Paramount Pictures | Release Date: July 30, 2010
5.8
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 231 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
100
Mixed:
83
Negative:
48
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
4
Tranquilbez22May 7, 2012
I was extremely dissapointed with this film. I really wanted to love it but it was too hard to do so. This isn't neither of Rudd's or Carrell's best work. Humour is extremely dry although the funniest moments take place with Zach Galfinakis.I was extremely dissapointed with this film. I really wanted to love it but it was too hard to do so. This isn't neither of Rudd's or Carrell's best work. Humour is extremely dry although the funniest moments take place with Zach Galfinakis. Your best to rent this one or wait untill it shows up on a cable movie channel.Sure it has a great moral about not judging a book by it's cover but it really lacks charm that these two comedic actors have. If you wanna see Paul Rudd and Steve Carrell work well together, watch the 40 year old Virgin or anchorman but not this. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
MattmcdonaldAug 12, 2010
Look, i am not going to lie. I laughed a couple times, but that does not make this a good comedy. Sure, all being said Steve carell gives a above average performance and he really fit with that roll, but that again does not make a good movie.Look, i am not going to lie. I laughed a couple times, but that does not make this a good comedy. Sure, all being said Steve carell gives a above average performance and he really fit with that roll, but that again does not make a good movie. It could be a good movie but iit is held down by too many cliches that really took me out of the experience. That is really all that is to be said about this movie. Average. Expand
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
4
nutterjrDec 4, 2010
Movie for schmucks... Interestingly enough, I like Carelll, Rudd and Clement. I just hope I had watched them in a different movie; maybe a funny one. This one cost around 50 million euro, which is about 10 million per non-forced laugh ifMovie for schmucks... Interestingly enough, I like Carelll, Rudd and Clement. I just hope I had watched them in a different movie; maybe a funny one. This one cost around 50 million euro, which is about 10 million per non-forced laugh if I'm generous. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
4
DukeNov 2, 2010
A Film Review by: Sam Fragoso

"Dinner For Schmucks" ** 2010 has definitely not been a good year for comedies and "Dinner For Schmucks" does not help the genre. Like most comedies "Dinner For Schmucks" fails to stay humorous through out.
A Film Review by: Sam Fragoso

"Dinner For Schmucks"

**


2010 has definitely not been a good year for comedies and "Dinner For Schmucks" does not help the genre. Like most comedies "Dinner For Schmucks" fails to stay humorous through out. The first twenty minutes are great fun but from that point on it goes on autopilot, till the long waited and anticipated dinner scene but by that point your overwhelmed with the movies awkwardness and predictability. Carell and Rudd are very talented and likable actors but even they can't save o so predictable plot and a very flat script. You'd be doing yourself a favor by skipping "Dinner For Schmucks".
Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
ZorglyJan 13, 2011
Steve Carell is always funny, but this time he's working with unusually bland and predictable script, even for mainstream comedies. There were a FEW laughs to be found, but overall it was quite forgettable in every way. The "Artist" in thisSteve Carell is always funny, but this time he's working with unusually bland and predictable script, even for mainstream comedies. There were a FEW laughs to be found, but overall it was quite forgettable in every way. The "Artist" in this movie is one of the most horrendously unfunny characters I have seen in a long time. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
4
JeffS.Aug 2, 2010
I was honestly disappointed upon seeing this movie, especially after some hype due to its respectable metascore. I'm a fan of Steve Carrell and have enjoyed almost everything he's put out in recent years. However, I felt this movie I was honestly disappointed upon seeing this movie, especially after some hype due to its respectable metascore. I'm a fan of Steve Carrell and have enjoyed almost everything he's put out in recent years. However, I felt this movie was just too over the top at times, even for a comedy. Such scenes just took away from the film and left the audience with forced laughs. This movie did have sincere laughs in it and was still enjoyable. The most troubling fact is that the movie had the potential to be so much better had it invested more in down to Earth humor instead of the over the top fiasco the audience is led through for close to an hour. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
C.ClarkAug 2, 2010
The trailer was completely misleading as the majority of the movie had nothing to do with the dinner. The dinner, however, was the only really funny part of the movie. I really like Steve Carell, but he is really annoying in this one. Not a The trailer was completely misleading as the majority of the movie had nothing to do with the dinner. The dinner, however, was the only really funny part of the movie. I really like Steve Carell, but he is really annoying in this one. Not a complete waste of time, but definitely a sub-par comedy that is worth no more than a rental. I'm just glad this was a matinee for us. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ChadSAug 3, 2010
Nobody likes to see a good person being treated like a schmuck. In Nancy Savoca's "Dogfight", the waitress is the schmuck, a shy woman, treated so by a marine, a coffee shop customer she follows to a bar, where Rose(Lili Taylor) Nobody likes to see a good person being treated like a schmuck. In Nancy Savoca's "Dogfight", the waitress is the schmuck, a shy woman, treated so by a marine, a coffee shop customer she follows to a bar, where Rose(Lili Taylor) unwittingly enters an anti-beauty contest, a pageant no woman ever dreams of winning. The IRS agent is the schmuck; the IRS agent-cum-taxidermist in "Dinner for Schmucks", who gets invited to a schmuck-fight by an up-and-coming businessman; a schmuck-fight that should make the moviegoer cringe, but doesn't. While it would be wrong to equate mice with Chinese dissidents, the same ethical questions come into play surrounding Barry's artwork, the same questions that plague the people responsible for Bodies...The Exhibiition. Lost in the artistry of the taxidermist's furry installations is that little matter concerning taste: Is it in bad taste to engage the dead with an aesthetic eye? And are Barry's tableaus, murder tableaus? When Tim(Paul Rudd) first bumps, literally bumps into Barry(Steve Carrell), the automobilist interrupts the mouse artist's process of obtaining his next carcass; a found object, presumably, cause of death unknown. "Dinner for Schmucks" never answers the question as to how Barry collects his subjects. Imagine the same installations, but with kittens, or puppies, then you get the idea. Contrary to Francis Veber's "Le diner de cons", in which the French schmuck is wholly sympathetic(no animals are harmed; he works with matchsticks), and schmuck's friend, undoubtedly a lout, who preys on the social misfit, this American retelling blurs the protagonist/antagonist binary(Rudd plays Barry with a dose of humanity). If Barry's rodents perished via means of corporal punishment, maybe there's a self-awareness to the taxidermist's naivety, the hustled playing the hustler, which lends a considerable edge to the farcical misunderstandings that temporarily dismantles Tim's personal and business relations. After all, Barry is a taxman with the power to audit; he can destroy Tim's life on purpose. The mice are adorable, but like the bodies in the controversial art exhibit that continues to tour the world, the dead rodents and human beings respectively, are victims of degradation; post-mortally humiliated by aesthetes. "Dinner for Schmucks" is more ambiguous than most mainstream comedies, because its not abundantly clear who the real schmuck is. How good can a taxman be? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
walrusgodAug 18, 2010
I haven't seen French movie it's based on, but Dinner for Schmucks was very disappointing. The trailer continued at least half of the truly funny moments in the movie, of which there were precious few. It starts off fairly strong, but losesI haven't seen French movie it's based on, but Dinner for Schmucks was very disappointing. The trailer continued at least half of the truly funny moments in the movie, of which there were precious few. It starts off fairly strong, but loses almost all steam in the painful-to-watch scenes involving Rudd's character's "stalker." The first scene just sucked the life out of the movie, and it doesn't really regain its footing until near the end, and even then still can't capture the strength of the first 15-20 minutes. I really like the cast, but unfortunately the jokes just weren't there, and instead we get a movie that can't decide if it wants to be funny or poignant and winds up neither. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
ArkonBladeMar 20, 2011
steve corell has been on a downward spirel in his movies lately with every pretty much every thing being bad or mediocore . you can add this to the mediocore department . the jokes are eather not funny or are forced . the chemistry betweensteve corell has been on a downward spirel in his movies lately with every pretty much every thing being bad or mediocore . you can add this to the mediocore department . the jokes are eather not funny or are forced . the chemistry between corell and rudd is flat . even the last 15 minuites which you would think would be the funniest part was barely a few chuckles in it . i know corell is funny he was great on the daily show and in 40 year old virgin . Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
kingshahidOct 4, 2011
The movie centered on a lot of odd characters that made you laugh but it wasn't completely hilarious. I wouldn't say the odd characters they describe where completely far-fetched I have met some people that are too hilarious to believe thatThe movie centered on a lot of odd characters that made you laugh but it wasn't completely hilarious. I wouldn't say the odd characters they describe where completely far-fetched I have met some people that are too hilarious to believe that they actually believe themselves to be talented. Overall, the movie wasn't worth renting but I rented because of the two main actors. It was somewhat disappointing. Collapse
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
txrangersfan72Jul 31, 2011
Funnier than I was expecting, but still not a very interesting movie. It has some funny moments, but not nearly to the level Jay Roach, Steve Carrell and Paul Rudd are used to providing. Zach Galifanakis and his dynamic with Steve CarrellFunnier than I was expecting, but still not a very interesting movie. It has some funny moments, but not nearly to the level Jay Roach, Steve Carrell and Paul Rudd are used to providing. Zach Galifanakis and his dynamic with Steve Carrell was the highlight. There are elements of the movie that are unique, such as the whole "mouse-scape" hobby of the Carrell's character, but the premise is pretty dumb, no matter how much of the movie's talent tries to make it better. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
BairdoFeb 15, 2011
Booooo. I spent 6 bucks on this and didn't even make it to the dinner (you know, the dinner for schmucks? I turned it off). There were laughs in what I did see, but very few and far between. Oh, and dumb, "you won't crack a smile" type stuffBooooo. I spent 6 bucks on this and didn't even make it to the dinner (you know, the dinner for schmucks? I turned it off). There were laughs in what I did see, but very few and far between. Oh, and dumb, "you won't crack a smile" type stuff - There's quite a bit of that. Some very funny actors in a film with a sub-par script. Would there have been rewarding laughs if I had seen it through? I don't think that matters. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
ClarkstonGuyFeb 27, 2011
I was hoping for a little more clever wit over madcap comedy style, but Paul Rudd and Steve Carell are pros and watchable, even tho this movie seemed dumbed down. it has a few good laughs. I know its just a movie, but the stuffed mice lookI was hoping for a little more clever wit over madcap comedy style, but Paul Rudd and Steve Carell are pros and watchable, even tho this movie seemed dumbed down. it has a few good laughs. I know its just a movie, but the stuffed mice look like cute little cartoon figures, and when can you run into someone, stop your car in the middle of the street, and then have a conversation for 10 minutes? only in the movies! Its ok for a Saturday night. Not a complete stinker. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
spadenxDec 12, 2011
It was better then I expected. The movie is hilarious up until the last 30 minutes. Then the movie gets so depressing and corny that it takes the entire experiance of the film down quite a bit. The acting was decent but it could have been aIt was better then I expected. The movie is hilarious up until the last 30 minutes. Then the movie gets so depressing and corny that it takes the entire experiance of the film down quite a bit. The acting was decent but it could have been a lot better (I expected better as well). Overall it was an ok comedy that will give you quite a bit of laughs. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
imthenoobJun 9, 2013
A few laughable moments, Decent acting but nothing outside the norm for a generic comedy, The dramatic parts of the film were really freaking depressing, I mean really sad stuff that sort of ruins the movie imo. Overally, It's a ratherA few laughable moments, Decent acting but nothing outside the norm for a generic comedy, The dramatic parts of the film were really freaking depressing, I mean really sad stuff that sort of ruins the movie imo. Overally, It's a rather generic comedy with nothing special about it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
beingryanjudeAug 31, 2014
Aside from successful performances from Steve Carell and Paul Rudd, Dinner for Schmucks is just that and little more. Relying on predictability is a big no.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
csw12Feb 17, 2013
Normally Steve Carell and Paul Rudd would be enough to save a film from itself but nobody can replace total stupidity. The only way to enjoy a movie like this is to be completely drunk and not all there.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
geedupJul 4, 2012
I liked the concept of this movie and felt it had alot of potential, but was quickly craddled to sleep. Entirely too much time is spent to build this movie and introduce the premise/characters. Fortunatly I woke up towards the end where theI liked the concept of this movie and felt it had alot of potential, but was quickly craddled to sleep. Entirely too much time is spent to build this movie and introduce the premise/characters. Fortunatly I woke up towards the end where the funniest parts reside which the strangest collection of oddities the group can collect interact. THIS is where the movie should be centered....... Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
dev92Aug 24, 2012
Normally Steve Carell and Paul Rudd would be enough to save a film from itself but it is just implausible and some what sadistic. There were a few moments which tugged on my heartstrings and I actually felt Carell played the serious,Normally Steve Carell and Paul Rudd would be enough to save a film from itself but it is just implausible and some what sadistic. There were a few moments which tugged on my heartstrings and I actually felt Carell played the serious, emotional parts of his character better than the supposed comedic moments. All in all, there weren't enough laughs to allow me to rank this higher than 4. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Compi24Nov 28, 2012
Though some moments of the film (including its premise) are fairly low, it still has its moments and Steve Carell does prove to be hilarious.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
ydnar4Sep 10, 2015
Dinner for Schmucks is pretty generic. There are a few points in this movie that are pretty but for the most part the jokes don't catch very well. Steve Carell and Paul Rudd do what they can in this movie but the concept doesn't have theDinner for Schmucks is pretty generic. There are a few points in this movie that are pretty but for the most part the jokes don't catch very well. Steve Carell and Paul Rudd do what they can in this movie but the concept doesn't have the durability for a almost two hour movie. I think this movie couldn't be that much better considering the story. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
CameraBounceGodFeb 27, 2015
Other than the obvious fear of Rudds wife banging the animal man and the obvious fact that Carrels character is a loser....it turned out to be very funny the way Paul chose a guy who makes mice things....excellent time watching galifinakisOther than the obvious fear of Rudds wife banging the animal man and the obvious fact that Carrels character is a loser....it turned out to be very funny the way Paul chose a guy who makes mice things....excellent time watching galifinakis and carrell do pretty much anything..-JRA Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
zahabitahaAug 21, 2015
that was a real comedy movie.i like it and i advice you to see that...................................................................................
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews