Dinner for Schmucks

ONE-LINE REVIEW: Avoid the box office and just stream Steve Carell's monologue on YouTube.

This film is based on a French movie with a similar plotline, much like 1996's 'The Birdcage'. In much the same way, the characters of 'Dinner for Schmucks' spend pretty much the entire film preparing for the eponymous meal that serves as the film's climax and best scene. Unlike 'Birdcage', however, very little of that build-up is actually funny. Overall, I had three major problems with this film...

#1: There is pretty much no back story given to Paul Rudd's character. We think we're seeing the same charming, lovesick, awkward but ultimately well-meaning hero from the much funnier 'I Love You Man'...but apparently that's not the case. Rudd's character claims to have a dark and ruthless corporate personality that forces him to make all of his immoral (and incidentally really stupid) decisions. However, since we never really see that side of him, we can't understand why his girlfriend is always furious with him. Why is she so unforgiving when he's just a nice guy who makes the occasional mistake?

He spends most of his time saying inappropriate things when the wrong people are standing right behind him. Cliche, you say? Apparently the director didn't think so...the gag is repeated FOUR TIMES over the course of the film. Plus, his character is so horrendously raked over the coals that one can't help but feel sorry for him. The restaurant scene in the middle of the movie actually had me closing my eyes and stopping my ears, wishing it would just end; no matter how awful a person is, NO ONE deserves that level of discomfort.

#2: Steve Carell's character is so unbelievably dumb that we can't really support him (after all, he does make a total train wreck of Rudd's life) and yet still so morbidly pathetic that we can't laugh at him. I was never sure what side I should be on; is he just a well-meaning fool, his traditional character from '40-Year-Old Virgin' and 'Get Smart', or an awkward cat-came-back-style leech in the vein of 'What About Bob?' Do we laugh with him or just at him? That being said, his scenes are easily the movie's funniest and I wonder how much of it was script versus improvisation.

#3: The dinner scene (the one the movie is named after, the source for 95% of the trailer and the whole reason anyone's going to SEE it) is about 15 minutes long. Potentially funny characters are introduced and then almost immediately ignored. Again, we are forced to pity both the incompetent Carell and the indecisive Rudd at the same time. This leaves little room for any solid laughter. I can imagine the pitch: "A comedy that makes you feel bad? What a great idea! Let's spend lots of money on it!"

That being said, the movie's saving grace is its supporting cast. "Flight of the Conchords"'s Jermaine Clement is totally unnecessary but utterly hysterical. He and Carell are together what make this movie a 'comedy' at all. Those who enjoy the one-note zaniness of Zack Galifianakis (I personally can't stand him) will love his small but pivotal role. "Office Space"'s Ron Livingston and "The Daily Show"'s Larry Wilmore don't have nearly enough screen time, but make the most of what they're in.

At the end of it all, the only memorable scene in the whole flick is Carell's 'Tower of Dreamers' monologue near the end. It is about five minutes long and is probably already available for internet piracy. Watch it. The man is a comic genius; I just hope he can find himself better movies that this...unless, of course, his goal is to be the sole centre of attention in what would otherwise be a total waste of time.