|
|
 |
Alynda Wheat, People: MODERATE (cg) "...laughing at Barry and his schmucky cohorts is kind of the point. It's what the audience is supposed to do. So you know what that makes us, right?" (Read the full review...) 181 words, 07/29/10 Richard Corliss, Time: GOOD "A very sit-throughable comedy... playing both sides of its coin -- acutely observed comedy and flat-out farce... offers plenty of smart entertainment. You'd be a schmuck to miss it." (Read the full review...) 1,090 words, 07/30/10 Christy Lemire, Associated Press: MODERATE (cg) "...easy, broad slapstick.... the pacing drags and the script takes [Carell and Rudd] through some seriously time-consuming, hit-and-miss detours en route to a predictably safe ending." (Read the full review...) 665 words, 07/29/10 Thelma Adams, Us Weekly: OUTSTANDING (cg) "A laugh-till-your-cheeks-hurt bromance... this summer's 'The Hangover.' " (Read the full review...) 61 words, 07/29/10 Lisa Schwarzbaum, Entertainment Weekly: MODERATE (cg) "...in a rare tonal misfire, director Jay Roach ('Austin Powers,' 'Meet the Parents') delivers a bland, summer-sloppy comedy... a subpar Carell-and-Rudd odd-couple buddy movie." (Read the full review...) 682 words, 07/30/10 Michael Phillips, A.O. Scott, At the Movies: MODERATE (cg) Michael Phillips: "Skip it." A.O. Scott: "See it." (Watch the full review...) 285 seconds, 07/31/10 Peter Travers, Rolling Stone: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "...you can see the setup coming." (Read the full review...) 358 words, 07/23/10 Claudia Puig, USA Today: VERY GOOD (cg) "...gussied-up rodents and inane male antics come together in funny and inspired ways in this screwball farce." (Read the full review...) 460 words, 07/30/10 Roger Ebert, RogerEbert.com: VERY GOOD (cg) "The genius of this version depends on the performance by Steve Carell, who plays Barry Speck as a man impervious to insult and utterly at peace with himself. He's truly a transcendent idiot." (Read the full review...) 690 words, 07/29/10 James Berardinelli, Reel Views: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "...sporadically amusing but gives the impression it should be generating more laughs than it does. In the end, it goes for the 'warm, fuzzy' feeling..." (Read the full review...) 790 words, 07/27/10
A.O. Scott, New York Times: GOOD (NOT GREAT) "...not a great movie, or even a coherent one, but in nearly every scene it draws laughter from an impressively eclectic array of sources, both obvious and new. People fall down, things break, funny accents are used... It is less a full-scale comic feast than a buffet of amusing snacks..." (Read the full review...) 941 words, 07/30/10 Joe Neumaier, New York Daily News: VERY GOOD (cg) "While the climactic dinner is a bit too much like a circus audition, Roach knows how to enjoy each sideshow. And it's handled with a chuckle-inducing deadpan..." (Read the full review...) 456 words, 07/30/10 Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times: WEAK "What do you get when you combine a swell French comedy concept, a top American comedy director and two of the best comedy actors around? Against all reason and expectation, the result is a distinctly unfunny film." (Read the full review...) 761 words, 07/30/10 Lou Lumenick, New York Post: MODERATE (cg) "...overlong, overproduced and decidedly misogynistic 'Dinner for Schmucks' is somewhere in the middle of the pack." (Read the full review...) 528 words, 07/30/10 Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune: WEAK (cg) "...a stupidization of a very good French farce... trips all over itself trying make sense of the characters and a new storyline.... I found the heart-tugs at the climax almost grotesque." (Read the full review...) 677 words, 07/30/10 Rafer Guzman, New York Newsday: MODERATE (cg) "Mediocre, thanks to uninspired jokes and Carell's overly obnoxious character." (Read the full review...) 286 words, 07/30/10 Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times: VERY GOOD (cg) "The genius of this version depends on the performance by Steve Carell, who plays Barry Speck as a man impervious to insult and utterly at peace with himself. He's truly a transcendent idiot." (Read the full review...) 690 words, 07/29/10 Dan Kois, Village Voice/LA Weekly: MODERATE "...funny... How can it not be, with good comic actors like Carell and Rudd -- plus Zach Galifianakis, Jemaine Clement, Kristen Schaal, and Ron Livingston? ...you are welcome to laugh at these poor jerks. That's a little messed up." (Read the full review...) 790 words, 07/28/10 Peter Howell, Toronto Star: MODERATE (cg) "This being a literal American comedy rather than a droll French one, we actually get to see one of these schmuck-free dinners, which also fails to satisfy." (Read the full review...) 821 words, 07/30/10 Liam Lacey, Toronto Globe & Mail: MODERATE (cg) "You have to enjoy the generosity of seeing so many good performers punching home their few moments of screen time, but Roach chokes us with excess." (Read the full review...) 663 words, 07/30/10 Norman Wilner, Toronto Now: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "The actors put engaging spins on their dialogue... but the movie lurches and lags in between set pieces." (Read the full review...) 558 words, 07/29/10
Ann Hornaday, Washington Post: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "...may be as broad as the proverbial groaning board, but Rudd and Carell bring out its most toothsome delights. They transform an otherwise disposable meal into something worth savoring." (Read the full review...) 441 words, 07/30/10 Steven Rea, Philadelphia Inquirer: VERY GOOD (cg) "...the sometimes very funny, sometimes not 'Dinner for Schmucks' takes this squirmy conceit - the original was a more sour and cynical affair - and turns it into a mismatched buddies, life-lesson comedy." (Read the full review...) 520 words, 07/30/10 Mick LaSalle, Houston Chronicle/San Francisco Chronicle: VERY GOOD (cg) "It's funny from the beginning, and it stays funny, even as it beats scenes to death and overstays its welcome." (Read the full review...) 525 words, 07/30/10 Roger Moore, Orlando Sentinel: VERY GOOD (cg) "But, my stars and garters -- the laughs, friends. The laughs build and build... The situations are painstakingly set up and downright painful to sit through." (Read the full review...) 630 words, 07/30/10 Colin Covert, Minneapolis Star-Tribune: WEAK (cg) "...has everything that money can buy. That does not include comic inspiration, daring or velocity.... Flabby, monotonous and meek..." (Read the full review...) 580 words, 07/30/10 Bill Goodykoontz, Arizona Republic: EXCELLENT (cg) "Steve Carell is the best comic actor working today.... he elevates 'Dinner for Schmucks' far above what it would have been without him... It's outstanding work. It's also a really funny movie." (Read the full review...) 658 words, 07/30/10 Christopher Kelly, Dallas Morning News: POOR (cg) "...more than just sour and mean-spirited; it's lurching, desperate and borderline incomprehensible - a movie whose characters act according to no known precept of recognizable human behavior." (Read the full review...) 622 words, 07/30/10 Ty Burr, Boston Globe: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "A number of bits don't work, some of the characters wear out their welcome, but the whole suckers you into an agreeable state of idiot bliss." (Read the full review...) 779 words, 07/30/10 Clint O'Connor, Cleveland Plain-Dealer: FAIR (cg) "...offers the rich talents of Steve Carell, Paul Rudd, and Zach Galifianakis. As much as they riff with improvisation and try to raise the film to comedic heights, the weak script is too much to overcome." (Read the full review...) 417 words, 07/30/10 Moira Macdonald, Seattle Times: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "...it isn't quite filling, despite some tasty moments.... Rudd and Carell, two of the most likable comic actors working today, make a charming pairing... Give these two a better script, and you just might have a comedy classic." (Read the full review...) 429 words, 07/30/10 Shawn Levy, Portland Oregonian: MODERATE (cg) "...a plate of cold leftovers.... does offer some small pleasures." (Read the full review...) 603 words, 07/30/10 Joe Williams, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: MODERATE (cg) "...mean-spiritedness, stupidity and squandering of talent is uniquely Hollywood." (Read the full review...) 306 words, 07/30/10 Steve Persall, St. Petersburg Times: GOOD (cg) "Steve Carell's character is almost too pitiful for the jokes launched against him to be funny. It is a terrific performance making everyone else's condescension sound harsher... It takes a really smart actor to play this dumb." (Read the full review...) 506 words, 07/29/10 Tom Long, Detroit News: VERY GOOD (cg) "Will you ponder the meaning of 'Dinner for Schmucks' over late-night espressos? Not a chance. Will you laugh out loud at times while it's playing? Pretty good chance." (Read the full review...) 561 words, 07/30/10 Rene Rodriguez, Miami Herald: MODERATE (cg) "...weak and uninventive. Although the cast tries mightily to keep the humor spinning, the laughs are disappointingly sparse." (Read the full review...) 607 words, 07/30/10
Dan Kois, Village Voice/LA Weekly: MODERATE "...funny... How can it not be, with good comic actors like Carell and Rudd -- plus Zach Galifianakis, Jemaine Clement, Kristen Schaal, and Ron Livingston? ...you are welcome to laugh at these poor jerks. That's a little messed up." (Read the full review...) 790 words, 07/28/10 Peter Keough, Boston Phoenix: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "...fitfully hilarious but inert and repetitious..." (Read the full review...) 513 words, 07/29/10 Genevieve Koski, AV Club: GOOD (cg) "...with a couple of exceptions... none of the jokes stick after their initial impact. Instead, they dissolve into a vague notion of humor without any sharp edges." (Read the full review...) 402 words, 07/29/10 Peter Martin, Cinematical: VERY GOOD "...walks right up to the edge of a deep pool of nastiness, dips its toes into the muddy waters, and heads for safer, kinder shores.... very, very funny, smart and inventive, stupid and schmaltzy and sentimental." (Read the full review...) 1,019 words, 07/30/10 Ed Gonzalez, Slant: WEAK (cg) "...underdone sitcom fodder that forces a cast of exceptional and almost always adroit comedians to tough it out with irreparably bland and thoughtlessly broad material." (Read the full review...) 757 words, 07/28/10 Norman Wilner, Toronto Now: GOOD (NOT GREAT) (cg) "The actors put engaging spins on their dialogue... but the movie lurches and lags in between set pieces." (Read the full review...) 558 words, 07/29/10 Edward Adams, Atlanta Creative Loafing: WEAK (cg) "...derails by just going too far -- never knowing when to rein in the sheer onslaught of buffoonery." (Read the full review...) 492 words, 07/30/10 MaryAnn Johanson, Flick Filosopher: POOR (cg) "...like a schmuck parade marching through your head for two hours.... the only even mildly amusing moment comes at the end, when we finally get to the damn dinner for schmucks, and the movie at last manages to ramp up the absurdity and dispense with the sentimentality." (Read the full review...) 955 words, 07/29/10
John Anderson, Wall Street Journal: POOR "Pathetically unfunny most of the time..." (Read the full review...) 140 words, 07/30/10 A.O. Scott, New York Times: GOOD (NOT GREAT) "...not a great movie, or even a coherent one, but in nearly every scene it draws laughter from an impressively eclectic array of sources, both obvious and new. People fall down, things break, funny accents are used... It is less a full-scale comic feast than a buffet of amusing snacks..." (Read the full review...) 941 words, 07/30/10 Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times: WEAK "What do you get when you combine a swell French comedy concept, a top American comedy director and two of the best comedy actors around? Against all reason and expectation, the result is a distinctly unfunny film." (Read the full review...) 761 words, 07/30/10 Tom Shone, Slate: POOR "...a telling substitution for the actual stupidity mocked in Veber's original. Roach's remake manages both mean-spiritedness and timidity the same time. That's some feat -- moviemaking for boneheads." (Read the full review...) 969 words, 07/29/10 Andrew O'Hehir, Salon: GOOD (NOT GREAT) "...minor but reasonably amusing... a bland and miscellaneous collection of gags and situations.... there's lots of great stuff around the margins... has more laughs than your average dumb-ass comedy..." (Read the full review...) 1,117 words, 07/29/10
Peter Debruge, Daily Variety: GOOD "...an uproarious odd-couple remake of Francis Veber's hit French farce... Either such a goofy caricature never grows old [Carell's], or he proves unbearable from the moment he first appears onscreen." (Read the full review...) 1,017 words, 07/16/10 John DeFore, Hollywood Reporter: GOOD (NOT GREAT) "[A] broad laffer redeemed by occasional quirks.... If not for an occasional bit of good schtick, we might be inclined to shake our heads in sorrow and walk away.... the movie benefits from having drawn many gifted comedians to supporting roles." (Read the full review...) 524 words, 07/16/10 Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times: WEAK "What do you get when you combine a swell French comedy concept, a top American comedy director and two of the best comedy actors around? Against all reason and expectation, the result is a distinctly unfunny film." (Read the full review...) 761 words, 07/30/10 Emanuel Levy, Cinema 24/7: VERY GOOD (cg) "...the film is well cast.... Director Jay Roach continues to direct in an impersonal style that services the material at hand. It feels as though portions of the dialogue have been improvised on the set, which is a good thing in this case." (Read the full review...) 886 words, 07/19/10 A.O. Scott, New York Times: GOOD (NOT GREAT) "...not a great movie, or even a coherent one, but in nearly every scene it draws laughter from an impressively eclectic array of sources, both obvious and new. People fall down, things break, funny accents are used... It is less a full-scale comic feast than a buffet of amusing snacks..." (Read the full review...) 941 words, 07/30/10 John Anderson, Wall Street Journal: POOR "Pathetically unfunny most of the time..." (Read the full review...) 140 words, 07/30/10
Thank you for following MovieReviewIntelligence.com |
Opening Soon (Early Figures)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
