Dinner for Schmucks (2010)

This film goes in the category of movies that should have never been made. And if they are made, your forced to watch them as punishment for stealing a snickers from the local gas station. Paul Rudd and Steve Carrell are amazing actors...with that said this film gave nothing for either of them to work with. Rudd didn't make me or anyone in the theater laugh once. Carrell a comedic genius that he is was so stupid and annoying in this film, I had to wonder how Darwin's Law shouldn't have ended this guys life by age 14 tops. The film's secondary characters of Zach Galifianakis and Jermaine Clement where the only tiny light of hope in this film. My girlfriend and I said on three occasions that we should leave the film and when a couple actually did, gravity almost pulled me in their direction. I forced myself to stay and finish the movie. At the end I couldn't give a damn about any of the characters or there meaningless relationships. This film may be a good reason to carry around a can of mace to hit yourself in the eyes and think to yourself, Hey I could be watching this movie instead!

Fmovies: I read the reviews on this and I couldn't believe how many people really didn't like it. But, to each their own.

1. Watch "Diner des Cons" first. It is very different humor (French), slower (French), and a lot like the remake but yet the remake took off from it - so you won't get the same thing. The "con" (idiot) is (was?) an amazing French actor and his character... excruciating to watch. In fact almost the whole movie is. But it is really art (and if you study theater... uses the "Unite' des temps" which I don't know in English - takes place in 24 hours and in "one" location) and finely crafted! And you should watch this first because to watch this after: a. you won't see the nods to the original and b. it will probably be hard to watch this version after (like reading a book after).

2. You truly and absolutely don't need to watch the first to "get it". Our 12 year old and 16 year old kids loved the movie (though a very few jokes were maybe a little too sexual for the 12 year... the world today). Anyway, they laughed tons. They understood the greater meaning. We quoted the movie and laughed on the way home!

3. Francis Veber is one of my favorite French directors. Maybe I'm biased then to like this remake? But also, it made me very critical and standards were quite high... I was leery of what Hollywood might do to it... and ended up pleased. I laughed a lot.

4. I love Steve Carrell, Zach G, Germaine, et al. Really felt they fit and played their roles very well. I really do think it was Steve to his finest! To say this is just to make fun at the people at dinner (mean spirited), don't realize the greater theme - which I think is there. That theme is present more if you see the original first. I can be one that doesn't laugh easily but they had me and many times I didn't see the joke coming - which makes a laugh out loud situation. The character "con" might be hard to watch - but not as nearly as the French version where I almost wanted to rip out my hair - but isn't that sort of good - play with the boundary of uncomfortable...?

5. It IS an "Americanized" version and "expansion" of the French... so it will different. It is funny to the American sense of humor like I laughed (chuckled) to the French sense of humor in the original. (I'm span both sides). There is a blend, I think, but it couldn't be successful here if not "americanized" in humor and culture, yet keeps the nods and such to the French. I find the blend successful. Remakes are hard - but I think this one was a success in spirit and in form.

6. It's not just me who loved it. The theater - one of the "loudest" comedies I've seen. I heard belly laughs, chuckles, etc.

See for yourself...... I don't know if you'll like it be we sure did.

Not only is it hilarious, it has a great message. To be able to tell a meaningful story about friendship, acceptance and triumph over adversity surrounded by physical comedy and ridiculous characters isn't easy to do. This one nails it!

Dinner for Schmucks fmovies. As I'm in Los Angeles at the moment, I was overwhelmed by the amount of publicity. If you switch on the TV there's bound to be a clip of the movie telling us, how funny the movie is. So, can you imagine the surprise. The film is remarkably "unfunny" Didn't the marketing geniuses knew that we were going to find out. Were they just trying to make a killing at the box office for the opening week end? Knowing that this thing couldn't possibly have legs, presumably that was the strategy but, I think that if they had been more honest about what they were selling, the movie could have more of a chance with a knowing audience. How infuriating! I saw it at the great Arclight theaters in Hollywood, a full house with only scattered giggles every so often. I must confess I don't get Steve Carrell. A comic genius? A comic wonder? Please! When we finally get to the actual dinner, the premise gets contradicted immediately and the whole thing becomes a total confusing mess. There are a couple of good moments and Paul Rudd, that's why 4 out of 10 and not a resounding 1.

Painfully unfunny. As a fan of Steve Carell and Paul Rudd (not to mention Jermaine Clement and Zak G) and sometimes of director Jay Roach, it's hard to reckon how none of these talented people noticed how strained, mean-spirited and downright ridiculous this comedy is. No one behaves like an actual human being, and Carell's "loser" character is so annoying you're insulted when the script asks us to find him lovable-- you'd rather strangle him. A deeply cynical, formulaic farce without a shred of anything resembling reality. Even the broadest comedy has to be based in some recognizable behavior. It mocks the bad corporate villains for making fun of the fools invited to the party, and does the same thing itself. A few scattered laughs is the best you can hope for. What a waste of talented people. The producers should be spanked.

Dinner for Schmucks is the adaptation of the French movie "Le dinner de Cons" which in itself is an adaptation of the play of the same name. In the original version Pierre Brochant (Thierry L'Hermitte) is a successful editor that takes part in monthly dinners where each host has to invite "a schmuck". On the night where Pierre and his "schmuck are supposed to go to dinner Pierre hurts his back and is unable to attend the dinner, therefore the evening takes a very strange turn of events including his wife's ex-husband an I.R.S inspector and a car accident.

When David Guion and Michael Handelman put there hands on this script not only did they change the whole idea of the movie they also transformed it's meaning, the original version had a deeply ironic tone in which Francois Pignon (Tim) trying to do the right thing makes everything worse whereas in this version everything finishes well.

In the American remake the movie is filled with an insane artist, a crazy ex-girlfriend and a psychic nemesis. The American company responsible for this release turned into ridicule a French classic. The message of hope conveyed in the movie is feeble and not believable in any way.

Overall Big Brother has come in with a big wallet and once again transformed a French masterpiece into a ridiculous feel-good American production.

The only positive note is the act of both Steve Carell and Paul Rudd who despite a shaky scenario manage to pull off a great performance.

To sum-up I highly recommend the original version and advise you to stay away from the American re-make.