Dinner for Schmucks

User Score
5.8

Mixed or average reviews- based on 229 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 48 out of 229

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. danielh
    Jul 31, 2010
    3
    It began quite entertaining. fell apart around the point when paul rudd's stalker came over. at around that point, the characters became increasingly unbelievable and implausible. the acting was mediocre. the writing was subpar. it got ok again when they went to the dinner, but then fell apart as chaos broke out. it just wasn't funny at all. steve carell's character was It began quite entertaining. fell apart around the point when paul rudd's stalker came over. at around that point, the characters became increasingly unbelievable and implausible. the acting was mediocre. the writing was subpar. it got ok again when they went to the dinner, but then fell apart as chaos broke out. it just wasn't funny at all. steve carell's character was absurdly irritating. all in all, don't waste your money. or your time Expand
  2. Dec 22, 2010
    2
    Every once in a while or sometimes too often you sit in a movie theater
    and think to yourself who in his right mind came up with the idea for
    this movie and even worse who in his right mind decided to fund this movie. But I guess if you bring in a decent cast and enough hoopla for marketing you could sell ice to Eskimos. I set through the movie and other than a few laughters this movie is
    Every once in a while or sometimes too often you sit in a movie theater
    and think to yourself who in his right mind came up with the idea for
    this movie and even worse who in his right mind decided to fund this
    movie. But I guess if you bring in a decent cast and enough hoopla for
    marketing you could sell ice to Eskimos. I set through the movie and
    other than a few laughters this movie is very boring and the main
    reason for it is the plot. It doesn't make sense and overall just a bad
    idea for a movie. Edan Aharony
    Expand
  3. Hero
    Jul 31, 2010
    0
    This movie was terrible, awkward, and stupid. You must be dumb if you liked this. The guy named Barry in this movie was just plain annoying. I hate this
  4. ericc
    Jul 30, 2010
    2
    A very very poor remake of the original version.
  5. GeoffJ
    Jul 30, 2010
    3
    a few good laughs but not as tight as it needed to be to in its lunacy to take full advantage of these 2 funny actors...expected more somehow
  6. JenniferC
    Aug 2, 2010
    0
    Horrible, un-funny movie. Painful to watch. Left early and got my money back. I was very disappointed. I expected a lot more out of such an amazing group of comedians.
  7. AlexB
    Jul 31, 2010
    1
    Unbelievably painful. Awful. Almost as bad as "Date Night."
  8. Aug 12, 2010
    0
    Horrible movie. NOT funny! I laughed maybe twice. People were walking out of the theater. The only time I have ever wanted to. Can't even come close to The
    Hangover.
  9. Oct 22, 2010
    3
    Acaso el peor remake gringo entre los nueves que se han hecho de alguna cinta escrita y/o dirigida por el maestro de la vulgar comedia de boulevard Francis Veber. Para lo unico que sirve este bodrio es para recordar la grandeza misantropica de la cinta original, Un Tonto a Domicilio (Veber, 1998).
  10. Sep 8, 2010
    1
    Terrible film. Forced jokes and a general lack of flow make each moment a pain-staking exercise in waiting for the next attempt at humour.

    Unfortunate as there is a good amount of talent in this film but it falls down the first step and then down the rest of the staircase from there.
  11. May 7, 2011
    3
    Wow... wtf?? That's really all I can say. Such amazing talent available and this is the best use they can make from it? What a waste. Every scene with Rudd jumps off the screen but are hard to watch.
  12. Sep 18, 2010
    3
    This troupe's act is getting old and rather predictable, and who wants to see Paul Rudd as the straight guy? Has Hollywood forgotten how funny this guy can be (take "The 40-Year Old Virgin," for example)? Sure, I laughed a few times. Zack Galifianakis is hilarious. A fairly stupid movie that works if you're in emotional need of comedic xanax.
  13. Aug 31, 2011
    1
    The only way somebody could break a smile at this dog would be if they were tripping. This would be worse if I paid to see it...or rather 1/2 of it. I had to turn it off it was so lousy.
  14. Jan 17, 2011
    3
    This film tries to use 60s screwball comedy with disastrous results. It's not only complete inferior to Le Diner de Cons which is what is based on, but I can't help the fact Steve Carell did it for a big paycheck. Skip it and see the original French version it has better writing and acting.
  15. Jan 12, 2011
    3
    What do you say about a comedy that isn't funny? Therein lies my predicament. Dinner for Schmucks is simply that: not funny. Whereas most good comedies find a balance between hearty laughs and emotional moments, the film seems to lean more on the latter than former. Painfully overlong, it's attempts at humor fizzle quickly. The obvious and proven talent of Steve Carell, Paul Rudd and ZachWhat do you say about a comedy that isn't funny? Therein lies my predicament. Dinner for Schmucks is simply that: not funny. Whereas most good comedies find a balance between hearty laughs and emotional moments, the film seems to lean more on the latter than former. Painfully overlong, it's attempts at humor fizzle quickly. The obvious and proven talent of Steve Carell, Paul Rudd and Zach Galifianakis never shines through. Scene by scene you slowly begin to realize that the "aha" moment is just not coming. I didn't laugh out loud once, and barely managed a grin. In fact, I found myself so disinterested by the halfway point that I only paid attention so that I could give a fair review. There was certainly little entertainment value to be found. What is probably most disappointing is that the very title of the film and main event on which it bases it's story only lasts a few minutes. That's right, there is roughly an hour and a half build-up to the actual "dinner with schmucks." And believe me, there is no payoff. In hindsight, I should have skipped this one altogether. I could have found more humor in doing my laundry or taking a shower. But perhaps I've now taken one for the team and others may be spared the colossal waste of time this film turns out to be.

    Dinner for Schmucks is one re-make that should never have been made. A possibly funny idea is completely destroyed in the execution. The actors try, but are clearly handcuffed by a terrible script. This film was a big miss from start to finish and I highly, highly recommend avoiding it. Unless of course you're having in trouble sleeping, in which case it might be the perfect medicine.
    Expand
  16. Jan 15, 2011
    2
    A shallow movie lacking genuine humor or sentimentality. It lacks any sense of direction or thematic pacing. If this movie had been edited down to 22 minutes, it would have made a suitable TV sitcom.
    I hope you enjoyed any previews that might have accompanied this movie enough to justify the ticket expense.
    Certainly, this is a movie that no one will watch more than once.
  17. Jan 21, 2011
    0
    Worse movie I have seen in a long time. Love Steve but this was not entertaining at all. 2 hours of pure boredom! Don't waste your time or money. Glad I got to see it for free!!!!
  18. Jan 24, 2011
    0
    Without question, the least entertaining film I have ever seen. It's disgusting to me that this thing got off the drawing board and was actually made. I don't even know where to begin. You could not pay me enough to watch this film again. The only reason I didn't turn it off is because the French actress was so absolutely lovely and Jamaine Clement held his own. Beyond that, totallyWithout question, the least entertaining film I have ever seen. It's disgusting to me that this thing got off the drawing board and was actually made. I don't even know where to begin. You could not pay me enough to watch this film again. The only reason I didn't turn it off is because the French actress was so absolutely lovely and Jamaine Clement held his own. Beyond that, totally atrocious in every regard. I'll bury the last remaining shreds of respect I had for Paul Rudd and Steve Carell and say a few words. Expand
  19. Aug 2, 2011
    2
    This film took what seemed like forever to get going. By the time the actual "dinner" happened, I really did not care anymore. The lobster lady made me laugh, but I did not find anything else at the dinner very funny. Carrell's character Barry was truly an idiot, but more annoying than funny to me. Rudd's character was an even bigger idiot for putting up with Barry as long as he did.This film took what seemed like forever to get going. By the time the actual "dinner" happened, I really did not care anymore. The lobster lady made me laugh, but I did not find anything else at the dinner very funny. Carrell's character Barry was truly an idiot, but more annoying than funny to me. Rudd's character was an even bigger idiot for putting up with Barry as long as he did. Finally, Lucy Punch's "mistress" character was beyond stupid. She was so good in "Bad Teacher," and yet so terrible in this. Jay Roach's career as a director has gone down the crapper. He was promising in the late 90s when he started the "Austin Powers" franchise, but then the "Meet the Parents" trilogy was two movies too long (though to be fair he did not direct, only produced, the third film), and now with "Dinner for Schmucks," he has hit as close to rock bottom as you can get without actually hitting rock bottom. Give the lady who played the "lobster woman" bigger parts in more movies. Everyone else needs to dial it back a notch and think more about the types of scripts/roles they choose. Expand
  20. j30
    Sep 22, 2011
    3
    This movie blows it. Bad storyline and a waste of talent. Total bummer.
  21. Aug 6, 2011
    0
    Absolutely terrible movie. We ended up turning if off before they even got to dinner. I love Steve Carell and Paul Rudd but Carell's character was so annoying that it made the movie literally unwatchable. I was in a good mood before we turned this movie on and now I want to burn down a building and abuse my kids. Awful.
  22. Jul 30, 2012
    3
    I was very, very disappointed with this movie. The actors in it are undeniably good, but good actors alone can't save how lame the writing in this movie is. Steve Carrell, an extremely hillarious actor, works hard despite being given one of the most unlikable characters I've seen in a comedy in a long time, while Paul Rudd is just going through the motions here. The only actor that comesI was very, very disappointed with this movie. The actors in it are undeniably good, but good actors alone can't save how lame the writing in this movie is. Steve Carrell, an extremely hillarious actor, works hard despite being given one of the most unlikable characters I've seen in a comedy in a long time, while Paul Rudd is just going through the motions here. The only actor that comes out looking good in this movie is Zach Galifianakis as the villian, which is more solid work from him. This movie is just really not very funny at all, and everybody involved deserves better than what they are given. Expand
Metascore
56

Mixed or average reviews - based on 37 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 20 out of 37
  2. Negative: 2 out of 37
  1. 80
    The film collects a cast of performers who know how to be funny. The success of this movie, following a formula upheld by just about any recent hit comedy you can name, lies as much with supporting players and plot-derailing set pieces as with the central story and characters.
  2. Though Carell and Rudd are both saddled with characters that just aren't as interesting as many they've played in the past, the movie benefits from having drawn many gifted comedians to supporting roles.
  3. Reviewed by: Peter Debruge
    80
    An uproarious odd-couple remake of Francis Veber's hit French farce "The Dinner Game."