Sunday, August 8, 2010

Dinner for Schmucks

'Schmucks goes for too many yuck-yucks'

Dinner for Schmucks seems like a brilliant concept. A wonderful exploration of schadenfreude, or harm to others. Everyone has done it. We have all laughed at the kid who tripped over his own feet, or the one who has the ridiculously convoluted true story that somehow involves G.I. Joes, a turtle, and a cactus. The best part is that, on the outset, the movie seems to have everything going for it. Hilarious one-liners in trailers, Steve Carell doing his version of early Jim Carrey and being goofy and silly, people laughing in the movie at the other people, and the director of Meet the Parents which is perhaps the best example of schadenfreude comedy in the last 20 years outside of Something About Mary. Heck, The Hangover was an entire film of terrible events happening that are hilarious and look how well it did. However, the movie becomes a painful lesson in what could go wrong with such a delicate style of comedy that seems on the outside a hilarious setup but always ends with someone in pain.

One flaw with the film is the trailer. We know from the trailers that Carell is essentially a one-man wrecking crew. Therefore, going into the film we expect for him to do terrible things that mess up Paul Rudd’s life, goofy ridiculous things which according to movies are always misunderstandings and people being too nosey and ridiculous. This creates a problem with executing the desire to laugh at the terrible things that happen. As an audience member I can see the bad things happening a mile away. The nuance is simply not there. The absurdity of the surprise terrible things that only makes sense upon reflection do not occur because the absurdity is given to Carell’s character in terms of how ridiculous he is and not to what he is doing. There is no reflection and no surprise because we see it coming a mile away. Therefore, in a film meant to be about schadenfreude with a twist at the end to make the audience feel bad about having laughed at these people throughout the film, there is no feeling sorry or bad. Why? Because through most of the film instead of laughing at the horrible things that have happened to Paul Rudd, we have been hiding our heads, ashamed and embarrassed for him. Therefore the movie becomes an exercise in empathy pain for the characters instead of learning or reproaching ourselves.

The acting: Well, it is safe to say that the actors were a little too over the top. Instead of dialing it down a notch, it feels as if they were told to go with it. Carell’s character goes far too far a majority of the time and doesn’t seem even plausibly real. I feel afraid to be laughing at a mental patient. Because he is Carell, he does receive some laughs for his great timing, but it should be noted that even the script should have been doctored to show him as an idiot in one field. At least Carell’s acting was given an excellent spotlight and his moments of hurt and vulnerability are exquisitely Paul Rudd’s character is the guy that people can sympathize with. Everyone wants to be promoted and get the good life. Everyone wants the girl. However, it is hard to sympathize with someone who so quickly lies to his girlfriend consistently, promises not to lie, and then continues on his crazy quest to achieve power by essentially setting someone else up. While Rudd can play an everyman in this, this movie feels a little bit dialed in on his part. A certain straight man angst is missing. He seems to expect these horrible things constantly which takes away from his surprise and ours. His feelings for Carell’s private woes are well done but otherwise he comes across a little too typical, a little too ehhh about his woes, and little too driven at times for what he wants. Sure, he becomes a good boy in the end, but he spends a majority of the movie treating others as beneath him and there were several times when he could end the whole mess by doing the right thing instead of going along with ridiculous ideas that come from Carell’s head. Perhaps the best part about the movie is the blind swordsman and Zach Galifianakis (I hope I spelled that correct). Zach’s part is ridiculously stupid yet somehow believable and he does an excellent job of lending his jackassery toward creating feelings for Carell’s character. He is absurd and yet somehow slightly believable. Congratulations to him since I am not naturally a fan of his. Oh yea, and the painting guy is just weird and at times amusing.

Sadly, the directing in the movie feels off. The person I admired the most by the end of the film is whoever the real guy was who created all of those wonderful mouse paintings and dioramas that were quite skillful. Roach did things much better when he had Stiller playing the screw up because Stiller plays it completely straight and normal and the ridiculous things that happen occur without warning or foreshadowing and he reacts honestly as does the family and De Niro. While I did look forward to the film and it did have some hilarious moments, in the end it goes from being a sophisticated film dealing in a delicate style of comedy to being a schlapstick adult film that is as goofy as a cartoon and not as kid friendly. Better luck on Little Fockers.

Verdict: 3 out of 10
Wannabe

No comments: