| 
| 
Is it worth $10? No
Comedy is all about context and delivery, and “Dinner for Schmucks” succeeds at neither.
Director Jay Roach’s (“Austin Powers”) film is one unfunny comedy sketch after the next, including the actual dinner scene, which doesn’t come until the movie’s final 20 minutes.
How we get to the dinner scene is not interesting or exciting. Tim (Paul Rudd) is in line for a big promotion at work, but his boss (Bruce Greenwood) wants him to complete one more task before making it official: Tim has to bring the biggest idiot he can find to a dinner party. If he has the biggest doof of the bunch, he wins; if not, the promotion could go to someone else.
Tim’s art dealer/curator girlfriend Julie (Stephanie Szostak) thinks this is stupid, and Tim agrees, but wants the promotion too much to not go through with it. Thankfully for him, he accidentally hits dorky mouse taxidermist Barry (Steve Carell) with his car, they talk, Tim invites him to the dinner, and the promotion prospects look good.
What follows is an hour of tired gags, from Julie and Tim getting in a fight to Tim thinking she’s having an affair to Tim’s crazy ex (Lucy Punch) finding his apartment. It’s all been done better before, and it’s boring to watch the formulas play out in such standard ways.
While Roach and the screenwriters also share blame, a lot of the failures fall on Carell. We know he’s a good comedian, but Barry is so inconsistent that it’s hard to get into the story. One moment Barry doesn’t understand Tim’s clear desire to give him money after he hits Barry with his car. The next moment we learn Barry works for the IRS – clearly he understands money. One moment Barry is sophisticated enough to recognize the difficulties of Tim’s relationship, the next he’s asking a Swiss couple if their country’s cheese comes out of the cow with holes already in it. It’s as if Carell and co. want to have it both ways, and in doing so the character doesn’t work at all.
Rudd plays the straight man, so he doesn’t have much to do besides act annoyed. But Zach Galifianakis, who was so funny in “The Hangover,” barely registers a laugh here, which raises the question of whether it’s the material, performances, editing or directing that’s to blame. Given how bad “Dinner for Schmucks” is, it’s all of them.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Cerulean
said:
 |
... I NEVER see comedies at the movies any more, because I am ALWAYS disappointed. So needless to say I went into this movie with no expectations and ready to be disappointed. Maybe I was in a really good mood, but my husband and I laughed our butts off. Did it have much of a plot now, but it was wacky weird funny. Maybe my bar is set too low these days, but I never expect a great plot/story anymore. So if you just wanna feel goofy & laugh. If your looking for stuff that hasn't been done before, a great plot then don't go.  |
brudota
said:
|
... I watched to the movie and I was very very disappointed. While half of the people in the movies were laughing out loud I wanted to go home. It did not work! |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
