Dinner for Schmucks (2010)

Synopsis

Up-and-coming executive Tim Conrad (Paul Rudd) tries to impress his boss, Lance Fender (Bruce Greenwood), by landing a high-profile client. Though successful, Fender doesn’t promote Conrad until he learns more about him. Fender and his associates, Caldwell (Ron Livingston) and Williams (Larry Willmore), tell Conrad about a special dinner they host. Everyone must bring someone with an eccentric talent to ridicule, and Conrad reluctantly agrees. Despite his girlfriend, Julie (Stephanie Szostak), finding it objectionable, Conrad believes he’s struck gold upon meeting Barry Speck (Steve Carell). Speck has a knack for making dioramas using taxidermied mice and is also incompetent and oblivious. Unfortunately for Conrad, Speck inadvertently makes his life a living hell by causing all sorts of shenanigans. Conrad has to deal with a wild ex, an eccentric photographer, and Speck’s odd boss. But he must make a choice: win back his girlfriend or win the dinner for schmucks.

Review

While I wasn’t wowed by the 1998 original, I thought it said a lot about class warfare and self-worth. Unfortunately, Dinner for Schmucks doesn’t have any of that; instead, it goes for a safer, more sanitized version. The original film relied on witty wordplay, high energy, and clever misdirection for much of its humor. However, this remake relies mostly on low-brow humor and exaggerated set pieces that feel like a step down. You get the sense that the filmmakers thought audiences would lose interest in the interplay between the two leads. While I complained that the original film didn’t feature the titular dinner game, it made for a nice misdirection. Also, the enclosed setting of the apartment helped simplify the original plot, whereas this one has so many distracting subplots. It’s a perfect example of the old saying, less is more.

Performance-wise, everyone does a decent job, but I feel like there was some miscasting. Thierry Lhermitte worked because he was the stereotypical handsome bully being made the fool and realizing his faults. With Paul Rudd, he’s so inherently likable that we don’t feel the same satisfaction when he’s made into a fool. In fact, I actually started to side more with him than with Steve Carell’s Barry, though only slightly. While he’s a savant and sympathetic, Barry’s idiocy is more irritating than funny as he inexplicably makes things worse. What happens to Rudd’s Tim character feels unearned because he had no interest in the dinner from the start. It’s indicative of how American audiences can’t accept an unsympathetic lead and instead want a charming but flawed protagonist. The rest of the cast feel like cheap punchlines rather than fully fleshed-out characters worth discussing.

As with many remakes, this one hits on many of the same beats as the original, but not quite exactly. Both films have the lead suffer a back injury that makes them susceptible to shenanigans involving infidelity and misdirection. But while the original was more subtle, this one goes for the wildest extreme to broaden it for American audiences. For instance, the original’s other woman was manipulative but calm, while the remake’s is a crazed, shrill stalker. Also, both fools have a coworker as a foil, but Zach Galifianakis is a living cartoon compared to Daniel Prévost. The remake tries to maintain the original’s moral, but it feels disingenuous after the earlier craziness. Still, if you watch this as its own movie, you might get some laughs, but I’d strongly recommend the original. Overall, Dinner for Schmucks is a decent comedy but a pale imitation of something better.

Buy Dinner for Schmucks from Amazon: https://amzn.to/4vgL5n7.

Disclosure: The above link is an affiliate link, which means that, at no additional cost, I will earn a commission if you click through the link and make a purchase.