User Score
5.8

Mixed or average reviews- based on 222 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 47 out of 222

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
  1. Aug 31, 2014
    4
    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.
  2. Jun 9, 2013
    4
    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 rather generic comedy with nothing special about it.
  3. Feb 17, 2013
    4
    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.
  4. Aug 24, 2012
    4
    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.
  5. 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 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
  6. Jul 4, 2012
    4
    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 the funniest parts reside which the strangest collection of oddities the group can collect interact. THIS is where the movie should be centered.......
  7. May 7, 2012
    4
    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
  8. j30
    Sep 22, 2011
    3
    This movie blows it. Bad storyline and a waste of talent. Total bummer.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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, 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
  14. 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!!!!
  15. 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.
  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 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 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
  18. 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 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
  19. Dec 4, 2010
    4
    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 if I'm generous.
  20. Nov 2, 2010
    4
    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
  21. 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).
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. Aug 18, 2010
    4
    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 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
  25. 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.
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."