Dinner for Schmucks, 2010

Before watching this movie, if you had told me a movie with Steve Carell, Paul Rudd, and Zach Galifianakis would not be funny at all, I'd call you crazy. After watching this movie however, I realize even an amazing trio like that are unable to carry a movie that really isn't good. These guys have played these roles before. Carell has played the lovable loser before and in all other cases he does it flawlessly, i.e. Michael Scott. Rudd has done the cocky guy turned good guy role and Galifianakis is the master of weird/eccentric/messed in the head characters. Yet, in this movie none of them really ever nail their character. To me it almost felt like they were phoning their performances in. Which is a possibility because I'm sure they are all getting sick of doing the same roles over and over again. The plot is where this movie really fails. The story is clever enough, but like the actor's performances, it feels forced. The movie certainly gets to where it's going, trying to prove to the audience that "idiocy" is only in the eye of the beholder. But it only gets there after beating the viewer over the head with the idea. Had the story been a bit more subtle, this could have been a much better movie. In the end, this movie is watchable, but barely. If you compare it to some of the classics that made these guys famous (Anchorman, The Hangover, etc.) this movie doesn't hold a candle. But compared to some of the latest comedy films to come out, this movie isn't all that bad.

What did you think about this review?

Thank you for voting.

Like Dislike

Abuse report sent

Report abuse