Dinner for Schmucks: Yes, a Movie for Schmucks, Too

As self-professed former nerd (note my full admission that I would have enjoyed Twilight ten years ago), I’ve always had a special place in my heart for those who were even dorkier than me.  You know, the kid who’s shorts were just a little too short, or the girl with the frizzy hair who talked to herself in the back of the class, or my favorite, the male musical theater star at the conservative mid-western Catholic high school.  Making fun of others, at least to their faces, has never come naturally to me, and perhaps that is why I personally did not enjoy Dinner for Schmucks. 

Based on Francis Veber’s French film entitled Le Diner de Cons, Dinner For Schmucks follows Tim (Paul Rudd) who, in order to receive a promotion at work, must participate in the “Dinner for Winners.”  He, along with other executives, must find an idiot and bring him to dinner with the boss.  At the end of the night, the boss picks a “winner” and awards the biggest idiot.  Tim finds Barry (Steve Carell), an IRS worker who spends his free time recreating famous art with dead mice.  Despite Barry’s good intentions, Tim almost loses his job, all his possessions and even his girlfriend in an attempt to get Barry to dinner.

In a movie like Dinner for Schmucks, the characters make or break the movie.  Unfortunately, Paul Rudd fell flat in the lead.  He failed to generate any kind of sympathy even though he is the character we’re supposed to relate to.  Writers David Guion and Michael Handelman failed to give us the proper exposition to understand where Tim is coming from in his actions.  He has an inexplicable drive for success in an industry he seems to care little about.  He loves his girlfriend (Stephanie Szostak) so much that when she turns down his proposal, he just keeps asking, despite the fact that the two have very little chemistry.  How can we be expected to relate to our main character when we know nothing about his motivations?

Steve Carell, on the other hand, gave us likability and earnestness to go along with Barry’s annoying quirks.  Even his facial expressions perfectly embodied a man who really wants to do right by his friend, but always manages to mess it up.  It was “Michael Scott” to the extreme, but still felt new and unique.

The secondary characters were the ones that brought true comedy and originality to the movie.  Kieran (Jermaine Clement of Flight of the Conchords) was completely hysterical as the Aldus Snow-type, unconventional sex-obsessed artist vying for Tim’s girlfriend. His one-liners are definitely the highlight and I trust that we will be quoting him for at least the rest of the summer.  Lucy Punch as “Darla” equally stole the movie as Tim’s crazy ex-one night stand. Her eccentricities were cliché, yet amazingly truthful; sadly we’ve all known THAT girl.

Lastly, it’s great to see a comedian as talented as Zach Galifianakis finally getting the fame and recognition he deserves.  I’ve been a fan since no one saw Out Cold (2001) and have been waiting for him to break in. Director Jay Roach earns props for giving him an unforgettable star cameo.

Still, despite having been doubled over with laughter at several points in the movie, I left with a bad taste in my mouth.  The entire basis of this “Dinner for Winners” is to laugh at the idiots these corporate jocks find.  When we finally get to the dinner, the audience is expected to join in the laughter not with, but at, the idiots. We’re engaging in the exact same Schadenfreude that the film ends up condemning.  How can we be expected to laugh at something one minute and then feel okay when Tim berates everyone at the party for their cruelty?  The premise itself is flawed no matter how funny the jokes are.

In the end, Dinner for Schmucks can easily be compared to Jay Roach’s previous work, Meet the Parents (2000).  Yes, it’s hysterical, but it is also painful and will leave you cringing.

2.5 out of 4 corporate assholes.