Dinner for Schmucks (2010) - Comedy

Hohum Score



When he finds out that his work superiors host a dinner celebrating the idiocy of their guests, a rising executive questions it when he's invited, just as he befriends a man who would be the perfect guest.

IMDB: 5.9
Director: Jay Roach
Stars: Steve Carell, Paul Rudd
Length: 114 Minutes
PG Rating: PG-13
Reviews: 77 out of 289 found boring (26.64%)

One-line Reviews (168)

The script was full of bad jokes, pointless scenes, predictability, very little payoff, and worst of all prevented the cast from adding the extra ommph needed to make this a truly enjoyable film.

This movie ran about 2 hours long and that is too long for a comedy.

the worst movie ever made.

The movie at times looses a grip with reality so much in an attempt to be witty, funny and quirky at the same time but in the end it comes out as dull, uninventive and just plain retarded.

Misleading trailers mixed with unfunny humour and dull predictable situations .

Needless to say, it's a waste of one's money.

The whole girlfriend/relationship storyline was painfully cliché and beyond cringeworthy and of course is consistent with being over the top silly.

Total waste of time and money.

Some predictable gags and a template setup for the inevitable hilarity that will ensue.

It dragged right from the start.

20 minutes into the movie, I wanted to leave.

The rest of the plot is as predictable as a Nascar racetrack, as is the amount of low brow humor that for the most part is lacking in laughs, style, class and intelligence.

If you're expecting something entertaining and funny don't go see this movie.

There were a few plot holes, but nothing major, and a few instances of the dreaded "ADR plot point," in which the filmmakers try to clear up confusing elements of the story by dubbing in extra lines clumsily that were never in the script, usually heard while the character's back is turned to the camera and you can't see their lips.

It's predictable as hell - from the moment boss told about the dinner - outcome was apparent (by that time we already knew about the guy with mice) -> they would become friends and main character would end up defending the poor guy.

Overall, Dinner for Schmucks is my 6th favorite movie without any doubts, it's funny, heart warming, very well-acted, hilarious, entertaining, fun, very well directed, very well written and still, I don't know how is it so much underrated- Highly recommended.

Second, it is entirely too slow in the beginning leading all up to a dinner scene that is less than 15 minutes.

-This is a minor gripe, but some intense closeups were rather annoying.

it was just plain boring and dumb.

Which is really confusing for an audience, because after that, you don't know if they actually trying to be funny, or emotional.

Totally Predictable .

The attempts at farce fall flat but Mr. Carell delivers his lines with such feeling that he makes even the most trite and inane comments sound convincing.

Don't waste time or money .

He was just a schmuck trapped by his unfortunate appearance and by his social lower middle class destiny, to be working for the Fisc (IRS) and gluing together miniature models from toothpicks as a hobby and especially as an antidote to his boring and uneventful life.

For one, the beginning was really drawn out.

Complete waste of time.

Please, don't waste your time.

Save your money.

When we finally get to the actual dinner, the premise gets contradicted immediately and the whole thing becomes a total confusing mess.

Don't waste your time or money on this.

Otherwise, this was the saddest waste of time i have ever sat through.

Made me laugh a few times but in the end I left the theater depressed.

The only problem I have with this movie is that some part's of the movie can be boring.

Save your money and time and go see the next comedy that comes out.

This pointless 2010 comedy stars Paul Rudd as Tim, a business executive who is promised a promotion if he brings the right person to a monthly dinner held by his boss, where his employees are instructed to bring the biggest idiot they can find so that they can make fun of the dumbest guest and actually give him a trophy as the evening's biggest idiot.

As often happens, Hollywood seems to have missed the point and delivered a broad and bland remake.

Mixed:-Steve Carell, Zach Galifianakis, and Lucy Punch all made me laugh at points, but the problem I have with their kinds of characters is that they don't really change throughout the movie, hence their routines get a bit tiresome for me.

He is asked to attend a sort of inaugural dinner party, accompanied, as every guest will be, by a fascinatingly imbecilic personage—Enter Steve Carell as Barry, a bland, dopey catalyst for frustrating, obvious misunderstandings.

Unfortunately, there was so much emphasis on plot, the romance between the lead and his girlfriend, and the friendship between the two leads, I started getting a little bored!

" The plot is predictable, as are many other mainstream scripts, and it probably won't even be among the year's top 20 moneymakers with all of the 3D animation dominating the theaters as of late.

The section of the film where Barry ruins Tim's life just goes on way too long and has nothing to do with the original premise of the film.

Paul Rudd plays it is as bland and safe as I've come to expect from every performance he ever gives.

Save Your Money!!!.

Definitely worth watching.

Manic comedy only works because of the pauses or the unexpected, but in your face all the time is just dull.

This movie had a good plot but it was one too much like the others and was predictable as what was going to happen.

Fun night, entertaining.

Most of this one is just plain boring.

Cons: -The pacing was slower than The Hangover as well as other comedies I've seen as of late, thus I found a fair number of dull spots, particularly in the first two-thirds of the movie before the dinner.

Most films grow tiresome over time.

This was the most entertaining and touching movie I have seen in a while.

Don't waste your time on this one.

This movie may not be the "best" movie out there, but it is fun and enjoyable if you have an easy-going sense of humor, instead of looking for Oscar in everything.

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.

What a waste of money and time!

A sad sack of crap- Tedious and DULL .

Don't waste your time with this trash .

Barry (Carell) is an amalgam of all sorts of odd eccentricities and levels of confusion, though his meticulous talent at turning dead mice into works of art suggests he's some sort of idiot savant.

And for what I can tell from other people's reviews in here, they find them and their predicaments offensive and boring.

One is the "perfomance" within that the title references: an audience invites the dumb to a dinner and awards a prize for the most entertaining stupidity.

This was made for good laughs, entertaining.

Not only is it not funny, but its also dull and boring.

The pros revolve around Rudd/Carell being great together, some huge laughs, a fine overall plot, Jeff Dunham's cameo is excellent and unexpected as well as the return of Office Space star, Ron Livingston, whos cameo is great too, and semi-believable characters.

You'd have to be a schmuck to waste your money on this movie .

He's funny, if a predictable character, and one hopes the film can at least continue in this context.

Pleasant and entertaining throughout.

Paul Rudd plays the straight part to Steve Carell's 'funny' man, but the two don't have any dynamism together and just don't 'click', this means that Paul Rudds character comes across as very dull and boring.

Save your money and time .

The story going straight from Barry and Tim's meeting straight to the dinner of the title might have been a good idea, but this part of the movie is just as ridiculous as the rest of it, adding a layer of mean-spiritedness to the boredom and stupidity that set in 45 minutes ago.

The story is incredibly predictable, with a number of unrealistic and poorly thought out ideas.

Its boring plus it's a copy .

Overall, this movie is really enjoyable and you can probably get past the bad parts if you're not a reviewer like me.

Okay, Dinner for Schmucks is a comedy with overtones of schmaltz, slapstick, and silliness that somehow is mostly very enjoyable in spite of itself.

I have no seen the French edition but I hear it doesn't compare, and I have faith, this film was exciting and unconquerable, Paul Rudd fit the glove well and Carrell was delightful.

The movie also tends to drag on way too long.

What one has instead is a runaway train wreck of slapstick that congeals on the screen in an endless series of tiresome and unnecessary complications that are just too dumb to be funny.

With the strong underlying message of what friendship means and how we learn to accept the drawbacks of our friends, Paul Rudd stars in his second bromance after I Love You Man to explore just that, but it's Jemaine Clement (from Flight of the Conchords) who steals the show as Kieran the artist who's so full of himself and pretentious.

Anyway it doesn't work, and this one is the worst movie iv seen this year.

Was it entertaining?

After getting off to a slow start the movie picks up steam and becomes entertaining.

thanks to "Dinner for self indulgent schmucks!

BUT, through some very unexpected turn of events that we learn through the length of the movie, by the time the actual dinner takes place, the movie just rolls like a non-stopping laugh-outloud ride that will have you grasping for air while taking all the 'exceptional' action going on in the screen!

Some parts of this film are quite cringe worthy, boring and plain unfunny, whilst other parts do manage to make you giggle a bit.

But my friends and I needed to see the boring and pointless ending, just so we could see Rudd finally happy, well, remotely happy.

Kristen Schaal has some half decent zingers (Though I credit that more to her improv than the script), and Zach Galifianakis gives the one legitimately funny performance in the movie, but it's an overall dull experience.

But any movie in the 6's is usually worth watching, while any movie in the 5's is probably pretty okay.

Tim's expecting a letdown because his girlfriend, Julie (Stephanie Szostak), who was supposed to attend with him to talk art with the investor's wife, has walked out on Tim, partially thanks to Barry.

But Paul Rudd as a supposedly ambitious private equity analyst trying to climb the corporate ladder only comes off a nice guy, a regular guy, a bland guy - not someone who really wants to win at all costs - which would justify all the bad luck the character has.

" Germaine Clement's character was probably the most engaging of all, even overshadowing Steve Carell's.

It's hapless, formulaic comedy with all the creativity of a targeting computer.

It requires a bit more analyzing than most comedies, a bit of an unexpected gut check, and an open mind about the intentions of the film.

This has to rank as one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

A tedious and horrible "comedy" .

The script is just dreadful, it just doesn't work, the story is ridiculous which shouldn't be a problem for a comedy, but in this one everything is so predictable its painful.

If you want to see a movie that makes you laugh so hard it hurts, I highly recommend it.

Dinner for worst movies ever.

I laughed a LOT and I left the theater smiling.

But it is the dimension, as opposed to just the humour, of Barry's character that makes him so engaging.

Steve Carell Keeps the Film Entertaining .

A deeply cynical, formulaic farce without a shred of anything resembling reality.

One is that it dragged on for way too long.

Worst movie I've seen in 5 years!

I found "Dinner For Schmucks" to be quite enjoyable.

It's a very entertaining film also, and I laughed out loud numerous times.

Overall I was very impressed by this movie's outstanding quality, and would highly recommend it to anybody wanting to see a movie.

Don't waste your time.

I wanted to leave the movie 10 minutes into it when I had not even laughed once.

I have to stick my neck out on this one but I enjoyed it.

I haven't walked out on a movie since "The Master of Disguise" which was the worst movie I've ever seen, nor have I thought of walking out on a movie.

It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

In 12 years a lot can become cliché.

The guest with the most entertaining idiot wins a trophy.

But most of the movie felt bland.

Date Night was only moderately tolerable because it had Carell and the always-entertaining Tina Fey as its leads.

The only entertaining part was the brain power over mind power struggle, about 5 minutes of the movie, simply because you felt driven to see Barry win, other than that, a complete waste of time.

However, it would be a lie to say that none of these character made me laugh, but while the French version's gags mostly relied on comedy-of-errors, verbal humor and confusion, "Dinner for Schmucks" contained too much slapstick and gross gags to make you focus on the more subtle parts, and to the heart of the story, which was the friendship and understanding growing between Rudd and Carrell.

Trust me don't waste your time or money on this movie!!

i always wanted to see the worst movie ever made!

The ending is somewhat marred by the gears being crunched so that it ends up in that genre we know as "feelgood"; a predictable development for mainstream Hollywood movies these days, sadly.

What I got was a mix of some good laughs, some flop jokes, and scenes that dragged on way too long.

Adding the actual dinner to the film just leads to a predictable message and a painful running time.

I wouldn't describe Steve Carell as a comic genius exactly but he's usually entertaining.

Quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen!!.

Steve Carell's Worst Movie-to-date .

The final 20 minutes of the film are the best and make the whole film worth watching, if only once.

After being invited to a dinner when surprising everyone with the unexpected lamp surprise, Tim learns from his boss that he has to find an idiot to bring to the dinner and if the idiot is chosen as the stupidest he'll win an award and get the job.

I almost didn't try this movie because of the rating on here buy I am very very glad that I did because it was very enjoyable.

" And the dinner went on way too long: the scene after the award was made was definitely not funny.

He has some occasional quips, but the moments before he meets Steve Carell feel the most dull, and when he does meet him, Carell's outrageousness causes Rudd to take a backseat, and for a moment I forgot he was in the movie.

What a waste of time.

Its the story of a bland business type character trying to get a promotion by inviting someone much more interesting and confusing to a dinner and winning the dinner for idiots competition.

The manic Carrell pitted against the bland Rudd comes off acting like Jim Carrey's Lloyd Christmas in "Dumb and Dumber", except without the laughs.

This movie can easily get the worst movie of all time.

The only reason i gave this picture a 9 was because i was hoping for just a little more R rated content, but regardless of having no explicit Tits & Ass this is definitely worth watching, i highly recommend it.

Throw in Bruce Greenwood as Rudd's boss, David Walliams as potential client Fender Mueller, and Stephanie Szostak as Rudd's potential fiancée Julie and the whole thing has enough humor and heart to make this one of the most enjoyable comedies this season.

Don't, seriously, DON'T waste your time.

Please don't waste ANY of your money on this crappy movie, wait for it to come out on TNT!!!

The WORST movie I have ever seen.

The story is simple and predictable, Paul Rudd needs to get promoted in his job and as part of him getting promoted he must attend this dinner with his boss and bring a complete idiot so everyone can make fun of them and the one that brings the most idiotic/radical/crazy person wins - Paul Rudd crashes into Steve carrel and the crazy relationship builds from there...

That said, the settings are also very fine, with Rudd's apartment absolutely stunning in its decor.

But instead what the Roach-coach fed us was an unpleasant, dull movie about a rising executive named Tim whose superiors force him to bring a human target to humiliate in a "hence movie title".

In all honesty the film relies way too heavily on the visual improvised humour Carrell and co. come up with which does become tiresome over the length of the film.

But don't expect it to be like LAUGHING SO HARD THAT YOu CANT BREATHE AND YOU JUST SH*T YOUR PANTS but its a fun, entertaining, comedy that will leave you warm inside and all that cheesy bull sh*t.

The problem with this drivel is that it was that slow, tedious and annoying type of "humour" that grinds on and on with no laughs.

Bad and boring .

Getting rid of Barry, by force if necessary, is the omnipresent, painfully obvious answer to each tiresome dilemma.

" The eponymous meal collects a compelling (and funny!

Everything felt so contrived.

I tried to watch the original "Le dinner du cons" before I saw this remake but I couldn't stand it, because of the slow pace.

I highly recommend it.

Rudd is the opposite for me, he can be good too, but here he seems bored and underplays his part badly.

worst movie of 2010 .

It gets talked about quite a lot throughout the film but once it reaches that point, it seems very dull and predictable.

you'll fall asleep right away.

Overall, "Dinner for Schmucks", is a funny movie that is worth watching.

Zack Galifianakis is a good addition, with his character being one of the more entertaining.

The end was very predictable, really disappointing and without any real climax.

It is well worth watching!

And Steve Carell was so amazingly cast for the lovable role as the somewhat slow and gullible Barry who sees the world differently that most others do.

All in all, you'd have to be a schmuck to waste your money on this movie.

One of the worst movies ever.

This was an enjoyable movie.

Clement seems to take great pride in his character: a pretentious artist whose hobbies include tantric sex and living amongst goats.

The cons are its overly long, Barry's approach is tedious at times, the plots recycled, Zach Galifianakis's cameo is too dumb to believe, and a trimmed rating.

Don't waste your money and don't waste your time when this hits TV.

It was worse than a waste of money.

In comparison this had so much plot complexity (we find out why Carroll does the things he does in such delicate layering that it is quite breathtaking).

Yes, enjoyable enough for a Sunday afternoon.