Lorsqu'il découvre que ses supérieurs organisent un dîner pour rire de la bêtise de leurs invités, un jeune cadre a des doutes lorsqu'on l'invite, et se lie d'amitié avec un homme qui serait... Tout lireLorsqu'il découvre que ses supérieurs organisent un dîner pour rire de la bêtise de leurs invités, un jeune cadre a des doutes lorsqu'on l'invite, et se lie d'amitié avec un homme qui serait l'invité idéal.Lorsqu'il découvre que ses supérieurs organisent un dîner pour rire de la bêtise de leurs invités, un jeune cadre a des doutes lorsqu'on l'invite, et se lie d'amitié avec un homme qui serait l'invité idéal.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 1 nomination au total
Chris O'Dowd
- Marco - Blind Swordsman
- (as Christopher O'Dowd)
Avis à la une
Not only is it hilarious, it has a great message. To be able to tell a meaningful story about friendship, acceptance and triumph over adversity surrounded by physical comedy and ridiculous characters isn't easy to do. This one nails it!
The worst thing that can happen to a movie is high expectation i think this what made people so angry with this movie i mean the cast alone should have been enough to create a hit comedy right ? ... wrong
this movie is a solid 6.5 its not bad or horrible if you just sit back and watch it for what it is a sweet light comedy
but people go into movies these days with lists of previous hit comedies to compare it with .. which causes them to miss-out on the movie they are coming to see.
i used to be like that and I reached the point where no movie was good enough ... well not any more.
this movie is good with light lovable characters and thats just fine ..!
this movie is a solid 6.5 its not bad or horrible if you just sit back and watch it for what it is a sweet light comedy
but people go into movies these days with lists of previous hit comedies to compare it with .. which causes them to miss-out on the movie they are coming to see.
i used to be like that and I reached the point where no movie was good enough ... well not any more.
this movie is good with light lovable characters and thats just fine ..!
This film shocked me. A new premise of cinema I am not familiar with, and had a very silly, very quirky style of story telling. I have to stick my neck out on this one but I enjoyed it.
I like my comedies, from the classics to the obscure, and this feature manages to slot itself in there somewhere. It's not rip roaringly funny but it makes you smile, makes you giggles and still manages to create a personal attachment to the characters. When they feel bad, we feel bad. When they put themselves through awkward, cringe-worthy situations we cringe along with them and we all end up laughing at the other end.
Stop trying to take this film seriously, it's not trying to be a serious film. It's about a group of idiots being shown of for being idiots by a bunch of corporate idiots. It's silly, fun and worth seeing.
I found the acting was good, little ropey in places but general was to standard, the direction was well thought out, the cinematography was clever and the set design and props (especially the mice) were all manufactured so well and realistically they helped to hold the film together.
This is no Godfather II but it'd no Manos: The hands of Fate either, it's a very silly, very goofy, very fun film to watch with friends, family or on your own. Everyone knows a Schmuck and everyone can relate to this film.
I like my comedies, from the classics to the obscure, and this feature manages to slot itself in there somewhere. It's not rip roaringly funny but it makes you smile, makes you giggles and still manages to create a personal attachment to the characters. When they feel bad, we feel bad. When they put themselves through awkward, cringe-worthy situations we cringe along with them and we all end up laughing at the other end.
Stop trying to take this film seriously, it's not trying to be a serious film. It's about a group of idiots being shown of for being idiots by a bunch of corporate idiots. It's silly, fun and worth seeing.
I found the acting was good, little ropey in places but general was to standard, the direction was well thought out, the cinematography was clever and the set design and props (especially the mice) were all manufactured so well and realistically they helped to hold the film together.
This is no Godfather II but it'd no Manos: The hands of Fate either, it's a very silly, very goofy, very fun film to watch with friends, family or on your own. Everyone knows a Schmuck and everyone can relate to this film.
In order to impress his girlfriend, Tim (Paul Rudd) needs to secure a promotion. So he decides to accept his bosses challenge; bring an 'idiot' to their annual 'Dinner for Winners'. A competition run by white-collar executives and disguised as a celebration of brilliance in unrecognised individuals. In reality, the meal is simply an opportunity for elitist senior-management types to laugh at some quirky and eccentric members of society. Tim's girlfriend tries to convince him the whole idea is abhorrent. Just as he is beginning to agree with her, he meets Barry (Steve Carell). An IRS worker, with a passion for creating art from taxidermied mice, Barry might just be the perfect man to help Tim win the competition.
The US version of The Office has shown us that Carell can do awkward better than most and Anchorman proved his capabilities of making stupidity funny. However, his character here is completely unlikeable and, more often than not, irritating. His bowl haircut, glasses and protruding teeth, evoke bad seventies sitcoms. A time when this look would have been a stylists shorthand for 'socially inept'. Paul Rudd, on the other hand, is given little opportunity to make us laugh, playing two-dimensional straight man, Tim. Director Jay Roach's previous franchises (Austin Powers, Meet the Parents/Fockers) may not have been the greatest comedies of the past fifteen years, but delivered as and when expected. The problems with Dinner for Schmucks lie in the pacing and the writing. With a 114 minute runtime, it is simply too long. Entire characters and subplots are superfluous. It also suffers badly from second-act-drag, believing that given enough on-screen time we will somehow empathise with our two leads.
Producer Sacha Baron Cohen (Borat, Bruno), seems to have called in a number of favours from celebrity friends and cast them in every available role. The idea, presumably, is that good performances can boost a weak script into something amusing. Of Course, this is not the case. Jemaine Clement (Flight of the Conchords) as avant-garde artiste, Kieran, makes the most of his characters nonsequiturs but only manages to raise a smirk at best. The same cannot be said for David Walliams (Little Britain), whose Swiss, aristocratic character, Mueller, is completely redundant in every way. The only worthy gag in almost two-hours is provided by Chris O' Dowd (The I.T. Crowd) as a blind swordsman. However having only a handful of lines and appearing twenty minutes before the credits roll, its far too little, far too late.
Dinner for Schmucks starts with a premise full of comedic opportunities, but spends the next hour and a half ignoring these. The original, a French film from 1998 entitled The Dinner Game, was a social satire focusing on the ridiculous measures the aristocracy will go to amuse themselves. It was full of witty dialogue and, at 80 minutes long, it worked. As often happens, Hollywood seems to have missed the point and delivered a broad and bland remake.
The US version of The Office has shown us that Carell can do awkward better than most and Anchorman proved his capabilities of making stupidity funny. However, his character here is completely unlikeable and, more often than not, irritating. His bowl haircut, glasses and protruding teeth, evoke bad seventies sitcoms. A time when this look would have been a stylists shorthand for 'socially inept'. Paul Rudd, on the other hand, is given little opportunity to make us laugh, playing two-dimensional straight man, Tim. Director Jay Roach's previous franchises (Austin Powers, Meet the Parents/Fockers) may not have been the greatest comedies of the past fifteen years, but delivered as and when expected. The problems with Dinner for Schmucks lie in the pacing and the writing. With a 114 minute runtime, it is simply too long. Entire characters and subplots are superfluous. It also suffers badly from second-act-drag, believing that given enough on-screen time we will somehow empathise with our two leads.
Producer Sacha Baron Cohen (Borat, Bruno), seems to have called in a number of favours from celebrity friends and cast them in every available role. The idea, presumably, is that good performances can boost a weak script into something amusing. Of Course, this is not the case. Jemaine Clement (Flight of the Conchords) as avant-garde artiste, Kieran, makes the most of his characters nonsequiturs but only manages to raise a smirk at best. The same cannot be said for David Walliams (Little Britain), whose Swiss, aristocratic character, Mueller, is completely redundant in every way. The only worthy gag in almost two-hours is provided by Chris O' Dowd (The I.T. Crowd) as a blind swordsman. However having only a handful of lines and appearing twenty minutes before the credits roll, its far too little, far too late.
Dinner for Schmucks starts with a premise full of comedic opportunities, but spends the next hour and a half ignoring these. The original, a French film from 1998 entitled The Dinner Game, was a social satire focusing on the ridiculous measures the aristocracy will go to amuse themselves. It was full of witty dialogue and, at 80 minutes long, it worked. As often happens, Hollywood seems to have missed the point and delivered a broad and bland remake.
This movie is flawed, unfunny and poorly written almost all the way through. They deliver what could arguably be THE most annoying movie character of all-time with the Steve Carell character. Then, they proceed to have him grate on your nerves for about an hour. After that, the writers of this film apparently want you to feel sympathy for him simply because he's a human being. That didn't work for me. Paul Rudd is the straight man you identify with that has to endure the dumbest characters and moments possible but, honestly, very little of the stupidity is actually funny. I award points for the crazed stalker ex-lover but not much else in this waste of film. For some reason, I cared enough to see how the dinner turned out but for the life of me, I really don't know why.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesOne of the film's writers, David Guion, was on set one day and noticed that Steve Carell was left handed. "I didn't know you were left handed" he remarked to the actor. "I'm not", replied Carell, "but my character is".
- GaffesDarla and Barry throw a bottle of wine on the door in Tim's apartment. In the next shot the mess from the wine has disappeared.
- Crédits fousAfter the credits, A diorama is displayed of a stuffed mouse sitting in a burnt down house, with Barry heard laughing as he reveals that Fender's company has gone bust with Forbes Magazine naming him the "World's Biggest Loser."
- Versions alternativesTrifecta-syndicated airings made two notable edits to the brunch scene:
- The napkin reads "I'M HOT", instead of "I'M WET".
- Barry's echo of Müeller's "Join yourself to her, in the name of love" is omitted, presumably because Barry could be interpreted as mocking Müeller's accent.
- Bandes originalesThe Fool on the Hill
Written by John Lennon & Paul McCartney
Performed by The Beatles
Courtesy of Capitol Records LLC
Under license from EMI Film & Television Music
[Played over both the opening and end credits]
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Dinner for Schmucks?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Una cena para tontos
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 69 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 73 026 337 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 23 527 839 $US
- 1 août 2010
- Montant brut mondial
- 86 855 739 $US
- Durée
- 1h 54min(114 min)
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant