Saturday, August 7, 2010
THEY NEEDED A BETTER TAILOR: It's rare you can see the seams in a movie as much as you can in Dinner For Schmucks. Not only can you blatantly tell that some parts were written for performers other than those playing them (I'd be shocked if the Jemaine Clement part wasn't written for/envisioned as Russell Brand, for instance), you can readily see where scenes got trimmed for being too cruel, and there's a major performer (who's unbilled in the opening credits) who seems as though his scenes might have been entirely added in late reshoots. Add to it Steve Carell basically playing Michael Scott at his most oblivious/awkward/painful, and it's a film that has a bunch of very funny people in it who clearly had the time of their life making the movie that nonetheless manages to be not-terribly-funny. If Carell wants to have a post-Office career as a movie actor, he needs to step away from Michael Scott, and this is a step back.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Hancock" is another movie with lots of seams showing.
ReplyDeleteI get the sense that Carell is in "cash-in" phase right now; he understands his shelf-life is limited (he's not going to be able to be a viable performer in 2020 under any circumstances), and it's time to accumulate as many assets as possible in the next five years before he retires to playing guest-star cameos as the dad of the main sitcom character.
I was thrilled the movie didn't get too cruel, and stayed more of a farce--I really enjoyed it for that very reason.
ReplyDeleteBut Carell's really starting to show his lack of range. I'm on the verge of being tired of the schtick, but I'm not quite there yet.
I dunno - it wasn't a huge box office success but Carrell showed a believable semi-dramatic side in "Dan in Real Life."
ReplyDeleteMaybe Dane Cook advised him to "cash in."
ReplyDeleteAnd how about Little Miss Sunshine? I think Carrell has the chops but because his brand right now is "uncomfortable to watch funny guy." The question remains whether he'll be able to rebrand himself, of course.
ReplyDeleteWell, 40YOV wasn't that b/c he had more dignity there. I'm just waiting for his Jimmy-Stewart-in-Vertigo turn where he uses this type for other purposes.
ReplyDeleteI dunno about "seams" (Jemaine was a better Russell Brand than Russell Brand, IMHO), but I do suspect that some sort of scathing Gallic social commentary about class got lost in translation.
ReplyDeleteI also walked out of this movie thinking that something about it just seemed off. My initial thought was that, while throwing this kind of party might be the sort of thing that French snobs might do, it just doesn't strike me as finance a-hole behavior, which made the whole premise seem off. Also agree that Carell was basically doing Michael Scott at his worst. And Rudd is certainly capable of being funny, but here he mostly ran around being appalled.
ReplyDeleteI didn't think Jemaine was the problem though, or that his role would have been better with Russell Brand. His "art" was one of the few things that kept on cracking me up.