|French subtitles Dinner for Schmucks||3 years ago|
|English subtitles Dinner for Schmucks||3 years ago|
|Arabic subtitles Dinner for Schmucks||4 years ago|
|Bulgarian subtitles Dinner for Schmucks||4 years ago|
|Indonesian subtitles Dinner for Schmucks||4 years ago|
|Chinese subtitles Dinner for Schmucks||4 years ago|
|Greek subtitles Dinner for Schmucks||5 years ago|
|Chinese subtitles Dinner for Schmucks||5 years ago|
|Chinese subtitles Dinner for Schmucks||5 years ago|
|Hungarian subtitles Dinner for Schmucks||5 years ago|
|Brazilian Portuguese subtitles Dinner for Schmucks||5 years ago|
|Serbian subtitles Dinner for Schmucks||5 years ago|
|Turkish subtitles Dinner for Schmucks||5 years ago|
|English subtitles Dinner for Schmucks||5 years ago|
|French subtitles Dinner for Schmucks||5 years ago|
|Spanish subtitles Dinner for Schmucks||5 years ago|
|Dutch subtitles Dinner for Schmucks||5 years ago|
5/10 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.4 years ago
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.
1/10 1st time i'm writing a review on IMDb, but i had to say how bad is this movie.4 years ago
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.
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, as i said its my first review her but i had to warm people. My only advice, watch the original.
Again, sorry for my English, i just hope you get the the point.
A bad remake of an hilarious French movie.
1/10 The French original was a scream, which is why they bought the rights. Instead of subtitling the original, they went for a remake a la sauce americaine. 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.4 years ago
Dinner for Schmucks (2010)
4/10 A predictably loud and crass American interpretation of a mini-classic from France. This film is full of comedic actors, unintentionally following the plot of the film. The film sees businessmen bring idiots to dinner, trying to one-up each other. The film itself has a bunch of comedic actors, trying to be as over-the-top as possible, in an attempt to one-up each other. These shenanigans are distracting and sometimes shameful. As Carell and Galifianakis shoot mind bullets at each other, no one is having as much fun as them. Rudd tries to play it likable, while Carell is too stupid to care about. The original had me switching allegiances between a genuinely horrible guy and a doofus. Adding the actual dinner to the film just leads to a predictable message and a painful running time. It's nice to see so many comedians from New Zealand, the UK, and America, but no one has enough to do. The original was subtle, witty, and clever. This is a loud and obnoxious ego inflation.4 years ago
A comedy about and "idiot" changing your life. Carell was born to play this part
7/10 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+4 years ago