I seem to remember there being some disappointment about this film. I just saw it yesterday, and I have to say I thought it was hilarious. I think I laughed pretty much the whole movie. Steve Carell really is a comic genius, and is at his best in this film. If you like Jerry Lewis, not only are you probably French, you'll likely love this movie, as Carell is definitely channeling Lewis for this role. The great comedies are movies you are willing to watch again and again. This actually might make the cut. Nothing brilliantly original here, and it adopts standard Hollywood plot structure if that bothers you. But Carell manages to make it a laugh a minute.

I hate to say it, but I thought the exact opposite. I REALLY wanted to like this movie, but it didn't impress me at all. I enjoyed the mouse bits and the dinner finale was pretty entertaining. But it just took too much effort to get to the climax.

The worst part is, I love steve carell. I've seen all his movies and I think he's hilarious. But ever since he's made it big, he's had some big misfires (then again, i wouldnt categorize them as terrible movies, they just werent that good). he's one of those actors where no matter how shitty the movie, when it's over you say, "well that sucked...but AT LEAST it had steve carell in it." however it's getting increasingly harder for me to defend him. date night, crazy stupid love, dinner for schmuks, etc were all....disappointing.

oh and I LOATHE jeff dunham, so that didnt help matters either.

Definitely a big part of the movie experience is expectation. I had heard so many disappointed people when it comes to this movie,  my expectations were extremely low.

The climax was weak, and since that dinner is in the title, that damages the movie. Due to that, if I had paid $10 bucks for this, I probably would have been pissed. But as I did not pay for it, I was able to just watch it and enjoy the little jokes that run through the movie, and I found them effective. I laughed even when I wasn't in the mood for it!

I think it's definitely worth it for folks to take a look at if it pops on late night while you're surfing the tube.

yeah that could be it too. i always come into steve carell movies with high expectations and leave feeling disappointed. after the 40 year old virgin, the office, and little miss sunshine, how can you NOT get your hopes up? haha

Gotta echo penguin on his review of this one.  Considering the talent involved, this was a complete snoozer.  Carell and Rudd tried so hard to make it funny, but it just wasn't in the material.  I almost gave up a couple times, but I watched it all the way through.  Kept waiting for the laughs.  Never happened.  Ah, I'll just watch Anchorman again.  Whammy.

I thought it was a repugnant role for Steve Carrell in a mediocre film.
He looked so uncomfortable to me throughout the film.
I thought the only time it came alive, was when he showed off his little models.
That had more heart than the rest of the film combined, IMO.

E.D.

I haven't seen this film so I thought this chat would give me some enlightenment... Oh no, still no idea what to expect.

However, I noticed the comment on expectations. This is a big one for me. Isn't true that our reflections and emotions are hugely affected by what we expect, instead of what our experience really is? Balance and perspective can be difficult things when we have expectations.

Once I see it I will remember to report back. For now I  don't know what my expectations are, which is probably... I suppose, good.

Cheers, RD

One of the better comedies I've seen in recent years.

In a world that has forgotten how to make comedies, it wasn't bad.

Looks like it's just you and me on this, Rick. Why do you think the world has forgotten how to make comedies? I don't disagree, I'm asking sincerely. In tough times like the present, you would think comedies would be in extra demand.

Comedy is the hardest thing to do.

In the old days when writers served apprenticeships and such you were advised not to touch comedy until you had absolutely mastered dramatic structure. I suppose it's because timing and set up is so crucial..not to mention wit.

Many would say that comedy started to deteriorate at the point sound was introduced. If you watch Charlie Chaplin films for instance you are struck at just how inventively the artists of that era were able to take a situation and keep building it up and up.

Once sound came in it started relying on verbal jokes, but it's increasingly hard to write original ones and people have lost the ability to create funny moments through pure cinema to some degree.

There's now also a tendency to go for gross out humour (essentially toilet gags)...trying to push things to more outrageous levels to disguise the lack of genuine wit.

Breaking it down:

Types of comedy:

Slapstick...basically died out with sound.

Deadpan: Pretty much died out aftet Buster Keaton.

Verbal Comedy: Modern writers don't seem to have the wit and ingenuity of the old writers in terms of double entendres and that kind of thing or even just the absurity of people like the Marx Brothers.

Black Comedy: Still done quite well, but apparently isn't strong enough at BO.

Spoof/Satire: Been dumbed down beyond all recognition. Scary Movie rather than Dr.  Strangelove. Idiocracy was the last half decent satire, and they pretty much buried that.

Screwball (eccentric, crazies etc) comedies are still going to some degree, but have lost their edge since the end of the 1940's.

On top of that, a lot probably comes down to a lack of comedic acting talent. Will Ferrell, Steve Carroll are about the best around, but they hardly compare to the greats from by-gone ages...I don;t think they even compare to the previous generations to be honest.

Comedy is always in demand...outside of the tent pole flicks it's usually the biggest grossing type of film. It's generally contemporary and cheap to make, and gives big returns.

You bring up a really interesting point with the silent films, and this is something hard for a screenplay writer to deal with. To me, some of the great comic actors, at least the ones that make me laugh, obtain their laughs with things that have almost nothing to do with their lines. Usually it's their facial expressions, or some other physical comedy. To some degree, it's just the way they naturally look.

I think the great comic actors of the silent era got their start in front of live audiences. They learned what facial expressions or body mannerisms got a reaction out of the crowd, just like a band or a DJ learns what songs and sequences of songs work by watching the crowd react. These actors tuned their act in that way, and it was well developed by the time they brought it to movies.

I don't know the histories of the popular comic actors today, and to what degree they have worked live audiences, but the good ones do the same things as all great comic actors have, maybe sometimes just instinctively. The subtle facial expressions used by Ferrel, Carell, Jim Carrey, Bill Murray, are very effective.

But it's not something that can be written. Best a writer can do is create situations where these talents can shine.

Another thing to keep in mind, sound was actually a huge part of silent film. The Three Stooges came later, but as is famously shown with them, they just aren't funny without the sound effects. Silent pictures were shown not only with organs and live musicians, but with sound machines that added bells and whistles and all kinds of stuff at exactly the right time. Combined with the physical comedy of the actors, it must have been extremely effective in a crowded theater. Man, that must have been something to see.

Andrew posted a link to a comic short that was a British spoof on Islamic terrorists. I forget the name. Actually, I think it was more than a short, as there were 3 parts, I'm not sure. Anyway, it was absolutely brilliant. I laughed at the whole thing. So I think the talent and the creativity is there, it just doesn't make it into the theaters.

i agree, comedies are hard to make. but heres the thing. a few years ago, the comedy genre was doing REALLY well. filmmakers like judd apatow completely revived the genre and suddenly, comedies were fresh and funny. they were more outrageous but also relatable at the same time. superbad for example, didn't portray college parties like they did in american pie. instead they presented them like actual parties and contained some outrageous antics within those confines. but the comedy bubble soon burst and now we're forced to live with subpar entertainment once again. this happened because EVERYONE tried to replicate apatow. even apatow himself became a bit stale.

i bring this up simply because both rudd and carrell were a part of this comedy bubble. to make matter worse, their careers peaked when comedies peaked. now that comedies are just average again, so are the actors (or rather they seem to be)

Watched this yesterday due to this thread -- always interested in movies that divide.

Just all about Carell, for me.  When he was on-screen and his character was having fun, I was enjoying myself.  Other than that, everything was pretty much atrocious for me, except for the always dependable Bruce Greenwood.  

The film didn't have the heart or the skill to pull off any of the dramatic stuff, so when Carell was being hurt or humiliated I just found it really uncomfortable and unpleasant.  

In the end though, I laughed reasonably frequently, and the film was less obnoxious than most mainstream comedies today.  I'd call it a mild success that I'd never consider seeing again.

As my friends and I watched we were discussing possible revisions to the tone of the film.  Paul Rudd was a very soft and inoffensive choice for the protagonist, often to the detriment of the comedy.  We would have liked to see someone with a lot more edge, and how that might have impacted the film -- imagining an appropriately-aged Nick Nolte, for instance, in the Rudd role.  In my opinion, some more fire from the protagonist could have really pushed the comedy.  I suspect this would have been less true to the original (I haven't seen it) but the French tend to attempt a little something we call "dimensional characters" in their comedies, something Hollywood often tends to forego with Paul Rudd types.  As it was, Rudd rarely added anything to the comedy other than being the arbitrary much-put-upon protagonist to which various bad things happened.

Good analysis, Chris. I think the Paul Redd character is really just the age old formula, though, for comedies like this. He's the Dean Martin character, the straight man. That's why Dean Martin hated Lewis in the end. It sucks to play that role. But it also works.

No question, Steve Carell makes the movie here. That's true of many comedies of this type.

If you laughed reasonably frequently, that makes it a success. Memorable story? No, definitely  not. But a good laugh is good for us!

Quoted from Ryan1 Ah, I'll just watch Anchorman again.  Whammy.

Rudd unleashing the aftershave in Anchorman will never lose the power to make me laugh. His hair, his outfit, his face, his delivery, their reaction. Priceless.