Visitors Review

Joe Neumaier (2012-05-25 22:11)

Despite its schticky title, the trick to Dinner for Schmucks isn't the schmucks, although director Jay Roach's funny comedy, adapted from a 1998 French film, makes sure every group of oddballs is represented.

Kurukua (2012-05-25 10:52)

Movie for schmucks

Omg. I can't believe i wasted 2 hours of my life watching this movie. 2hours I will NEVER get back. Please, don't waste your time. This movieowes me 5 stars! If you are watching it expecting it to get better,give it up. It won't. I don't understand how quality actors can makesuch junk! Who edits these movies? I would HATE to see the scenes thatended up on the cutting room floor. Usually, I enjoy both Steve Carell and Paul Rudd. And the actress whoplays Julie is quite charming. I couldn't get enough of Zach g in thehangover movies! But wow, was this a mistake for all of them. Glad Ididn't spend money on this one!

Kam Williams (2012-05-23 15:07)

A mediocre sitcom serving up a half-baked, TV dinner. Check please!

Jamaal Ahmad (2012-05-23 03:03)

Wish I could give it a zero.

Steve Carell and Paul Rudd are very funny actors with some very goodwork done in both of their careers. However, their talent could notsave this remake of an incredibly funny french film(Le dîner de conshttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119038/). This is a very poor film in nearly all aspects with the exception ofthe concept(again, remake). I do not recommend this film for anyone,especially if you have seen the original. And if you haven't seen theoriginal; go watch it. This is one of those movies that tries way tohard to be funny. And it does not do Steve Carell, Paul Rudd or theoriginal film any justice.

reynahernan (2012-05-22 19:13)

I Really Enjoyed this!

At first I was kinda unsure whether or not to rent this movie becauseof a lot of the negative reviews. But I did and I was happy about it. Well it starts of with a stockbroker type of guy(Paul Rudd) who worksin a big office who want's to be one of the big guys. He then runs overa guy (Steve Carell). And apparently wanted to pay Rudd's character forrunning over him. I really found some of the scenes in this moviefunny. I usually don't like comedy movies nowadays because they're justnot funny!! Steve Carrell steals the whole movie with his mouse dioramaor whatever you wanna call it. The whole thing with Darla( Lucy Punch)was really funny too! Well Skip to the end in the dinner scene, reallymade laugh, because of all the other weirdo's especially OctaviaSpencer's character who can communicate with the dead( animals). Theending was somewhat touching and sweet. This movie has its stupidmoments but good to watch when your down in the dumps. But don't expectit to be like LAUGHING SO HARD THAT YOu CANT BREATHE AND YOU JUST SH*TYOUR PANTS but its a fun, entertaining, comedy that will leave you warminside and all that cheesy bull sh*t. So there you have it. I give this movie a 7/10 :)

Paul Byrnes (2012-05-22 00:05)

It cost around $70 million, according to the Los Angeles Times, which is about $5 million per laugh if I'm generous.

justiceandstrength (2012-05-19 16:28)

Comedy fun with genius moments

Wonderful uplifting comedy. It revels in satirical absurdity, but alsostirs deeper emotions. Whilst the production is slick it retainsartistic integrity and depth. I am happy to recommend it as it made melaugh and put me in a good mood. A true gem in a cynical world. I especially liked the contrast of the successful artist who isnarcissistic and shallow with the naive hobbyist artist that makesbeautiful touching mouse dioramas. The mouse dioramas are beautiful.The storyline kept me guessing, perhaps helped by the fact that I havenot seen the earlier french film it is based on. It makes no apologyfor being a feel good movie and perhaps there are flaws but it is veryfunny and has an endearing empathic quality.

Brian Orndorf (2012-05-19 12:09)

If there ever was a film that could've been a multiplex miracle at 80 minutes, it's this movie. Instead, matters meander for nearly two hours, diminishing a pure expression of stupidity, carried out by a prepared, skilled ensemble.

Claudia Puig (2012-05-19 09:57)

Where the French leads were nasty, Steve Carell and Paul Rudd have an inherently likable quality even when playing a foolish sap and a cutthroat businessman.

Lisa Schwarzbaum (2012-05-19 01:18)

A bland, summer-sloppy comedy that never risks actually swimming with schmucks and letting characters bruise themselves on outcroppings of mean fun.

Antonia Quirke (2012-05-15 04:32)

The plot rises or falls on our laughing in recognition that we too are capable of the perverse and unkind. Instead, 10 minutes in, we just feel dead.

Tony Heck (2012-05-14 09:21)

A comedy about and "idiot" changing your life. Carell was born to play this part

An account executive (Rudd) discovers the only way for him to get apromotion 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 starsalone this is a must rent. This is one of those movies that come outwhere the script alone has a chance of being really funny, but it allcomes down to casting. In this case the casting of every part, even thelittle ones, is what pushes this movie over the top into one of thefunniest movies that has been released in a while. It's hard to imaginewhat the movie would have been like with out Rudd and Carell but I'mguessing not as good. This part seems written for Carell, he plays itperfectly and it is his funniest role since Brick in "Anchorman". Theone downfall of the movie is that it is entirely predictable (mostcomedies are), but it is still a fun ride till the end. It seems likeevery comedy since the "Hangover" promotes itself as "The funniestmovie since the Hangover", this one can actually live up to thatstandard. A definite must watch and I dare you not to laugh. I give ita B+

Jackie K. Cooper (2012-05-14 08:45)

If you are hungry for a good comedy this one will cause you to lose your appetite

tedg (2012-05-13 19:10)

Ironic Irony

Regular readers of my comments know I am interested in narrativedevices that I call "folding." Sometimes it must seem a stretch, but ifever there was an obviously engineered example, here it is.The spine of the thing is your standard romantic comedy formula. Guyloves girl. Guy loses girl, usually through a misunderstanding. Guygets girl back at the end, usually involving a statement of love infront of an audience.One twist is that this has an image of a spine used in another genre:Guy has misplaced values. Guy is tested in an unlikely, noirish way.Guy is redeemed at the end by finding "the true meaning of life." Thespecific variant has an outsider that enters the guy's life, astranger. The formula requires that this stranger exemplifies naturalwisdom. This used to be an "aw-shucks" sort of guy. In the modernpolitical environment, actual stupidity and denial of realityqualifies.The second spine is folded into the first, which is easy. They don'tconflict at all until the end where have the redemption coopting thescene with the on-screen audience and the rejoining of the lovershappens in a second ending empowered by inner folds.As with the spines, these explicit folds are two. One is the"perfomance" within that the title references: an audience invites thedumb to a dinner and awards a prize for the most entertainingstupidity. This is a traditional fold of the play-within-a-play sort. The second fold involves the wise stranger. He makes dioramas ofpreserved mice in costumes. This must have been a challenge to thewriters because they pulled the biggest guns we know: John Lennon (whenhis 70th birthday re-awakens his memory). The valuable establishing fewminutes at the beginning of the film are spent letting us know thatLennon's wisdom/idealism is to be related to these mouse-scenes.Because it is the first we see, it is the moral core of the world ofthe film.This inner fold of the dioramas is merged with the inner fold of thedinner performance. A temporary weld is written in, involving imaginedmind control. I don't suppose the writer diagrammed this structure; it likely wasenvisioned intuitively from attunement with where the public is going.But I can guarantee that the producers did, and also that they addedthe Lennon and mind control elements to bind the mix. This is becausewe as the viewing public appreciate these complex narrative structures.We also appreciate irony that is placed a half step ahead of themainstream. As I write this, that mainstream irony (stupidity as truth) is fueledby the Fox News empire and defined as comic irony by John Stewart ofcomedy central. Lest you think this isn't engineered to the finestdegree, at the dinner is a blind swordfighter, who cuts off the fingerof an obsolete aristocrat. Both are carefully designed to fitstereotypes devised by both sides in the polarized public.The appeal of this film will fade as our notions of irony and narrativefolding evolve, but for now it hits a sweet spot.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

Jane Stevenson (2012-05-13 08:20)

That the film would be funny, at times hilarious, despite having the potential to be needlessly cruel, is not exactly a surprise given the two actors' proven chemistry in those prior films.

Saad Khan (2012-05-12 23:51)

The only thing enjoyable in the movie was the Little Dead Mouse's Art!

DINNER WITH SCHMUCKS – TRASH IT ( D ) Dinner with Schmucks isAnnoyingly Painful & intolerable. Paul Rudd is playing almost the samerole which he plays 80% of his movies. Their was nothing new aboutthat. Steven Carroll is terribly annoying so to an extent we can saythat he acted well because it made me hate his character but thesubstance of the movie was so amateurishly dealt that not for a secondit seemed like a genuine movie. The Russell Band wanna be was Horrific,Russell Band somehow gone little Big after playing Aldous Snow andObviously Being Katy Perry's husband. So, they cast another actordepicting the attics Russell band has been Shoving our faces as AldousSnow. That was A Horrific Idea. Zack Galifianakis manage to create somelaughs. Stephanie Szostak was Okay and Lucy Punch was irritating.Overall, it's a Horrible Horrible remake of French and Indian movie.The only thing enjoyable in the movie was the Little Dead Mouse's Art!

Drew McWeeny (2012-05-10 06:40)

Dinner For Schmucks might not be to everyone's tastes, but it went down easy for me, and since I saw it several weeks ago, I've been interested in a second helping.

Peter Howell (2012-05-09 12:55)

In adapting Francis Veber's 1998 French farce Le Dîner des cons (The Dinner Game), Roach and his writers David Guion and Michael Handelman have completely defanged it.

creedreaper (2012-05-08 07:23)

Hands Down the Best Comedy of 2010

I haven't laughed this much since The Hangover. This movie wasabsolutely hilarious and exactly what was expected from Steve Carell.His character was just brilliant. Paul Rudd was excellent and offcoursethe man who needs no introduction: Zach Galifianakis was at his best. Ican see why some people wouldn't like this movie if their sense ofhumor did not like the Hangover then they will no like this movie. Ithad many clever moments, excellent comic timings, and very wickedstoryline. Also if ur an office space fan then your in for a treatbecause Ron Livingston is in this movie and this movie had a lot ofenvironment like office space and Ron Livingston had a new role which ufans will love. Overall I loved every aspect of this movie and wishthere would be another movie with the same Steve Carell's role.

Laura Clifford (2012-05-07 23:32)

...the rare remake that is as good as the original. Only I wasn't all that hot on the original.