trailer break: ‘Dinner for Schmucks’Take a break from work: watch a trailer... Why, Bruce Greenwood, why?! And Ron Livingston? Why? Oh, wait, now I get it: The schmucks are the kiss-ass employees who actually go along with this assholery. The big boss is in fact looking for someone to stand up to him, to not be a schmuck. Or else the schmucks are everyone who agreed to appear in this movie. See, it’s a game that Hollywood execs play among themselves: Who can get to star in the stupidest movie ever? And they all have big laughs as they one-up each other. “Paul Rudd? Bah: he’s a bad-movie slut. Top Steve Carell!” “Ha-ha! I’ll see your Ron Livingston, and I’ll raise you Bruce Greenwood! Top that! Dinner for Schmucks opens in the U.S. and Canada on July 30, and in the U.K. on August 20. Disqus commentsblog comments powered by Disqus |
posted:
Mon Jul 12 10, 11:36AM categories: movie buzz permalink 7 pre-Disqus comments Disqus comments tip jarshare
read morerelated· Dinner for Schmucks (review) · female gazing at: Paul Rudd · trailer break: ‘Flipped’ · question of the weekend: What does the word ‘schmuck’ mean to you? · trailer break: ‘Star Trek’ trailer 2 · trailer break: ‘Star Trek’ · female gazing at: Bruce Greenwood · Star Trek (review) · trailer break: ‘The Time Traveler’s Wife’ · WWII in HD (review) bloggyprevious post: question of the day: If you were a supervillain, to what use would you put your mad sweet power? next post: what he said: ‘Guardian’ film critic Peter Bradshaw... |









pre-Disqus comments
posted by EnglerP (Mon Jul 12 10, 12:51PM)
Well, the original "Dîner des cons" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119038/) wasn't that bad as far as i remember. Of course, i was 17 when i last saw it.
And it wasn't a US-remake.
posted by Dani (Mon Jul 12 10, 3:04PM)
I saw the original, too, and it was actually really sweet! However, I suspect that this remake will completely miss the point...
posted by Christina (Mon Jul 12 10, 3:31PM)
Why did I even try to watch the trailer? I could have predicted every single move. BORing.
posted by Adam (Mon Jul 12 10, 4:00PM)
It's actually a decent cast but based on the trailer appears to fall pretty short. Paul Rudd is rather funny though so I'll probably see the film anyway.
posted by Jackson (Mon Jul 12 10, 4:59PM)
Why hate on a movie you haven't seen? I saw it at a preview in Sacramento and everybody was howling. I got to be part of the focus group and it received a unanimous must see recommend. The trailers and TV commercials don't capture the tone or the jokes. It ranks with the all-time hilarious buddy comedies like Planes Trains and Automobiles.
posted by MaryAnn (Mon Jul 12 10, 5:19PM)
I'm hating on the trailer, not the movie.
Yes, and as the performance of *Grown Ups* has demonstrated, if audiences like it, it must be smart and witty and clever.
If I feel the same way after I see the film, I'll certainly say as much. That doesn't make the trailer look any less moronic.
posted by Anthony (Thu Jul 22 10, 10:51PM)
I think it looks hilarious, to be honest. Every once in a while, it's perfectly fine to enjoy a film that isn't witty and clever, and I think this film could be one of those times.
Speaking of remakes, IMDb says Martin Scorsese will be making a film called "Cache." I know this isn't the proper article in which to talk about this, but does anyone know if this will be a remake of Haneke's "Cache?" I need to know before I disappointedly call full-time on the career of one of my idols.