• Home
• About

Dinner With Schmucks

This was a lesson on how a good ending can save a mediocre movie. Steve Carell getting into Zach Galifianakis’ brain and the two finger-shooting each other? Classic!

Structure / Plot

I liked the setup, everything was clear and simple for such a comedy, and Paul Rudd was given a clear objective with stakes: get an idiot for the dinner party or do not get the promotion. What bothered me is that the story then switched to a character-driven mode. Rudd did not look for an idiot, he bumped into one, Steve Carell. It would have been more natural for him to consider existing idiots in his life, like family members or the weird guy at the coffee shop, before noticing Carell. And then there were no obstacles to Carell wanting to attend the dinner; Rudd invited and he accepted.

Most of Act II felt forced and off because of this and, while there were some funny parts, the lack of a solid foundation weakened the humor. Carell showing up a day early to Rudd’s apartment was a weak way to get him and Rudd paired up. The movie needed to stick to the objective-driven path and this meant that Carell should have had an obstacle to attending the dinner. Of course he wanted to go, but Something Important should have interfered that caused Rudd to try and help him resolve it. Through this manner of pairing them together, the two could have proceeded through the same series of misadventures and the pace, tone and feeling would have been fresher.

Little thing

Here’s where I stand in the debate over the title: schmuck is Yiddish for prick, it does not mean idiot or fool. So the title only refers to the guys hosting the dinner and is not even a double-entendre. Since the word schmuck is not uttered in the movie, it was especially silly to use it in the title.

Subscribe to the RSS feed and follow the conversation.