Based on a French comedy called Le Dîner de Cons, 2010’s Dinner for Schmucks is a politically
incorrect screwball comedy. Featuring likeable leads and an overstretched
central idea, the film stars Paul Rudd as ambitious financial executive called
Tim Conrad. After impressing his managers, Tim is invited to an exclusive
dinner which he hopes will lead to a long overdue promotion. The only catch is
that each guest must bring a plus one, chosen for their ability to compete for
the prize of ‘biggest loser’. Tim’s in two minds about attending the
insensitive dinner but when he literally runs into the sweet but simple
squirrel taxidermist Barry Speck (Steve Carell) and thinks to himself, what’s
the worst that could happen?
Despite being a fan of pretty
much everyone in front of the camera in this movie, it passed me by until now.
I remember its release but the trailers and reviews did nothing to pull me to
the cinema. It’s not a film I’m gutted to have missed three years ago but I
came out the other side thinking that it was an average comedy which was short
on laughs and story but enjoyable nonetheless.
The fundamental conceit is
incredibly mean spirited and as such you’re never in doubt that the bad guys
will get their comeuppance. There’s no way that Paramount would distribute a picture with an
idea like the one in this movie in which the little guy comes out second best.
Because of this, you’re sometimes left waiting for the film’s finale but there
are some good moments before you get there. I enjoyed the central relationship
between Rudd and Carell. The actors have worked together on several occasions
and have the straight guy, funny guy thing down to a tee. In Rudd I personally
don’t think there’s a better comic straight guy working in Hollywood today and Carell has the ability to
get laughs from any situation.
It takes a while for the laughter
to come but there are several big gags dotted throughout the film, though
mainly towards the end. For the most part the movie is simply an enjoyable
watch, not overly funny but doing enough to keep the audience entertained.
There are farcical elements which work well when piled on top of each other.
The jokes and calamities build until the movie reaches a point where each new
joke is funny whereas in the beginning it’s slow to build with many gags
missing the target. Many of the biggest laughs come from the supporting cast
and the film has a great ensemble to back up the two leads.
Jermaine Clement puts in an
expectedly funny performance as a sexually charged and pretentious artist who
threatens Rudd’s relationship with his wife, played by the delightful Stephanie
Szostak. Clement has many great lines and adds a lot of physicality to his
performance, something I hadn’t seen him do before. Zach Galifianakis puts in a
fantastic performance which earned him some minor awards. Lucy Punch, David
Walliams, Chris O’Dowd and particularly Octavia Spencer add laughs in the final
stages. It’s Carell though who gets the biggest laughs for his nice guy, loser
character. It’s not a stretch for him but he plays it well and manages to get
the balance between sweet and silly just about right. His costume also adds immeasurably to the character but the light hair, teeth and cheap clothing isn't too over the top.
It must be said that the
characters are well written but the script sometimes feels a bit flat. There’s
lots going on but it feels as though it’s actions rather than dialogue which
get the big laughs. While this is no problem (my favourite screen comedian is
Chaplin after all), I would have liked a few more zingers thrown in to the mix.
Overall Dinner for Schmucks isn’t a
great film but it’s not bad earlier. It was a nice surprise but won’t blow you
away and the situations and themes are much sweeter and less mean that I
expected them to be.
6/10
شركة نقل عفش بحائل
ReplyDeleteشركة نقل عفش بابها
شركة نقل عفش بالقصيم
شركة نقل عفش بتبوك