Dinner For Schmucks

Before I begin this review, I have to apologize for waiting so long in between posts. I have been under the weather for the past few months and haven't been able to write. I hope you'll continue to follow the blog and comment as you see fit. Now, on to Dinner For Schmucks. This movie should be re-titled Movie For Schmucks. Written by David Guion and Michael Handleman, Schmucks was adapted from the French film Le Diner de Cons written by Francis Veber. On paper, the movie seems wholly hysterical; Tim, a young analyst up for a promotion at a private equity firm (Paul Rudd) agrees to go to a dinner hosted by his arrogant and wealthy boss (Bruce Greenwood). The catch is, Tim and his co-workers must bring along the biggest idiot they can find. At the meal's commencement, the boss will judge who is in fact the "winner" of the idiots and present him/her with a trophy. Naturally, the employee whose schmuck wins will curry the most favor with the boss.
Tim runs into initial moral opposition from his girlfriend Julie, played by Stephanie Szostak. While very beautiful in that waifish European way, it is difficult to tell whether Szostak has a French accent or a speech impediment. Julie makes Tim promise not to attend the dinner, which Tim complies with, until he fortuitously meets Barry (Steve Carell). Barry is a windbreaker-clad IRS agent who in his (ample) spare time makes dioramas with stuffed mice. Sporting a bad red hairpiece and a set of novelty teeth, Carell plays another version of his reliably earnest and well-meaning fools (The Office, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy and Get Smart have provided us with enough examples of this for you to know what I'm talking about). Tim decides that Barry is too good a prospect to pass up and plans to attend the dinner. Barry, however, comes to Tim's home a night early and not only derails his life, but the movie as well. The second act consists of place-filling slapstick and sight gags, with an introduction to four more characters trying desperately to be outrageous but managing only to annoy all but the 80-year-old sitting next to me. Jemaine Clement (of Flight of the Conchords fame) is the best of this bunch, giving us Kieran, a bizarre artist with a penchant for juxtaposing his own image with wild animals. It still isn't that great. The very talented Zach Galifinakis goes his typical overly intense, diet-averse, nebbish route. I adore Galifinakis, particularly on his Between Two Ferns sojourns, but this performance makes me wonder if I'll see anything new from him soon.
What should be both the culmination and the best part of Dinner For Schmucks is the actual dinner. It is far from the best part. The "idiots" are a veritable hodgepodge of childishly-conceived characters, so awash in hokey costuming that they look like vaudevillian porn stars. Paul Rudd, a truly gifted actor with a special talent for comedy, has literally nothing to add to the scene. I am not as embarrassed for him as I am for the actors at the end of Footloose (the glitter alone makes me cringe), but it's close. While the writing in this film isn't anything inspired, I think the real blame is on Roach. Lately a more prolific producer than director, Roach has helmed both the Austin Powers and the Focker franchises. While each series is highly bankable, I think there is a general agreement that as each progressed, the humor became more and more recycled. I am of course reserving judgment on Little Fockers, out later this year. Roach does not pull the best performances from any of his highly skilled actors, and relies way too heavily on the image of the characters rather than their development. The saddest example of this is Carell. Week after week, Carell delivers some of the finest comedy on television in The Office. His performances in films like Dan in Real Life proved him a good actor as well as a facile clown. But there is nothing new or fresh in Schmucks that surprises or delights us about Carell.
My Comment is about that point in a successful career when an artist plateaus. Most actors go through it simply because there is not enough good written material for them. Others experience it because their previous success makes them (0r their management team) too terrified to mess with the formula. Nicolas Cage, a bright and burning talent who was deserving of his Oscar for Leaving Las Vegas, seemed to fall back on the sarcastic action hero with an edge so many times that no one gives a shit anymore. Especially the IRS. Conversely, Johnny Depp has never hit the dreaded plateau. Depp made an early career of only taking the roles that everyone warned him to be career suicide. He always did something different but not just for different's sake. Whether it was to work with a certain director, or to show the world a side of himself that we didn't know existed, Depp chose parts he wanted, period. While it's easy to sight the Pirates movies as his sell-out payday extravaganza, remember that Depp fought the studio tooth and nail to play Jack Sparrow as a cross between Keith Richards and Pepe le Pew. Although it's rare to find an artist as uncompromising as Depp, Carell has a reputation for being incredibly hard-working and dedicated. I hope that Dinner For Schmucks isn't the death knell for Steve Carell's brilliantly original take on comedy, or the end of his growth as a performer. We would miss out too much.