According to Colwell

This Argentinian film isn’t flashy in any way except for the clarity of the portrait of its characters. I saw this a couple of months ago, so this is just a quick note to say it should be seen. The movie takes place in two time frames. A prosecutor retires and reflects on an old unsolved murder case from his early days on the job. The movie explores both the criminal case and his own relationship with his colleagues, including a frustrated romantic interest in a partner who has later become a judge. It is funny, gripping, and romantic; smart, fast-paced, and well-written, beautifully acted, and tautly directed. We should have more movies like this one.

Only John C. Reilly could give the line: “Are you flirting with me? I’m Shrek. What are you doing out here in the forest with Shrek?”. As sad-sack divorce John, Reilly awkwardly stumbles into a relationship that is too good to be true with Molly (Marisa Tomei), a pretty, funny, and smart woman who finds John’s needy insecurities charmingly honest. Molly has it all, and John cannot believe his good fortune. So it does not take long before his search for trouble finds it in the form of Molly’s adult son Cyrus (Jonah Hill). Cyrus correctly recognizes John as a threat to his monopoly on the affection of his mother and is determined to undermine their relationship.

This is pretty easy for Cyrus because he is his mother’s one gigantic glaring fault. In her eyes, he can do no wrong. Since Cyrus is pretty weird, one wonders where Molly’s friends have been for the last 20 years. It’s hard to believe no one ever had a little heart to heart with her about her unhealthy relationship with her son. John, thankfully, eventually gets the chance to do just that. John has a strange relationship of his own: Catherine Keener plays his infinitely patient ex-wife whom John regularly hits up for emotional support. The movie is enjoyable. I would call it a character study, but the movie doesn’t give us much insight into the back stories of John, Cyrus, and Molly so that we can understand where the characters are coming from.

It’s not hard to understand why Dinner for Schmucks got a green light to be made. Based on a bitingly funny French movie and with Steve Carrell attached, even before seeing a script it must have destined to be a winner. Watching the movie is therefore a particularly frustrating experience. It keeps seeming like it should be funnier that it is. I found myself simultaneously admiring the comic timing and performances and not laughing. The script sounds like it would read like it would be funny to watch. But, with a few minor exceptions, it isn’t very funny to watch.

Paul Rudd plays a nice guy, Tim, with a very cute girlfriend, Julie. Tim is trying to make his move up to the seventh floor and the nice corner office at a high-powered corporate takeover firm, and Julie is about to make it big on the art scene as a curator and planner of shows. Or something like that. At any rate, they’re a sweet couple with everything going for them. But to impress his boss, Tim must find an idiot to bring to the boss’s monthly dinner party as entertainment for the rich folks. Everyone brings an idiot, and the biggest idiot wins.

Enter Steve Carrell as Barry, an IRS analyst who, in Carrell’s words wants to make people happy but inevitably makes them miserable instead. He’s a sweet idiot whose good intentions and idiotic actions start to unravel Tim’s life. Is it funny to watch people making fun of other people? Not really, but I don’t think that’s the problem with this movie, most of which takes place prior to the titular dinner. And in principle, it should be funny to see Tim try to deal with the walking path of good-natured idiotic destruction that is Barry. I’m not sure why it wasn’t very funny. The leads and supporting performances are all very good. Maybe it is the realization that Barry and the other idiots are not really inhabiting the same universe as Tim and Julie and the rest of us. So their struggles and triumphs feel disconnected from our own.