IMDb रेटिंग
5.9/10
1.1 लाख
आपकी रेटिंग
सिर्फ़ एक चीज़ है जो महत्वाकांक्षी एक्ज़ेक्यूटिव टिम को कॉर्पोरेट जगत में सफल होने से रोक रही है. उसे अपने बॉस की मासिक डिनर पार्टी में एक ज़बरदस्त इंसान को साथ ले जाना होगा, जहाँ उस शाम का ... सभी पढ़ेंसिर्फ़ एक चीज़ है जो महत्वाकांक्षी एक्ज़ेक्यूटिव टिम को कॉर्पोरेट जगत में सफल होने से रोक रही है. उसे अपने बॉस की मासिक डिनर पार्टी में एक ज़बरदस्त इंसान को साथ ले जाना होगा, जहाँ उस शाम का विजेता वह होता है जो अपने साथ सबसे बड़े जोकर को लाता है.सिर्फ़ एक चीज़ है जो महत्वाकांक्षी एक्ज़ेक्यूटिव टिम को कॉर्पोरेट जगत में सफल होने से रोक रही है. उसे अपने बॉस की मासिक डिनर पार्टी में एक ज़बरदस्त इंसान को साथ ले जाना होगा, जहाँ उस शाम का विजेता वह होता है जो अपने साथ सबसे बड़े जोकर को लाता है.
- पुरस्कार
- कुल 1 नामांकन
Chris O'Dowd
- Marco - Blind Swordsman
- (as Christopher O'Dowd)
कहानी
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाOne 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".
- गूफ़Darla 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.
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटAfter 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."
- इसके अलावा अन्य वर्जनTrifecta-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.
- कनेक्शनFeatured in Late Show with David Letterman: Steve Carell/Selena Gomez/Sheryl Crow (2010)
- साउंडट्रैकThe 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]
फीचर्ड रिव्यू
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.
- eneyeseekaywhy
- 21 अग॰ 2010
- परमालिंक
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Dinner for Schmucks?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $6,90,00,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $7,30,26,337
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $2,35,27,839
- 1 अग॰ 2010
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $8,68,55,739
- चलने की अवधि1 घंटा 54 मिनट
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.85 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें