Dinner for Schmucks Review

Published 5 years ago by , Updated August 3rd, 2010 at 5:05 am,

dinner for schmucks carrell rudd Dinner for Schmucks Review
Screen Rant’s Paul Young reviews Dinner for Schmucks

After watching Dinner for Schmucks I slowly trudged out of the theater feeling as if every last ounce of happy-go-lucky spirit had been drained from my body. Dinner for Schmucks is one of those films where the concept may have looked great on paper but ultimately the execution was lseverly lacking. While watching this, I realized that just about every side character in the film is funnier than Steve Carrell and Paul Rudd, who are both actors I normally enjoy watching.

The basic plot is about Tim (Paul Rudd) who tries to ingratiate himself with the uppity-ups at his company – but to really seal the deal and get the promotion he wants so badly, he must attend a dinner at his bosses house and bring an idiot with him – the more colorful the better. The problem is Tim sort of has a conscience in the form of his girlfriend, Julie (Stephanie Szostak) but his need to continue paying for his Porsche and upscale apartment far outweigh any reluctance he may have about a stranger’s feelings. Besides, he tells Julie, “Where would I find someone colorful enough to take to the party?”

dinner for schmucks the swiss Dinner for Schmucks Review

Lucy Davenport and David Walliams in a scene from 'Dinner for Schmucks'

Enter Barry (Steve Carrell) who has the unique talent of taxidermy and uses it to dress up dead mice in outfits and arrange them in scenes around his house. Some of the stuff he creates is ridiculously awesome and if it weren’t for the fact that all the models were made out of dead rodents, I would probably buy some of his art. After a chance encounter between Tim’s bumper and Barry’s body, Tim realizes what an “idiot” he has found and invites him to dinner. Barry immediately confuses the dates and shows up a day early and after a ridiculous series of events where he basically ruins Tim’s relationship, career, car apartment and life – Tim sees the error of his ways and the two become close friends.

Writers David Guion and Michael Handelman, as well as director Jay Roach, must have had a really rough life growing up because Dinner for Schmucks felt like it was written by a group of nerds who were mistreated in high school and now want to teach the “jocks” (or whoever their frustration is aimed at) a life lesson. But instead of a story where the bigshots get their comeuppance, it comes across like the writers spent almost two hours making fun of Barry and people like him, who march to the beat of a different drum. If anything, Barry and this merry band of social misfits should have been the highlight of the movie and not the butt of its lame, uninspired jokes.

dinner for schmucks the dinner guests Dinner for Schmucks Review

While they don’t come right out and say Barry is Autistic, certain key personality traits of his are just too similar to the disorder to be ignored. Barry has no sense of the social ramifications of his actions, he doesn’t pick up on others’ social cues nor does he feel any awkwardness when talking about issues that would clearly be awkward to discuss, (i.e. his boss stealing his wife, not being able to please his wife in bed, telling people he has a sexually transmitted disease).

There’s nothing wrong with Barry being Autistic but I don’t really find myself wanting to laugh at people with Autism. Carrell does his best to provide as many laughs as possible but after the first 30 minutes most of the jokes and sight gags fall flat while others made me cringe at their predictability.

Here is what was good about the film: Zach Galifianakis as the mind controlling boss, Jemaine Clement as the sexually narcissistic artist, Lucy Punch as the rabbit boiling stalker ex-one night stand girl, Jeff Dunham as the man married to a dummy on his arm, Octavia Spencer as the psychic who speaks to dead animals and Chris O’Dowd who literally steals every scene he is in as the blind swordsman who wants to compete in the Olympic Games.

dinner for schmucks odowd Dinner for Schmucks Review

Every single one of those characters are worth watching, it’s just too bad you have to sit through the rest of the film to see them. The film has a few belly laugh areas in it but honestly if it weren’t for the people I named above this movie would get even less than 1.5 stars.

This is a buddy movie where the “buddies” spend almost the entire film not being buddies and really no one cares if they ever become buddies.

The movie is called Dinner for Schmucks yet the only schmucks I see are the people who are fooled into actually paying to watch it in theaters.

Our Rating:

1.5 out of 5
(Poor, A Few Good Parts)

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. I saw it last night because a couple of friends wanted to check it out, but I honestly didn’t care for it. I was thinking of a 2/5 but after thinking about it I only really laughed a couple of times and honestly groaned more at the film because of the predictability and stupidity, so a 1.5/5 would be more accurate. And I don’t mean Stupidity like Dumb and Dumber(which is hilarious) but the kind of stupidity which makes you go “wait what…why did he???”

  2. I actually liked it and laughed a lot but hey my opinion doesn’t matter.

  3. Seth
    I wanna hear your opininion^^

    Dumb and dumber is my fave comedy film^^

    Well,the trailer always cracks me up lol!!! I wanna see it,ive seen mixed reviews so IDK….

  4. Saw it last night and I walked out of the cinema with a feeling of having been mugged.
    It was just plain boring.

    So much talent just wasted.

  5. Tyler
    wow that bad?!? Ive never left the theater……

  6. That movie is a remake of the French movies: DINER DE CONS, which is much better then the American version, makes more sense then this senseless remake.

  7. I watch a lot of movies… that is all I do.
    This is the first movie I have ever walked out on…

  8. i thought the movie was really funny.

    the part where i just couldnt stop laughing out loud was the scene in the restaurant when Carrell passes the written on napkin to the guy in the white suit, it was hilarious!

    i think this movie was definately worth seeing but cant be taken too seriously

  9. I saw this film with my brother last night, I really dodn’t like it as much as he did, it just felt awkward and forced. My brother really enjoyed it. And was still talking about it this morning. I think the 1.5 is a bit harsh but I don’t think it deserved anything better than a 2.5.

  10. Wow does no one have a sense of humor? It seems like the only negative things the reviewer has to say is that is about the plot and he doesn’t like the fact that people are being made fun of. I guess he didn’t watch any of the trailers and if he did then he should have known what to expect and if he didn’t like the trailers they chose the wrong person to review this. This is also the same guy who enjoyed Cats vs. Dogs The Revenge of Kitty Galore, so take that with a grain of salt. I prefer the comedy of Dinner for Schmucks over the juvenile humor of Grown Ups (which I have no plan to see) and I also thought this was funnier than Get Him to the Greek. It’s not Carrell or Rudd’s best performance, but both provide solid laughs and are as likeable as ever and as mentioned in the review, the supporting cast is great. You know what the premise is if you watch the trailer and if that doesn’t appeal to you then don’t see it, but if you’re not put off by the idea and enjoy a good comedy then you should definitely check it out.

    • I’m right here dude, you can talk to me by name instead of “the reviewer” :)

      Regardless of what you may think, I did not walk into this movie just waiting to give it a bad grade. I never go into a theater with my red pencil drawn hoping to slaughter a film.

      That being said, the problem with this film had nothing to do with the acting (it was all fine and as noted the side characters were hysterical) and everything to do with direction and script.

      The movie took a nasty and mean spirited approach, IMHO, at the very moment Barry found out that Tim and the others were using them for their amusement and acted no differently. In fact, he goes back into the party and “shows off” in front of them to save face. How do the men respond? By laughing at him more.

      BTW, Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore was aiming at a completely different market and my review score reflects that. If you don’t agree with my review that’s cool because everyone is welcome to express their opinion but to use that as a basis to some how discredit my other reviews is weak.

      Also, you accuse me of not watching any of the trailers and somehow that affected my opinion on the film. Are we supposed to only let people that think they may like a film review it? That would seem a bit biased to me. FYI, I write for a movie site…of course I watched all of the trailers. “)

      • lol I didn’t know what the correct name to call you would be, so lesson learned on that front

        I don’t think it took as mean as an approach as you think and it’s no worse than any of the humor being used in any of the good tv shows. If you had a problem with the script for this then you must not enjoy The Office (look how mean Michael is being to Toby!) or Always Sunny (they’re making fun of the retarded person Dee is dating!, Charlie is illiterate and they’re exploiting it for laughs!, etc.). It just seems like the only reason I see negative reviews about this movie is because it’s too mean spirited which isn’t a fair reason to give a movie a bad review IMO. The movie excelled in the uncomfortable moments (the brunch scene with the Swiss being my favorite) as well as physical comedy (Rudd and his back problems). And I don’t think Barry was “showing off” after he was informed it was a dinner to make fun of people, he just felt embarrassed by Galifianakis’ character and wanted his revenge for what took place before then as well as for sleeping with his wife. And the only reason the men laugh is because Barry and Galifianakis are having an imaginary fight with each other using imaginary weapons and defenses. So while you think that it’s just a movie to make fun of other people, could it not just as easily be a social commentary on the upper class that the only way they find laughter is at the misfortune of others?

        As for Cats & Dogs, just because it was aimed for children doesn’t mean it should be eased up on. We’ve seen some great movies made for kids (Toy Story 3, Despicable Me) and some not so great ones (Marmaduke, The Last Airbender) and without seeing it I would group Cats and Dogs into the latter category. I’m not trying to discredit your review, I’m saying that perhaps we don’t have the same taste in movies. There are some critics I agree with more than others and the only way you know which ones to listen to are the ones whose reviews you agree with.

        I don’t think that not watching the trailers would affect your opinion of the film, it’s watching the trailer and getting a predetermined opinion of the movie that would affect. Judging from your review, I’m going to guess you didn’t like the trailer because you didn’t like the premise of it all which was given away in the trailers. And if you’re a critic such as yourself you have to see the movie regardless of whether you liked the trailer or not to review it, but if you’re just an average viewer, then yes you should only “review” a film you are interested in.

        IMO this was the funniest comedy since The Hangover (it seems like we’ll be using that saying for the next several years) and it’s one of the funnier PG-13 comedies I recall seeing in theaters.

    • So Grown Ups is juvenile humor but Dinner for Schmucks isn’t? lol wtf?

  11. I hear alot of mixed reviews. I went wit a group of friends and laughed ALOT. Steve Carrell and Zac Galifinakis are just plain comedy. There were one or two predictable parts but that doesn’t ruin the movie in my opinion.

    Grown-Ups was dull and boring, Get him to the greek was alright, but this is the best comedy of the year so far. Still waiting to see THE OTHER GUYS haha

  12. Comedies have funny parts, but are usually just bad movies.

  13. I think after Inception, everybody wants the next movie they watch to be near-perfect. Well that ain’t gonna happen. I went into the movie just to entertained. And I did. I never saw the French original and I don’t care. Going into this movie with no reference or anticipation really helped me enjoy this movie. If I had any anticipation at all, it would be to see more of Jeff Dunham and how he works with his puppet.

    The first scene got us to enjoy Barry, not get annoyed by him and then understand him later in the film. Since we saw the trailer and saw what he does, we are taken aback by the craftsmaship of his taxidermed costumed mice. You are taken aback by his passion.

    All the funny moments with Barry were better with how awkward they were. Stopping the wrong girl at the door, putting the napkin in the wrong place,using the stalker as a replacement for brunch, they are unnerving but he means well.

    Maybe the only thing that was bad about this film was the short use of the other “schmucks”. The dinner could have developed a little bit more.

    Overall I would give this movie a 2.75 out of 5. Not bad. Might put it on my iPod later this year.

  14. I walked out right before the dinner scene. It was the most depressing “comedy” I had ever scene. I was wishing at least one good thing would happen to any of these characters on the way to the table scene and it never came. This movie is relentless to the protagonists to where they could have won a zillion dollars and I would still be depressed. Review was dead on.

    • Patrick, maybe if you had seen the dinner scene, and the end of the movie, you would have found the “salvation” of this movie that you were hoping for. You simply cannot walk out on a movie before the climax and expect resolution. The dinner scene ended with all of the characters getting what they deserved. Never in this movie are the antagonist business men painted favorably at all.

      So it was not “Gone With the Wind” or “Citizen Kane”, I still feel this was the funniest movie I have seen in awhile. If Paul Young judged that kids’ movie by its target audience, then he should have done the same with this movie (target being people who want to laugh). The fact that this movie offended his particular sensibilities, jaded his review wholly, I feel. I suppose at this point I am reviewing the review haha. Sorry for that.

      • I wasn’t looking for resolution. I just wanted the story to let up on the characters a bit every so often. Constant awkward situational humor is depressing. For example, in 40 year old virgin, Carrell’s character was teased and looked pathetic when the guys asked him to play poker. Next scene he owns them. Then he says the stupid sand boob comment revealing he’s a virgin. Then the guys try to help him (honestly, not where you’d think it’d be more awkward fail). And so on and so forth. I just wanted some small victories for the pathetic characters once in awhile. It was an hour and 30 min of depressing bs happening. Glad you were able to laugh throughout. I guess I need to lighten up on suspending my disbelief.

        • yes, that’s it! lighten up! to enjoy comedy requires a levity of character that some people don’t posess, but all should strive for- it makes life much more enjoyable.

  15. I enjoyed it. Not the best comedy of the year but not the worst. 1.5 seems way off. The performances were good and most everyone made me laugh. I don’t get people crying that it was to mean for them. It’s sad to see adults getting so cry baby over the movie not being nice enogh for them.

    I knew what the movie was about and I enjoyed it. I don’t consider it being mean as a valid complaint because it was clear for months that’s what it would be.

    As far as this and cats and dogs I know youll say it’s for a different audience but both reviews seem way off to me. I don’t buy in to the it’s for another type of crowd because a crap movie is still a crap movie no matter who you aim it at. I still like films like Toy Story and despicable me despite being for kids, but Cats and Dogs is just crap.

    Cats and Dogs should get a 1.5 and Dinner to me was more of a 2.5 to 3 range.

    • Dan, first no one is getting “cry baby” over the movie not being nice enough – the film had no pay off for me. There is only so much of the same “Barry is so annoying he’s funny” joke I can take before it gets old. The writers are asking the audience to feel a sense of satisfaction when the board members get their’s at the party but yet expect us to laugh at Barry for the same reasons he was invited to the party in the first place? That just doesn’t work for me.

      Sure I laughed at parts but does making me laugh equate to a good movie? I say no.

      I find it very humorous that people are getting bent out of shape because they think my two reviews (Dinner for Schmucks and Cats and Dogs) seem to be polar opposite of what they think the reviews should have been. I didn’t watch C&D by myself. Anytime I go see a film geared towards kids I take my own kids with me. Kids are brutally honest and if they like or dislike a film then they will tell you flat out either way. They didn’t enjoy Marmaduke at all but had a great time at C&D so my review reflected that.

      Out of curiosity, did you even go see C&D or are you rating it based on the premise of the film? Sometimes critics (and fans of movies in general) forget that families enjoy going to see films that aren’t animated and appreciate an honest family oriented review. We have quite a few of those type readers here at Screen Rant and my C&D review was written for them – not the average fan boy that thinks movies like that are dumb in general.

  16. I watched this movie last night with my wife and we both thought it was absolutely hilarious! of course they are making fun of ppl. that was the whole point of the movie. We laughed nonstop throughout the viewing and we will probably go see it again in the near future to laugh some more. Josh, I understand what you were trying to say about “the reviewers” review. lol. And IMHO, I dont believe the movie took a nasty or mean spirited approach whatsoever. No doubt this movie is a comedy for grown-ups, but I dont even recall any direct shots at Carrel because he had autism. And Paul, u definitely attempted to minimize how many times you fell over laughing in your review! So what if the plot was stupid? The fact of the matter is this, Dinner for Schmucks achieved everything it was set out to do…make people laugh! At the very least, a 3.5 out of 5. Maybe you should go see it again. But this time please leave your red pen at home. :)

    • I’d maybe go up to 2…maybe…but I just can’t see it IMHO. Not everyone is going to agree with my opinion and I’m cool with that but I’m going to be honest in my review regardless. Either way, I’m glad you enjoyed the film – heck, I like films made by The Asylum so what do I know :)?

      • ok “maybe you will go up to 2?” now we are getting somewhere! lol

        • Heh…see I’m open-minded.

  17. Actually Paul like I said on your cats and dogs review I watched it with an 8 year old and she thought it sucked. Half way through the film she actually turned to me and said “Is this a comedy?” when the film was ever she said “That sucked” and made a pouty face. It was cute lol. The theater wasn’t packed but was decently full with children hardly any of them were enjoying it. I won’t lie some did like it but most didn’t or at least didn’t seem to.

    • I agree with you about the trailer. The trailer did not do this movie any justice. The movie is very different from the trailer.

      Also, never judge the pacing of a movie by the trailer. A trailer is often heavily edited, and character reactions can be placed out-of-context to setups. But I agree, the trailer sucked. I would give the trailer 1 star, and the movie 3 (out of four).

  18. I feel like a “schmuck” for having paid to see this movie….. Very stupid premise and except for the Mandella/Freeman mix-up, not funny in the least….

    • you should work on your sense of humor before attempting any more comedies. i’d be interested to hear some of the movies that you do find funny, if you didn’t enjoy this one. my guess is they wouldn’t even be comedies at all.

  19. For the pretentious schmucks that seem to lack a sense of humor and the ability to look beyond the laughs (which there are many) to find the heart of this film, perhaps it’s best if you just stick to higher class fare like Ishtar. The fact is, the reviewer here, and the rest of the kill-joys who have responded have totally missed the point of this film. The butts of the jokes aren’t the “idiots”, it’s the “normal people” or the people in power. Sadly, folks have gotten so PC these days that they can’t loosen the band on their skivies (under-drawers for you pretentious schmucks) long enough to allow for a little harmless escapism. This film does have a heart for those willing to look for it.

    • First bud don’t call me pretentious. If you did your research on me you’d realize that I’m the least pretentious writer on this site. Heck my Twitter account even proudly displays the fact that I like to watch films made by The Asylum! So try a different argument….

      Second, were we watching the same film? There were never any jokes made at the “normal people’s” expense. The only way the film even addresses the issue was to cut off a dude’s finger, destroy a guy’s dining room and we are to assume his business went under.

      This was not the end all of all comedies and I’m not understanding why people are defending it like it was.

      There was no escapism in this film for the audience but if you had a good time watching it that fantastic. I’m glad you didn’t feel like you wasted your money or time. Opinions on movies can differ without resorting to talking condensending or rudely to the people that disagree with you.

      • It’s called reading between the lines; and if you can’t recognize that it is the “normal people” who are being put under the microscope, perhaps that says something about your view of the world. The fact is, we all have our place in this world . . . contributions to make. Some make dioramas featuring deceased mice, others review films. What I take issue with are folks who seem to think they have the last word on what makes a good film, or what is politically correct at any given time. This was an entertaining film. I along with a theater full of people laughed loud and often throughout this film. It’s a simple comedy created to let people laugh for 90 minutes. And no, it’s not the end all of all comedies, but it’s pretty darn good. What I find condesending are folks who think that comedy in film begins and ends with Woody Allen (whose films I also enjoy), and can’t relax their sphincter long enough to allow themselves a good belly laugh without feeling guilty about it, or worrying what their friends will think.

        In short, I wish film reviewers would leave their social commentary at the door, and let the movie-goer apply their own sensibilities to the film after seeing it for themselves.

        Lastly, the fact that you name dropped Twitter and The Asylum betrays a certain air of pretention . . . just a little.

        • LMAO! That may be the first time anyone has ever associated the name The Asylum with the word pretentious. Are you even familiar with their work bud? And since when did Twitter become name dropping?

          You want to pretend you have your finger on the pulse of both society and myself but seriously you have no idea what you are talking about. I despise Woody Allen films and I don’t believe it was ever mentioned in my article that his films are considered funnier. Wait let me check again…nope no mention. So what are you basing your insight into my sub-conscious on?

          This was MY review on MY experience with the film. Yours obviously differs and I’m OK with that but why do you feel it’s necessary for a reviewer’s opinion to agreed 100% with your own? Are there feelings of insecurity buried “between your lines” that you can’t read a differing opinion on something without harshly attacking it?

          There was no social commentary in my review, and I have my doubts that you actually read it. The acting was good (thought Rudd was stale) but the movie’s script was weak and the whole film lacked good direction. BTW, I liked Transformers 2…how’s that for going against the grain.

          • Look sport, I’m clearly engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. Read the very last line of your own review, and that speaks volumes about how accomodating you are about differing opinions.

            Reviewer, heal thyself.

          • RE: My deleted response

            Censorship, the true mark of an unprincipled coward.

            • Rick,

              Listen, my sanctimonious friend – for some reason your comment went into the moderation queue (I’m not sure why). You’ll find it published above.

              I apologize for not sitting at my computer 24/7 hitting the refresh key every 30 seconds looking for comments flagged for moderation or mistakenly sent to the spam folder.

              And pray, explain, why the hell you’re so fired up about a review of a film? Do you have Paramount of Viacom stock in your portfolio?

              Just wondering.


              • First of all, the response was initially posted and then disappeared. my apologies if this is just how the system works. My bad, and I am sincerely sorry.

                Second, the issue I take with the reviewer, and “critics” in general is that they feel compelled to shape public opinion by inserting their own moral convictions into the mix. That’s not their job, that’s for the audience to decide.

                Third, I own no stock in ANY entertainment companies; however, as a student filmmaker, I understand first-hand the blood, sweat, and tears that goes into making any film. And before you go thinking I’m some dumb kid, I’m 47 years old and made the choice to go back to school to learn about the medium I love.

                Lastly, and with all due respect . . . this isn’t your fight, unless you want it to be.

            • Calm down buster…your comment went into moderation for some reason even though you had no cussing in the post. I have approved it and it should show up shortly.

              However, I’m thinking you since you would rather toss out meaningless sound bites and lame cliches instead of discussing why you felt the movie deserved a better rating from me than what I gave it, then I think it’s time we ended this “discussion”.

              (“battle of wits with an unarmed man?”)- Did you have to Google that one or did you come up with it all by yourself? *eyeroll*

              • Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can do neither are called critics. No, I didn’t come up with that, but that doesn’t make it any less of a fact.

                You are withing your rights to give any given film however many stars, thumbs, or whatever you like. What I took issue with is the very thing that offended you; that being the name calling. This is what propmted my response in the first place. You sir, are the one who cast the first stone in this frivolous war of words. Perhaps you thought it was cute; a play on words. Well, it provoked a response . . . so here we are.

                • Excuse me, but I teach…and I can do plenty. Now, you’re throwing around these adorable ditties and insulting others who are NOT EVEN PART OF THIS DISCUSSION. You are showing off YOUR prediliction for pretense…and buffoonery.

    • right on rick! these people should not watch comedy because they are sad and want everyone else to come to their level. this movie was hilarious, and everyone involved should be more than proud.

  20. Mean-spiritedness at the expense of another, unsuspecting person is a real hot-button with me…especially when the butt of the joke has done nothing to offend the bullies except be themselves; conversely, humiliating someone who gets their jollies humiliating others? I’m okay with that.

    Why is this a hot-button with me, you might wonder? Because it was just such a mean-spirited “prank” (in intention, but fouled up in execution)by her boss that resulted in my meeting the woman whom I will be celebrating 16 years of marriage to on 2/4/11.

    I’ll give the full details here, only if everyone wants to hear.

    • Sounds interesting . . . do tell.

      • Well, we start with “Janine”, the office manager of a car dealership in IL…she works there with her sister, her niece, and their daytime employee, Patricia. One day, Janine & family are discussing the subject of what constitutes The Worst Date A Woman Can Go On, deciding that the best choice is A Short, Bald Man; Janine derives a great deal of amusement from the humiliation of others, and decides that the only member of the staff that is not family (Patricia) should be so humiliated, because she isn’t family and is therefore fair game.

        They go to their favorite yogurt shop where their Short, Bald Man (me) works…they lay a F.L.O.B. (Fantastic Line Of Bulls**t) on me about how Pat & I would have so much in common and give me Pat’s phone number, having neglected to (A) inform Pat that they were doing so and (B) ask her PERMISSION to do so; this led to the oddest phone call Pat has ever received, but in the course of same, we found commonality enough that we decided “What the heck…let’s try this!”

        We figured that, if we really liked each other’s company, 2-3 hours on the first date was acceptable…six hours and fifteen minutes later, we said goodnight. Well, the longer we were together, the more upset Janine got…think “Godzilla with PMS”; we found out 6 months into the dating relationship about Janine’s true motive for introducing us. Of COURSE she denied it, but you know that old saw about Actions Speak Louder Than Words?

        She actually FIRED Pat (after 5 years with the company, giving the reason as “You’re just not working out”), 2 weeks before the wedding…no doubt hoping to throw a monkey-wrench into the plans; revenge can be done 2 ways: 1. Ranting, raving, threats of bodily harm, sugar in the gas tank, etc. -or- 2. Inviting our matchmaker to the wedding and giving her a FRONT ROW CENTER seat to witness the ultimate FAILURE of her joke; guess which one we chose?

        Of course, the revenge was not complete by a long shot; we drank a toast to “the woman whose kindness, selflessness, and generosity of spirit brought two lonely people together”…Janine stormed out of there madder than a wet cat.

        Karma is a boomerang…once tossed, the wise person makes sure to keep track of its whereabouts to avoid getting whonked in the head; Janine was not wise…she hired Pat’s replacement, who quit after three days…hired Pat’s replacement’s replacement, who quit after TWO days…and so on/so forth for SIX FREAKING MONTHS!

        Janine eventually offered Pat her old job back, at 1/3 the payrate Pat was earning when fired; Pat, having found another job by then, tapped into her inner snark and told Janine that when Jesus Christ steps out of a flying saucer onto Times Square and signs a deal to do 3 shows a night with The Rockettes and Blue Man Group…she’d THINK about accepting Janine’s offer.

        Janine was fired that very afternoon.

        • Priceless! Thank you for sharing your story, that made my afternoon. Congratulations and a belated (and/or premature) Happy Anniversary to you and your wife. May there be many more.

  21. Rick – it’s obvious that you have an extremely thin skin when it comes to accepting criticism. You even feel the need to defend work that isn’t your own. I don’t know you and you may be a very talented film maker whose work I may actually enjoy one day but if you don’t learn to accept the fact that not all people will like or even appreciate your work then you will have a very hard time in this industry.

    Now to address you last concern – I assuming that you are referring to the fact that it appears that I called people who watched this film schmucks. I was trying to be clever but instead I can see where my comment could be read as insulting. Why didn’t you just come out and say that to begin with and we could have avoided this entire situation? When I get to a PC (on mobile now) I will modify my closing statement accordingly. Next time brother you need to just address you concern directly instead of beating around the bush.

    • No need to modify your article, it’s a clever bookend to your review, I got it . . . I was simply using it ti illustrate a point. I am far from thin skinned, and personally seek out and appreciate constructive criticism. That’s how we as people grow and become better people. What I have trouble with is the moralizing in your critique . . . and you are not alone in this. Film is an artistic medium; and like all manors of art, all the artist (filmmaker) hopes to do is express themselves and have people experience it. They don’t care so much if people like it or not, they just want it to be seen. Casting moral judgements to persuade others to steer clear of it based solely on your own subjective moral compass is unfair to the artist and the potential audience. Plot, pacing, acting, editing, art direction, sound design, etc. are all fair game when it comes to reviewing a film. You admitted that you laughed and enjoyed many of the performances . . . what more can you ask from a comedy than laughter. By and large you don’t watch a comedy to have your soul awakened, or experience some great social revealation. It’s comedy, so if it made ya laugh then it did it’s job. In a day in age where the unemployment rate is once again approaching 10%, where folks are losing their homes, their dignity, and their hope . . . the world needs all the laughter it can muster. It’s an innocent film that in the end does not glorify or celebrate the “normal people”, but the “idiot” or schmuck in all of us . . . myself included.

      • Rick,

        You’re obviously an intelligent guy – I hope you hang around to comment on other items of interest besides reviews you disagree with. :)


        • Thank you Vic. Before today I didn’t even know this site existed, but rest assured I will be back . . . and hopefully contribute in a more constructive way.

  22. this movie sukd ass. great cast with lots of talen – the writing was horrible. one misstep after the other, too long and the dinner wasnt until the very end. could have cared less for any of these people. 2 out 5 for me.

  23. “If you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one.”


  24. Ok we have established most people on this site that are commenting on this review seem to disagree with Paul yay good for us now back off. The guy gave his opinion now give yours say you disagree and leave at that. It’s childish and dumb to start name calling and accusing him of being a woody Allen fan.

    By the way Paul I thought Rudd was great as always one of my fave comedic actors. Also really you liked Transformers 2 ? I think we should revoke your license to review. Only kidding :)

  25. Interesting……i enjoyed reading your reading your argument,Rick with paul…….U use smart words lol! How old are U???

  26. Some of you guys are so prickish you make me wish I didn’t enjoy the movie. I liked I found it funny but I wish I hated because I hate being in the same group that people like you are. Grow up guys. Your just being completely rude and making your selves look bad.

    Paul I think your reviews are way of for these two recent movies and it’s pretty clear based on these reviews and the fact you actually liked Transformers 2 that we have vastly opposite taste in film and will probably find our selves not agreeing more often than we agree. That said you seem like a nice guy and good on you for not losing your sh*t with these a$$holes. They deserved it but you deserve credit for holding back anyway.

    I do think that you may of been the wrong guy to review this. Not because you lack sense of humor because I’m sure you of tons of it but because the concept of this films seems to contrast with your personal morals or whatever. Nothing wrong with that but it just isn’t a movie for you is all. People get passionate about reviews because alot of people base watching a film on reviews and if only two people decide to skip it because of your review that would be unacceptable to the people who liked it. Everyone who likes a film wants it to do well. That’s why the backlash even though a lot of these guys went to far.

    I also really disagree with you on cutting films a break because it’s aimed at another audience. I mean would you cut Twilight a break because it’s aimed at tween girls? I doubt but I know most people wouldn’t. Films should be judged as films regardless of who it’s meant for. There are plenty of kid films that adults can enjoy because they were well made. Honestly a film should be reviewed based on how great you thought it was not how great your child loved it or how much you enjoyed your childs enjoyment. At the end of the day it’s still a film that should be reviewed as a film. If you think it should be judged differantly because it’s for kids maybe you should of had your kid write the review. It certainly would of been cute as hell lol and any one who got mad would of been beat with a stick lol.

    At the end of the day your a nice guy and it seems like a great familey man. However I believe a film should be reviewed based on it’s merits alone and not based on how much the person next to you liked it. Also if based on the trailer or concept of a film your values are insulted maybe try to pass the review on to someone else.

    That’s my two cents. Thanks for trying to read the crazy rambelings of a clealy insane man.

    • It’s all good Daniel, I don’t get offended very easily and I’m OK with people disagreeing with my point of view. I just wish they could express themselves in a manner that doesn’t include name calling or rude comments.

      BTW, I said I liked TF2…I didn’t say it was a good movie :)

      Yes I think movies aimed at kids should be cut some slack because the film maker has to cut a lot of corners or else the movie winds up being just like Where the Wild Things Are. It was a great movie based on a kids book and should have been exactly what kids would enjoy but because Spike Jonze decided to make a good film instead of a kid film, families with kids didn’t go see it. Why? Because he made it dark and a times a tad dreary. Was it a good film? Hell yes it was but it wasn’t something kids would enjoy.

      Twilight doesn’t get a break ever :)

  27. saw this yesterday wasn’t a great movie by far don’t see why people are hating on one guys review/opinion. obliviously he takes it seriously or he wouldn’t be reviewing on this site. some funny parts coming from the artist character and Barry’s boss but that was about it. but hey kick ass comes out tomorrow on blu-ray so I got something good to watch.