free advanced screening because I like the cast, but was unsure if I wanted to pay to see it.
I was pleasantly surprised that this made me laugh a good number of times, but I wouldn't call it this year's Hangover because it felt different. To me it was half funny and half not-so-funny and/or too weird.
Pros:
-The "mouseterpieces" were pretty inspired.
-The dinner sequence was the most consistently funny part of the movie.
-Jermaine Clement is the most consistently funny character of the bunch.
-Paul Rudd's brunch with Steve Carell, Lucy Punch, and David Walliams was one of my personal favorite scenes.
Mixed:
-Steve Carell, Zach Galifianakis, and Lucy Punch all made me laugh at points, but the problem I have with their kinds of characters is that they don't really change throughout the movie, hence their routines get a bit tiresome for me.
Cons:
-The pacing was slower than The Hangover as well as other comedies I've seen as of late, thus I found a fair number of dull spots, particularly in the first two-thirds of the movie before the dinner. I think the movie was nearly two hours long.
-Certain people like Ron Livingston and Larry Wilmore felt underused.
-I like Paul Rudd and this is probably a fault of the script, but him playing the straight man has gotten kinda old. It's pretty much the same as I Love You, Man, but instead of focusing more on his social life like in that film, it focuses more on his professional life and it's not as interesting. He has some occasional quips, but the moments before he meets Steve Carell feel the most dull, and when he does meet him, Carell's outrageousness causes Rudd to take a backseat, and for a moment I forgot he was in the movie. However, like I said, this is more likely the fault of the script that causes him to just stand or sit and watch Carell rather than go head to head with him, which I believe Rudd, as a comedic actor, is capable of doing.
-More about the script, I could pretty much tell how it would end, but how it got there made the ending feel rather abrupt and quite unbelievable, mainly because of how it painted Rudd up to that point. Also, the script didn't feel like it left room for much improv, something which these actors have shown to be very good at, so most of the movie felt too heavily scripted and it seemed to drag it down a bit. Additionally, I didn't find the romance aspect strong enough story-wise to make me care all that much about Rudd. Stephanie Szostak was pretty cute, but she ain't Rashida Jones, and she's not in the movie much.
-This is a minor gripe, but some intense closeups were rather annoying.
Bottom Line:
All in all, despite my complaints, there were some good laughs to be had. It was a good one time watch, but I don't know if I'd want to pay to watch it again. However, if there were a spin off with Jermaine Clement, not unlike Russell Brand with Get Him to the Greek, I would pay to see that movie. -
keldabefeegle31 January 2011Dinner for schmucks is not the clever but nasty French version, it is an American comedy with reasonable comedy value without the really mean character of the original film. I watched this film expecting to hate it. The two main actors in my view are middle of the road to less than funny in every film I have seen them in. In this film Steve Carell is the funniest I have ever seen him. He manages to pull of the comedy that the French film does not. The dialog is clever and the support cast are effective, all playing their part. I laughed a lot, was touched by certain scenes and overall it was a good watch. If you are a film lover who dislikes nastiness in films, and dislikes coming away with that unhappy feeling in your gut, then its possible you will actually like this version of the original. Worth your time.
-
bwwalton2 August 2010Movie Started at 7pm... by 815 I left my Gf my brother and his Gf to go outside and relax in the car. Steve Carrol is just plain stupid in this movie, and really I normally enjoy his humor. However, this one missed the mark! I really wanted to ask people during the film what they found funny. Worst movie I've seen in 5 years! And sadly my last film was Inception. To go from such an excellent film to this one was painful. Save your hard earned dollars and rent one tonight... this one is FUBAR'd.. I felt in some ways they tried to copy getting to the Greek and just really missed the boat. The cast all fit very well except, you've guessed it Steve Carrol. Honestly, if you enjoy his humor as I have in the past SKIP THIS MOVIE. I tried to watch the office when I got home and due to his performance in this film I felt like it changed my whole view on this gentleman as an actor and comedian. Hope this helps! Be excellent to each other!!!
-
son-jeff-nguyen6 August 2010Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. This is no an Inception, Shutter Island type of movie. This was made for good laughs, entertaining. I thought is was cute. Bathroom humor? Hardly. Do you make even more terrible jokes than those everyday? Yes, you do.
There are nights for Inception, Shutter Island, Avatar. And there're nights for movies like Dinners for Schmucks. Have you not read the title when you purchased the tickets? I bet you haven't. The people who actually bought a tickets for a movie entitled "Dinner for Schmucks" should know exactly what they're getting themselves into. If not, maybe having a good laugh once in a while isn't your thing after all. -
It's not just that it's a completely awful adaptation, it's that it's an extremely BAD movie. I didn't watch this movie to compare it to the original, I really just wanted to watch the American version, after all the American version of "The Birdcage" was great. However, this movie is just plain crap! The original movie is funny because it's smart but the people who put this horrible fart of a movie together seem to have relied on the assumption that viewers would be either extremely drunk or superbly stupid to exude even a mediocre giggle.
I can't even finish watching this thing but it looks like the makers adapted what they thought were the best scenes from original and threw in some ridiculous scenes of their own without providing any material to connect or justify it all.
Really, total crap! It looks like the whole production was slapped together with the minimum amount of effort possibly required. Even Paul Rudd's acting is sloppy at many points. His character, Tim, is inconsistent throughout and the casting for his secretary is just awful. I just don't see what is funny about that bland woman. So many talented actors out there, it doesn't take much to select someone half-decent.
Some of the worst scenes: it makes no sense that Tim was able to spot an idiot if he'd never had to spot one before. The scene where Darla the stalker goes to Tim's apartment is just plain stupid. And when Barry & Tim go to the artist's apartment, c'mon! The artist doesn't even ask how they got in, just acts as if they've run into one another in the street.
I wonder if Rudd's and Carell's careers are already on the decline for them to accept doing such a terribly awful movie. And what's happening in Hollywood? Gotta stop hiring each other's friends and get some talented people to write scripts. There's NO shortage of writers in this world, the industry can do better if it wants. -
tin-B11 September 2016It never ceases to amaze me how truly humorous and emotionally inspiring movies like this get trashed by numbheads and these same numbheads fall all over those paper cutout movies which meet their "winner" criteria. Those movies may be winners, but this movie is a winner too. Other movies can be winners. Not just the winners.
This movie deserves a 6.5 rating not the current 5.9. At IMDb, a 7.0 is really really good, an 8.0 is a super great magnificent blockbuster. Higher is almost unheard of. But they do exist. Higher rated movies are almost always a sure bet to be a winner. But any movie in the 6's is usually worth watching, while any movie in the 5's is probably pretty okay. Even some movies in the 4's can be okay, so the movies in the 5's are even more okay. But the movies in the 6's are really really good, which would mean the movies in the 7s would have to be changed to exceptionally good, not just really really good.
On the other hand, IMDb ratings can often be totally the result of a bunch of numbheads. We should invite them to dinner.
This is a good movie. -
baryxxx13 December 2019I wanted to stop watching this after half an hour, but forced myself to the end barely, just to see how bad can it really get. I mean, when I looked at the main cast, it showed potential. All great actors with experience in comedy. And I think they are probably ashamed of this film.
This is hands down Steve Carell's worst role I've ever seen. Although, there is no actor who could play this part well. To make a main character in a film this stupid is a blasphemy, all the more if he's supposed to have a job that actually requires to have a functioning brain. Entire duration of film you have a feeling that you're watching a three year old child in a body of Carell. Beside having a overwhelming feeling of desperation for having to even watch this thrash.
And I wouldn't even mind the stupidity of characters if there was a lot of funny situations or dialogues (eg. Dumb and Dumber) but this film is half way between comedy and drama, trying to provoke your compassion for the most stupid, and trying to make you laugh (although unsuccesfully) with bad jokes. Dumb and Dumber had two idiots, and that formula worked. Here, you just watch one idiot surrounded by some really patient people.
Giving it two stars just because I believe there could be even worse films there, so leaving some space for those. -
Dinner for Schmucks is one of the funniest movies I have seen in a long time. I love comedies, but very few make me laugh out loud - but this movie had me bursting out every couple of minutes. I was not alone in that, the theater I saw it in was packed and everyone was in hysterics. Some reviews on here actually complain that it is "low brow" or "stupid" - seriously? Where you expecting a deep and insightful movie? Had you seen the previews? Is it realistic? Of course not (not many movies are - it is called suspension of disbelief). The point of a comedy is to make you laugh. Going in with expectations of anything high brow is absurd. If you like The Office or 40 Year Old Virgin, then you will love this movie - it is in a similar vein, but much cleaner than 40 Year Old Virgin. In fact, it is surprisingly funny for a PG-13 film. Can't understand any of the bad reviews - if you like Steve Carell, Paul Rudd and Jay Roach movies - then this is for you - one of the funniest projects any of them has been involved in.
-
skullballmovies2 August 2010The thought of inviting people to dinner just so you can have a few laughs and make fun of them is extremely cruel, and you may think that that is what the movie is fully about. I can assure you that it isn't. If anything, it's motivating people to act outside of the box, to be themselves. The movie is really fun to watch and I can guarantee you won't regret seeing it. It's funny, it's charming, and it makes you smile. Heck, I smiled through a lot of the movie. However, it does have some bad sides. Like a lot of movies do. It was ridiculous how many bad things were happening to Tim. Also ridiculous that he wasn't acting like a normal human being would. I can tell you that if all of the things that happened to him, happened to me, I would either break down and cry or scream a lot. Or both. Then the more serious parts weren't serious enough. They added too much comedic relief in it and I didn't want that for those scenes. It's a comedy, yeah, but that doesn't mean every minute has to try to be funny. That's how movies get stale and lose your interest. This wasn't stale at all, but it didn't make me crack up. Steve Carell was very natural and a very believable character. He was charming and cool, but dumb as can be. His 'mousterpieces' were outstanding and funny at the same time. Never seen anything like it, probably never will again. Overall, this movie is really enjoyable and you can probably get past the bad parts if you're not a reviewer like me. Check it out if you want to watch an interesting, but at the same time simple, comedy.
-
reinareina-876-81722920 October 2010Is an adaptation of a french movie, "Le dîner de cons", and like always the Americans do a dumber version. If you really want to watch a funny movie make an effort and watch the original one !!! I love these actors but it's a shame ... The English tittle is "The diner game" Each week, Pierre and his friends organize what is called as "un dîner de cons". Everyone brings the dumbest guy he could find as a guest. Pierre thinks his champ -François Pignon- will steal the show. The best to do it's watch the both ... I don't understand why make remake of recent movies like "bienvenue chez les chtis" just because they are in french, Americans can't read subtitles ?!!