Review: DINNER FOR SCHMUCKS
Jay Roach (Austin Powers, Meet the Parents) gives us his version of Francis Veber’s Le Diner de Cons, but unfortunately for Roach and audiences alike, Dinner for Schmucks is more conman than fool as it masquerades as the next hilarious Steve Carell tent-pole film, but in actuality is just another run of the mill, disjointed summer comedy. Schmucks wanders around looking for the story it wants to tell. But while it decides between the lonely, heartbroken mutual idiots plot and the “I’m compelled to do out-of-character things because I want a promotion” arc, it loses itself in the shuffle.
The first 45 minutes trots along like an extended first act, but instead of moving the story forward, or even approaching the story that was set up in the beginning (Paul Rudd’s Tim’s attempt at reaching the next rung on the corporate ladder), we’re given long scenes that wear out their respective welcomes before the jokes have even been made. Most every moment before the actual, ironically named “dinner of winners” serves as a distraction until the run-time can hit the 90-minute mark and the dinner can finally begin. Now, that’s not to say that those scenes aren’t funny — they are — but that they are ultimately pointless in the grand scheme of the story. Honestly, they should have just written a 2-hour script that took place in real-time at the dinner of winners, because not only is that how the movie was marketed to audiences, and ultimately what we’re expecting, but the characters that show up to the event are what save this movie from drowning in its own meandering.
I heartily enjoy watching Steve Carell on screen outside of playing Michael Scott, which still remains his best role to date. His character’s utter obliviousness and naiveté to reality is fantastic and makes for some fun moments where his confusion and spur of the moment, I’ll-figure-it-out-as-we-go-along attitude reigns supreme; Darla chasing around Carell the Penguin, anyone? Hands down, Carell’s performance as Barry bizarrely grounds this story and makes it wholly sympathetic. The problem is that it’s not Barry’s story, and what dramatic arc the character has comes across as sappy and forced; it all seems wasted.
But Barry isn’t the only amazingly realized character in Schmucks, in fact every weirdo-guest at the dinner could probably have some kind of spin-off made featuring them and I wouldn’t complain. Except for maybe the ventriloquist with the Joan Rivers puppet, but the lady who talks to dead animals? Absolutely. Her screaming out the death-cries of meal that’s served at the dinner is just a great moment, but once again, it’s Zach Galifianakis who steals the show as the mind-controlling IRS agent, Therman. I still laugh when reflecting on a handful scenes featuring Therman, especially the “brain control” moment during the dinner, which is bar-none, no doubt, the most hysterical scene in the film. The character works because he’s so off-beat and creepy, and you have to wonder, especially given Galifianakis’ facial expressions that bore into your soul, if Therman’s powers of mind control are actually real. Perhaps, I was hypnotized during these moments into thinking the movie was actually funny for a split-second, but regardless, I’ll concede that I laughed heavily every time Therman entered the frame. Thankfully, Galifianakis isn’t the only one firing on all cylinders.
Playing a complete derivative of Aldous Snow, Jemaine Clement transcends into Russell Brand territory under the guise of an eccentric, sex-driven artist named Kieran. What’s great about Kieran is that, like Therman, he’s outrageous. He’s narcissistic and entirely “out there” with his seductive artistic process and possible obsession (fetish?) for farm animals in his work. But see it works, because he’s extreme, and the story works best when it’s crazy, ridiculous, and absurd. Schmucks reminds me of The Losers, where the characters are definitely there, but the way the story pans out just doesn’t work, or at least amount to anything worthwhile or even caring about, and it makes you feel horrible because there’s such potential with the characters and the concept, but couple that with a horrible main character (sorry, Paul Rudd), and the combination is suicidal.
If you’re a fan of Steven Carell then you can probably consider Schmucks required viewing. Maybe I’m just over comedies with weak stories, but Dinner for Schmucks is an unfortunate, misguided, disappointing affair. While funny, and even hilarious in some parts, the film gets lost in its own story. It’s a hard recommendation to give unless you absolutely love one of the actors in the movie, or really don’t care about flawed storytelling.
This does ease my disappointment, though:
Overall 5/10.
Directed by Jay Roach. Written by David Guion, Michael Handelman. Based on Francis Veber’s Le Diner de Cons. Cinematography by Jim Denault. Edited by Alan Baumgarten & Jon Poll. Music by Theodore Shapiro. Production Design by Michael Corenblith.
Starring: Steve Carell, Paul Rudd, Zach Galifianakis, Jemaine Clement, Stephanie Szostak, Lucy Punch, and Bruce Greenwood.
