Do the math. Almost everyone who rated it 1-2 stars is a non-American (or self-absorbed film critic) who saw one of the originals that apparently spawned this film and they treat this one like a villain because of it. Yet, most Americans or those who didn't see the original give it at least 4-5 stars even if they didn't like it. Among the more moderate dislikes I also notice a couple common biases. Many dislike the grouchy girlfriend and several more dislike the stupidity of Carell's character. Sounds to me like many nay-sayers bring their own baggage to their bias, to one extreme or the other. What were you expecting? The film is "Dinner for Schmuks" not "Dinner for Sophisticates and Sycophants." The latter were the antagonists of the film. The plot was Rudd's character realizing that, standing up to them, and befriending a social misfit. The concept and players are not all that different from Napoleon Dynamite; another film people trashed without "getting it" yet appreciated more with each viewing. I saw one reviewer say they disliked this film at first and liked it more with each viewing. That's not typical for even a lot of popular films. Most films grow tiresome over time.
Bias is natural, but in this case it's largely unfair and unwarranted. On one hand, the pseudo-intellects think this film is dumbed down because they saw a similar film with a more artistic take. Boo-hoo! So give that film 10 stars and be reasonable with a 5, 6, or 7 for this one. I think it borrowed a little from The Party; a late-60s comedy about a dinner party. Should I hate the French or Indian films as ripoffs of that film since it pre-dated them? And of all the truly awful films out there, this is at the bottom? What is your scale? It's just my method, but I consider major criteria for films such as acting, script, music, etc. I may knock a star for every aspect that fails, or maybe a full star for 2-3 minor flaws. My bias plays into it too, but I try to grade on film merits without my bias taking the whole rating. There's a reason there are 10 stars to choose; it's not a black and white, like or dislike, thumbs-up or thumbs down rating scale. Do 1-star raters suggest this film fails at every element of film making? To me, 4-star means it is worse than half of the films ever made, since 5-6 should mean an "average" film. 1-star says to me it fails at every aspect of film making and gets a star merely because it's a film - it made production. I've rated very few films below 5 or 6. Most are average or better. If it's that bad, I hope I know better than to see it. Just food for thought.
Meanwhile, the other extreme of dislikes seems to have expected a more straight-forward, raunchy comedy like Dumb and Dumber or Austin Powers (I like those btw; not knocking them) or something less silly like a typical rom-com. Instead, it was something in between: a basic comedy with an absurd premise and a very moderate amount of adult humor. It requires a bit more analyzing than most comedies, a bit of an unexpected gut check, and an open mind about the intentions of the film. Was it any more unrealistic than Ferris Bueller? More silly than the original Pink Panthers? More absurd than any Will Ferrell comedy? Check those ratings and rethink your perspective.
Among today's films this is easily above average and definitely worth seeing. It certainly warrants a better IMDb rating than it has received so far. It's not amazing, but what in the world were the nay-sayers expecting? Script, premise and originality are the weakest aspects, yet they are adequate. At times the script is even quite clever. Acting is at least average if not better. Story and plot are good. The music is very good. Cinematography is even great for a comedy, especially in the scenes with the mice dioramas. And for those knocking the expectations of the cast: there are 4-5 notable film comedians in the cast. David Williams is the most authentic comedian and most Americans wouldn't even know who he is. He and Steve Carell fulfilled my expectations. Rudd is hardly a legit comedic actor as he has done as many non-comedies and often plays a straight-man. And Galifinakis and Clement have limited roles. Where is the comedic let-down? Take the film for what it is. It's about the relationship between Rudd's and Carell's characters, and what Rudd's character learns and appreciates in the process. Comedy is literally a secondary genre. I agree that it was advertised poorly.
Finally, I was surprised how much human element is in the film. Very touching at times. (Reminds me of John Hughes films how you can be laughing one moment, brought to deep introspection a moment later, then laughing soon again.) Admittedly, the film goes flat at times, but only for brief periods and it ends reasonably well. I didn't like the Darla character. She detracted from the story and the annoying grouchy aspect of the girlfriend came directly from that. Plus the girlfriend was a mediocre actress and her character may have been improved by reworking the involvement of the Darla character. Nevertheless, if you watch it with an open mind and reserve the expectations a bit, I think most will be pleasantly surprised. In fact, I was apprehensions about seeing it, and never saw it in theatres. I reluctantly rented it when there was nothing else to rent and was glad I did.
Bias is natural, but in this case it's largely unfair and unwarranted. On one hand, the pseudo-intellects think this film is dumbed down because they saw a similar film with a more artistic take. Boo-hoo! So give that film 10 stars and be reasonable with a 5, 6, or 7 for this one. I think it borrowed a little from The Party; a late-60s comedy about a dinner party. Should I hate the French or Indian films as ripoffs of that film since it pre-dated them? And of all the truly awful films out there, this is at the bottom? What is your scale? It's just my method, but I consider major criteria for films such as acting, script, music, etc. I may knock a star for every aspect that fails, or maybe a full star for 2-3 minor flaws. My bias plays into it too, but I try to grade on film merits without my bias taking the whole rating. There's a reason there are 10 stars to choose; it's not a black and white, like or dislike, thumbs-up or thumbs down rating scale. Do 1-star raters suggest this film fails at every element of film making? To me, 4-star means it is worse than half of the films ever made, since 5-6 should mean an "average" film. 1-star says to me it fails at every aspect of film making and gets a star merely because it's a film - it made production. I've rated very few films below 5 or 6. Most are average or better. If it's that bad, I hope I know better than to see it. Just food for thought.
Meanwhile, the other extreme of dislikes seems to have expected a more straight-forward, raunchy comedy like Dumb and Dumber or Austin Powers (I like those btw; not knocking them) or something less silly like a typical rom-com. Instead, it was something in between: a basic comedy with an absurd premise and a very moderate amount of adult humor. It requires a bit more analyzing than most comedies, a bit of an unexpected gut check, and an open mind about the intentions of the film. Was it any more unrealistic than Ferris Bueller? More silly than the original Pink Panthers? More absurd than any Will Ferrell comedy? Check those ratings and rethink your perspective.
Among today's films this is easily above average and definitely worth seeing. It certainly warrants a better IMDb rating than it has received so far. It's not amazing, but what in the world were the nay-sayers expecting? Script, premise and originality are the weakest aspects, yet they are adequate. At times the script is even quite clever. Acting is at least average if not better. Story and plot are good. The music is very good. Cinematography is even great for a comedy, especially in the scenes with the mice dioramas. And for those knocking the expectations of the cast: there are 4-5 notable film comedians in the cast. David Williams is the most authentic comedian and most Americans wouldn't even know who he is. He and Steve Carell fulfilled my expectations. Rudd is hardly a legit comedic actor as he has done as many non-comedies and often plays a straight-man. And Galifinakis and Clement have limited roles. Where is the comedic let-down? Take the film for what it is. It's about the relationship between Rudd's and Carell's characters, and what Rudd's character learns and appreciates in the process. Comedy is literally a secondary genre. I agree that it was advertised poorly.
Finally, I was surprised how much human element is in the film. Very touching at times. (Reminds me of John Hughes films how you can be laughing one moment, brought to deep introspection a moment later, then laughing soon again.) Admittedly, the film goes flat at times, but only for brief periods and it ends reasonably well. I didn't like the Darla character. She detracted from the story and the annoying grouchy aspect of the girlfriend came directly from that. Plus the girlfriend was a mediocre actress and her character may have been improved by reworking the involvement of the Darla character. Nevertheless, if you watch it with an open mind and reserve the expectations a bit, I think most will be pleasantly surprised. In fact, I was apprehensions about seeing it, and never saw it in theatres. I reluctantly rented it when there was nothing else to rent and was glad I did.