Dinner for Schmucks (2010) Reviews

• Disappointing...

  gotku2010-12-20

  1st 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.

• Dinner sucks

  eneyeseekaywhy2010-08-22

  In 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.

• A bad remake of an hilarious French movie.

  jmleger-830-5663542010-08-28

  The 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.

• critical review

  balthazar-feron2012-06-28

  Dinner for Schmucks is the adaptation of the French movie "Le dinner de Cons" which in itself is an adaptation of the play of the same name. In the original version Pierre Brochant (Thierry L'Hermitte) is a successful editor that takes part in monthly dinners where each host has to invite "a schmuck". On the night where Pierre and his "schmuck are supposed to go to dinner Pierre hurts his back and is unable to attend the dinner, therefore the evening takes a very strange turn of events including his wife's ex-husband an I.R.S inspector and a car accident. When David Guion and Michael Handelman put there hands on this script not only did they change the whole idea of the movie they also transformed it's meaning, the original version had a deeply ironic tone in which Francois Pignon (Tim) trying to do the right thing makes everything worse whereas in this version everything finishes well. In the American remake the movie is filled with an insane artist, a crazy ex-girlfriend and a psychic nemesis. The American company responsible for this release turned into ridicule a French classic. The message of hope conveyed in the movie is feeble and not believable in any way. Overall Big Brother has come in with a big wallet and once again transformed a French masterpiece into a ridiculous feel-good American production. The only positive note is the act of both Steve Carell and Paul Rudd who despite a shaky scenario manage to pull off a great performance. To sum-up I highly recommend the original version and advise you to stay away from the American re-make.

• A strained, misbegotten remake with a few chuckles at best

  octave-32010-07-28

  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.