Steve Carell is brilliant in his best film role since The 40-Year-Old Virgin. In fact, he has never been better on the big screen than he is here, delivering a perfect, warm-hearted performance as a man without a clue. This is a Sellers-as-Clouseau caliber comic turn. Note for note, from the one-liners to the physical presence, Carell nails this character. I was in awe, which is to say I could not stop laughing. The rest of the cast is also strong. Paul Rudd is in fine, charming form (when is he not?) and the supporting players, including Zach Galifianakis and Flight of the Conchords' Jemaine Clement, are colorful and memorable.

The cast is the reason "Dinner" soars, but it is a well-crafted film in general. It runs a well-paced two hours, has a surprising wealth of inspired quirks (brain control, "mouse"-terpieces, etc.), and it also boasts a genuine heart underneath the broad humor. Also, it uses the Beatles classic "The Fool on the Hill" to perfection.

The trailer for this film was mediocre at best, but I hope people still give it a chance. I did because I had faith in Carell, Rudd, Galifianakis, and director Jay Roach (Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery, Meet the Parents), and they indeed have delivered. Carell in particular. This is a gem.

A-

.
.
.
.................................I abso-freakin-lutely love Dinner For Schmucks!





....I can't wait to see it's brilliance again...
.................believe it or not heathens, this film treads the field in the same league as the mighty Planes, Trains, and Automobiles.




..........................................................................................☟
...........................................☞A new classic is born unto mankind today.☜
..........................................................................................☝







......................................................................................Hallelujah!





3125 out of 5.

The original is probably better.

3125 out of 5. Wow.

I'm actually kind of nervous now.

Damnit, The Dinner Game (Le dîner de cons) never played here back in'98 - - - - though, if it actually is better than the exquisite Dinner For Schmucks, it might just be too overwhelming for me.

(There was also a Bollywood remake in 2007!)

((Please post your review of The Dinner Game!!!))

Dinner for Schmucks is an awful film, joining the likes of the worst films of the decade I have seen in a theater along with Serving Sara and Win a Date with Tad Hamilton.

The only reason I gave it D is it does a have a few hilarious bits, and most of the performers do the best they can with the material. However, it has a despicable premise that calls into question a viewer's capability to identify with certain characters. If he falls for the trap, the viewer becomes culpable.

Paul Rudd's character and his character's girlfriend never react to how a real person would react to Steve Carell's character. His character's hobby is presented as ridiculously idiotic for most of the film when I just found it eccentric. His work is extremely creative and shows flashes of brillance for someone the film treats as an idiot. Improbable situations continue to arise from unreal reactions of numerous characters.

The styles of talented performers like David Walliams and Jemaine Clement clash with those of Rudd and Carell. The film beyond its reprehensible premise is never able to seem the least bit cohesive. The schizophrenic nature of the film is symbolized by the need for the viewer to laugh at someone less fortunate than ourselves, then wants the viewer to villify characters in the film that react as the audience has been for the first three quarters of the film.

After the first three hours, I started treating it as an attrocious SNL episode with a few skits that didn't suck. There is some sort of time continuam discrepancy as this five hour film is only listed as being 114 mins. long. Trying to mine some of the same territory as Neal LaBute's In the Company of Men (1997) and Nancy Savoca's Dogfight (1991), this film fails miserably. For a comedy to work, it has to be rooted in some form of reality, and this film for the entire 5 hrs never has one honest moment. Rent Dogfight of In the Company of Men, if you want an honest treatment of male cruelty and sick corporate male bonding rituals. They are vastly superior films worth your time and effort. Avoid this one like a dead mouse carrying the bubonic plague.

That would mean instead jumping in front of cars to see it if you're Barry.

I loved it! Phenomenal cast, especially props to Steve Carrell. It actually turned out to be a much sweeter movie than I would have guessed. Jay Roach always seems to be successful in directing long, comedic scenes (like the dinner scene in Meet the Parents), and it shows again here.

B+

"I thought she lost it in her purse..."

Damn you, bradley.

Yeah, this was a big disappointment. It's not that funny.

An admirably zany comedy with a pretty solid number of amusing gags and one-liners. The movie would probably have been a disaster if it didn't have adept comedians like Steve Carell and Paul Rudd in the lead, but the two actors play off each other very well and totally sell the movie. B

Steve Carrel is awesome in this film, the rest is mostly people's reactions to him. See it for Carrell, everyone else is just there, though Rudd and Zach are their typically good selfs. Its not as funny as say I love you Man or Role Models but Rudd and Carrell continue to be a great comedy team.

B+

I saw Dinner For Schmucks again tonight... though unfortunately with a dud audience.

I figured Tuesday would be the lively cheap crowd who might just dig a magnificent low comedy like this one, but nope! It was a dud.

I found myself entombed in that theatre, choking on the thousand years dust of the living humor dead! My skin immediately felt clammy, as if I were surrounded by hundreds of sodden wet blankets...

...luckily, there were several small groups of appreciative connoisseurs spread about the auditorium to guide me back to the sweet, sweet light of the comedic epiphany that is Dinner For Schmucks, and I was blessed to witness this very wonderful comedy movie for a second glorious time. This is seriously old school in it's respect for the low comedy form - - a strong emotionally uplifting tone beats under it's superficially hard-hearted plot line.

I can only imagine how many KJer's are the dud audience members at comedy movies? There's a fair percentage to be sure. And if you look only at the more specific low comedy genre, I'd say the h8trs are clearly in the majority here.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

I myself am a horror movie dud.

They almost never work for me. I know that. So I rarely go to them. I'm happy.

What I don't understand is the mirthless proles populating the ranks of my local theatre's presentation of the most delightful comedy to come down the Hollywood pipe this year. Well, I guess I kinda do. Some are definitely dragged their by friends and family (who should know better than bringing these positive energy suckers (for their benefit and ours)).

When seeing movies on a big screen in a quality theatre, there are few other pleasures greater than sharing the emotional energy vibe with a lively audience fully engaged by the film. This is certainly true of comedy films, where the audiences' laughter becomes a self-feeding accelerating reaction - - if harnessed, we could say adios to oil, nuclear, solar for good!

But no.

There's gunk clogging the powerful gear wheels of comedy energy - - there's duds in the house!

I think that is my favorite Bardley post ever.

Dinner for Schmucks was decent, but far from great.

Thought it was on the long side and the movie lost a lot of steam as it went on. The initial set up was pretty good and showed some promise, but it gets far too touchy-feely. There just wasn't enough unapologetic comedy, and I think the movie could have been a lot better if it had more of an edge.

It was an odd premise of making these "idiots" the comedic backbone of the movie while at the same time telling us how wrong it is to laugh at these idiots. To top it off the "idiots" - outside Carrell and Galafianakis - weren't really that funny or interesting anyhow. Felt like a lot of wasted potential.

I guess I would have liked to seen a DFS done more in the vain of Anchorman or Hangover... just a balls out comedy that doesn't put on kid gloves.

That being said, I do like all the main actors quite a bit, and they alone made it watchable. Grade: C+

carrells dinner jokes went over the heads of my whole audience.

"1000 years ago, the only people on Earth were mice...500 years later, when the airplane was invented...then, Francis Bacon invented bacon"...

For those who haven't seen it yet, there's a very short after credits scene.

This is an instant classic... Bradley is controlling my brain! Just a joy to watch. Plays out the line between the straight and the totally incredilous beautifully. And when it does play Barry, Thurmond, Kieren, Darla in scenes together, they let it fly.

Carell did GREAT work in '10 with Date Movie and this. Love how while almost every comedy actor lately who hits it big like Ferrell, Vaughn, Sandler, etc. either pound their schtick into the ground and progress nowhere or make kids movies, Carrell might actually be getting better at his craft, and branches into different characters. Barry and Phil from Date Night couldn't be more different. In Date Night he plays it almost totally straight/'real', in Schmucks he is as goofball as possible, yet they both could be among his best performances. I think Carell might be the most truly talented of his comedian bretheren of this era

It's fucking horrible, btw.

I'd never seen this before but I just tried it. Man, it's too long. This needed a good edit, and even then I'm not sure it would save it as a whole, but it might make it more bearable. The film simply isn't funny besides a few moments or lines. Paul Rudd is ever charming, and he carries the film to whatever merit it deserves, but there are far too many scenes that just go on and on and on and on. They're so flat but nobody realises it. Zach Galifianakis's first scene is so utterly anemic, then again an even longer one at the titular finale. I was mostly enjoying it up until about halfway, then it lost me when Rudd kept excusing Carell's moronic behaviour.

David Walliams shined, though. As did Jemaine Clement. And the film was at its strongest when the Bruce Greenwood-led office bullies were on screen.