BY TIMOTHY RABB
Daily Arts Writer
Published August 3, 2010
After the release of “I Love You, Man,” critics couldn’t help but remark at Paul Rudd’s ability to inspire talent and vigor in his co-stars, reigning in some of the zaniest supporting actors and helping them achieve far more than they could have managed with a lackluster lead. Rudd’s uncanny knack for playing contrasting characters is clearly seen in the polar nature of his roles as a probated energy drink salesman in “Role Models” and that of a classy, confident financial executive in his newest film, “Dinner for Schmucks.” In light of all his strong suits as an actor, it’s a shame that both his and Steve Carell’s unique comedic talents have been relegated to the madhouse of mainstream cinematic bawdry.
"Dinner for Schmucks"
At Rave
Paramount
More like this
Disappointingly, after being highly anticipated for the better part of the summer, “Dinner for Schmucks” finds a fatal flaw in its constant vacillation between the serious, heady comedy of “I Love You, Man” and the convoluted mess inherent to modern slapstick films like “All About Steve.” Though viewer-based rating systems may be more forgiving than the critics to even the most flippant summer movies, that doesn’t amend many of the travesties found in “Schmucks.”
The movie’s first act introduces us to Tim (Rudd), a young financial executive whose life may be on the up-and-up after he wows his superiors with the acquisition of a wealthy new client. The only hindrance to his impending promotion is his boss’s invitation to a “dinner for idiots.” To satiate his superiors’ sadism, he must invite an eccentric guest to a party at which the biggest idiot will win a pseudo-prize.
At first, Tim’s guilt at the thought of such a mean-spirited dinner prevents him from fully committing to it, but after his unlikely encounter with an off-the-wall schmuck named Barry (Carell), he quickly changes his mind. Barry’s “talent” is his inexplicable affinity for rodent taxidermy, which is gracefully coupled with a penchant for general mayhem. After Barry’s antics convince Tim to attend the dinner, a smattering of hilarity – along with an unfortunate overdose of creepiness and mindless cacophony – ensues.
The first saboteur to ruin the integrity of “Schmucks” is Tim’s stalker of an ex-girlfriend, Darla (Lucy Punch, “Being Julia”). The scene in which Barry and Darla use their infernal teamwork to lay waste to Tim’s apartment feels like cheap filler that’s desperate to keep viewers from yawning. The second character to contribute to the film’s all-out ruination is Kieran (Jermaine Clement, TV’s “Flight of the Conchords”), a famous artist whose “animal magnetism” resembles fetish porn more than art. The unconscionable quirks in his personality are, like Darla’s, an attempt to distract us from the fact that the story’s progression has been waylaid for want of a better script. The evil connivance of these two supporting characters thrusts our lovable lead into situations he should have never encountered and throws “Schmucks” into a state of limbo that prevents it from iterating any tangible theme.
“Schmucks” is – like the American remake of “Death at a Funeral” – an homage that damns rather than compliments. Its only solaces are the (wasted) potential of its acting talent and a few brief moments of genuine comedy, most of which revolve around Barry’s elaborate “mousterpieces.” Unfortunately, its relentless marketing campaign and high box-office returns will ensure that it is remembered far longer than its exceptional predecessor.
