In general, it’s a good thing when the viewer is surprised by a comedy, a sign that said comedy is doing its job. When a laugh arrives at a moment the viewer would least expect it, for instance, it may seem funnier than it actually is. The ensuing sense of uproar could be dismissed as artificial by cinema purists, but I find that it’s satisfying when the surprise is done right. Dinner for Schmucks, on the other hand, is a good example of how a comedy should not surprise the viewer.
The premise is rife with potential for nasty, mean comedy that goes straight for the jugular. Paul Rudd plays a deep-down good guy who, in order to climb the corporate ladder, must moonlight as a jerk by finding the “biggest idiot” he can to bring to a mockery-filled company dinner-party. His ability to score a promotion hinges on how much he can entertain his boss.
Going into the movie, I felt ready to indulge my dark side for two hours by playing along with the soulless execs at the party. What’s the harm in laughing at idiots when it’s all just make-believe, right? And with Rudd (who’s uncharacteristically good at capturing the fine line between likable bro and the despondent asshole) and Steve Carell (born to play men even more idiotic than Michael Scott) at the helm, how could Dinner for Schmucks steer me wrong?
But instead of running in the right direction and surprising with unique idiot-gags, director Jay Roach (Meet the Parents, Austin Powers) and writers David Guion and Michael Handelman surprise by going in the complete opposite direction and ruining a perfectly good idea. The result is a picture that seeks to be heartfelt (in a phony, Hollywood kind of way) by teaching Rudd’s Tim that it’s not OK to abuse uhh… less-smart guys like Carell’s rat-taxidermy connoisseur Larry for selfish purposes. Unfortunately, this means the movie is not only less funny than it would’ve been had it been meaner, but also that it feels like it wants to have things two ways. Dinner for Schmucks wants us to sympathize for simple ‘ol Larry, but also realizes his blunt stupidity is the only thing funny about the material so it ultimately exploits him just as much as Tim does.
Yes, there are still several laughs. How could there not be with this cast, which, in addition to the mighty Rudd and Carell, features comedy-prodigy Zach Galifianakis and Flight of the Conchords deadpan-artiste Jermaine Clement? But they are, as any rational viewer would expect, mostly centered on how moronically Larry and his “extraordinary” counterparts behave at the title dinner. As a result, even when you’re laughing, you’re either wishing the movie had gone farther in this funny direction or dreading the lame morality-lesson that will undoubtedly follow.
Worse still is the ultimate feeling Dinner for Schmucks leaves with the viewer: that it isn’t trying. Instead of doing something crafty with an interesting idea—actually taken from a 1998 French film that will be fun to rent for comparison—it settles for Hollywood clichés. Even with some enjoyable moments, there’s nothing here reflective of the outside-the-box comedy its cast and crew are capable of. Typically, I’d dismiss it as a good rental—not substantial enough to merit a theatrical viewing but inoffensive and sorta-OK—but this time I just can’t approve of such mediocrity. As alluring as Dinner for Schmucks might seem on paper, it proves just as lazy as any other Hollywood comedy.
* * *
Dinner for Schmucks (2010, USA). Produced by Gary Barber, Sacha Baron Cohen, Roger Birnbaum, Laurie McDonald, Walter F. Parkes, Jon Poll, Jay Roach, Amy Sayres, and Francis Veber. Directed by Jay Roach. Written for the screen by David Guion and Michael Handelman, based on the film "The Dinner Game" written by Francis Veber. Starring Paul Rudd, Steve Carell, Zach Galifianakis, Jermaine Clement, and Stephanie Szostak. Distributed by Paramount Pictures. Rated R, with a running time of 114 minutes.
Posts
