[2.5]
Who gives the go-ahead to movies like this? I try to strip away the production value, the A-list casting, and the heavy promotion, and I wonder: who saw any potential in this script? It’s a boring, slow-moving “buddy” movie in which two unlikely men become linked together through accidental means (Paul Rudd almost runs over Steve Carrell) and hilarity ensues. And of course, a troubled romance is thrown in, presumably to widen appeal with women (though there is nothing appealing about this actress, who is shrewish and annoying as Rudd’s “classy but quick tempered” girlfriend). I have loved Steve Carrell in almost everything he’s done (from THE DAILY SHOW to THE OFFICE to LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE), but he is just pandering with this role. He is supposed to be “innocent,” but comes off as mildly retarded and socially inept (in a very uncute way). He’s not endearing as much as annoying. I can understand why Rudd doesn’t want him around.
Rudd, on the other hand, has no personality, either as an actor or as any of his characters, and his generic good looks and generic acting traits make him almost disappear onscreen, upstaged by bit players who can run with the ridiculous material (mostly Rudd’s online stalker who goes nuts and destroys his apartment). Yes, Rudd is the straight man, but take a look at Desi Arnez or even David Spade for how to imbue ‘normal’ characters with humor. The writing in the film is intentionally broad and mainstream, but that doesn’t excuse it from being so weak and sporadic. The only truly creative bit from the whole story is Carrell’s character trait of taxidermy on dead mice and arranging them in shadow boxes of various scenarios. Visually, these are brilliant spots of humor and actually very revealing for insight into his character. Too bad it comes at the end of an hour and a half of crap. For a movie called DINNER FOR SCHMUCKS, I certainly wish more time had actually been spent at the dinner table.
burning retina 