Dinner for Schmucks (2 1/2 stars)

   Dinner for Schmucks is a movie about businessmen who gather once a month for dinner with idiots, in order to amuse themselves. Sounds mean-spirited and cruel. Put a comedic spin on the premise, and there is a plethora of humor-filled scenes that are so off the wall, you will be begging for air between bouts of laughter. 

  The “idiots” or “schmucks” are bizarre to say the least. Ranging from a woman who talks to dead animals to Therman (Zach Galifinakis), a mind-controlling jackass with great power over Barry (Steve Carell). Rounding out the schmucks, with his unique hobby of placing roadkill mice in “mouseterpieces,” is none other than Barry. He lives by his version of John Lennon’s words, “You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not.”

  Steve Carell brings a great deal of heart to his character, in addition to being overbearing and creating many, many, and in case you didn’t catch that, MANY awkward moments that are so painfully uncomfortable they leave you squirming in your seat. If you thought Michael Scott from The Office created a wealth of those moments, Barry from Dinner for Schmucks takes it to the next level and beyond.

   SPOILER ALERT: The rest of the review touches on some key plot points and scenes. If you have yet to see the film and do not wish to know these elements, cease reading now.

Tim (Paul Rudd) is the lucky leading man who gets to reap all the benefits of running into the perfect schmuck for his company’s monthly dinner. He is also fortunate enough to have the same stale storyline from other Paul Rudd comedies (i.e. I Love You, Man, and Role Models). The woman of his dreams decides to break things off and he spends the rest of the movie trying to get her back. The suspense is so overwhelming at times. Will they get back together? Is there enough time before the movie ends? Will they find that magical love... oh wait, I’ve seen this one before. I know how it ends.

  Despite this overused, predictable storyline for the lead, the merriment that fills the scenes working up to that expected ending is well worth the time. Paul Rudd’s Tim is ridiculously likable (as are many of his characters), and paired with the “tornado of destruction” filled Barry- we are left with many memorable scenes leading up to the dinner. 

One unforgettable scene includes a brunch with a wealthy Swiss couple. Barry’s interaction with them is painfully fun. He asks them if their “cheese comes out of the cows with the holes already in it.” Barry also manages to bring Tim’s crazy as hell stalker with to fill in as Tim’s girlfriend. Needless to say, it does not end well for Tim or his car and we get to sip up the hilarity.

Also, any scene featuring Kieran (Jermaine Clement), a schmuck in his own right, kills. Even though he is the artist version of Russell Brand’s Aldous Snow from Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Get Him To The Greek, he is fantastic in his strange animalistic self-obsessed art. He definitely needed to be at the final dinner and his absence was greatly felt. 

The dinner itself is fun, if not a bit of a let down. There is a great deal of anticipation leading up to it and in the end, it satisfies, but doesn’t completely dazzle. The schmucks are bizarre; however, considering how much Barry and Therman are fleshed out, they fall flat. They are mildly amusing, but nothing more.

Overall, Dinner for Schmucks serves up a delectable plate of wonky jocularity that will digest with ease. The appetizers are superb and the main course is acceptable. If you’ve enjoyed other Paul Rudd and Steve Carrell comedies, you will undoubtedly enjoy this one too. Dinner For Schmucks is neither one of their best works nor worst. It is a welcomed addition to an otherwise bland summer for comedy.

The Breakdown:

Originality/uniqueness of Plot: 1 star

Effectiveness of Characters: 3 stars

Effectiveness within Genre: 4 stars

Technical Aspects: 3 stars

Overall Rating: 2 1/2 stars

What's It All About?

   This blog features film reviews and hopefully discussions sparked by the ever so brilliant mind of myself. I enjoy movies more than I should. So much so in fact that they are easily an obsession of mine that I can’t seem to kick. Even if I kicked really really hard.

   I watch movies that span all genres, with my favorites tending to fall under the science fiction, mystery/thriller categories. The best movies are the ones that transport me into the fictional world of film and make me forget that I am watching a movie. I am completely immersed in this realm. On the contrary, the movies that make me want to bash my head against the wall until unconscious, tend to fall under the worst movie category. 

  When reviewing films, I look at four things. The first of which is the originality of the plot. If the storyline is riveting and tends to be unpredictable, I consider it to be a great plot. Anything less or a remake that refuses to separate itself from the original film, would deserve a lower rating.

  The characters within a film need to be fully developed and must be played convincingly by the actors. Films that either miscast their roles or with flat characters, leave me bored and less connected to the film. A film may have a great story, but if the characters are not convincing, then it is wasted.

The effectiveness of a film within its genre is the third category that I base my overall rating on. Basically, if a comedy fails to draw laughs, it gets a low rating. If a drama fails to be convincing, it gets a low rating. If an action movie fails to wow me with it’s action sequences, it gets a low rating. And so on and so on.

The technical aspects of the film is the final category that I base my review on. This includes cinematography, directing, editing, and set design. I understand that some films don’t call for elaborate scenery or cutting edge direction and I won’t hold that against them, unless they are blatantly misused. For example, I don’t expect comedies to have the most impressive cinematography and yet they may receive a similar rating as an elaborately made science fiction film because what was done within its genre was adequate. I’ll probably take more notice with the science fiction film’s cinematography; however, certain movies are set in places that will not necessarily impress the audience visually. 

My overall rating is the average rating of the four categories that I grade a movie on, out of four stars. One star signifies a movie that you should not waste your time on. A two star movie is mediocre and should only be rented. A three star movie is good and thoroughly enjoyable. It is by no means a masterpiece; however, it is well worth your time. A four star movie is a must see film. Drop whatever you are doing and watch it with your undivided attention. With this blog, I hope to share my thoughts on films that I have watched and help keep people watching good films that won’t cause massive amounts of wasted time. 

The Breakdown of the Rating System:

Originality/uniqueness of plot: 0-4 stars

Effectiveness of characters and actors within roles: 0-4 stars

Effectiveness of movie within genre: 0-4 stars

Technical Aspects of film: 0-4 stars

Overall Rating: Total from above ratings divided by 16

100%= 4 stars

85%-99%= 3 1/2 stars

70%-84%= 3 stars

55%-69%= 2 1/2 stars

40%-54%= 2 stars

25%-39%= 1 1/2 stars

15%-24%= 1 star

1%-14%= 1/2 star