So, Le Diner de Cons has been remade as a Steve Carrell vehicle. Has anyone had a look at the script, or had the opportunity for an advance screening?
I have mixed feelings about this, so far. On the one hand, I really like Steve Carrell and will give anything he’s in a shot. On the other hand, I’m not sure he’s well-cast as the Pignot character. I guess they will pretty much discard it and rewrite for the flavour of idiocy he has made a name for himself with. The defects of the original idiot are mainly that he’s a crashing boor and comically innocent. I guess you might say the same of Carrell’s character in The 40 Year Old Virgin, but there’s a huge diffierence, energetically. I don’t see him a mousey little bureaucrat with an absurd obsession with an impossibly narrow little corner of hobbycraft.
I wonder how far it is from the original in conception. Le Diner de Cons is a stagey little movie, and the bulk of the “action” is one-on-one conversation in a single location. A huge difference that seems apparent from the trailer is that……the two principals actually make it to the dinner, where we will presumably meet the other goats.(Spoilered for those who haven’t seen the original.)I have a hard time getting my head around how this change might be incorporated while keeping a substantially similar denouement.
Anyway, I’m still tentatively looking forward to it, when the DVD turns up. Is it on anyone else’s radar, for good or bad?
I was brought up (going to predominently Jewish schools) to understand that “schmuck” was one of the many Yiddish words for penis, usually used in a derogatory sense “Only a schmuck like you would believe that.”
Am I wrong?
Oh, wait. I know. None of the big cheeses in the Hollywood studios are Jewish. Hoo, boy! Wait until they find out!
IIRC, the problem with the original (if you see it as a problem) is that absolutely none of the characters were in any way likeable. Seeing as Paul Rudd is perhaps the most likeable man on the planet, I suspect the dynamic will be significantly different.
I didn’t see it as a problem at all. The original film was about a jerkwad who gets hoist with his own petard. There’s no real “protagonist” because the movie isn’t supposed to be about a hero who overcomes conflict. And it’s all the funnier for having neither man be terribly sympathetic.
I think the incessant need for “likeability” is one of the worst things about American mainstream cinema. Doubly so when it’s a remake of a movie that didn’t need a likeable, attractively focus-grouped leading man to be hilarious and charming. Characters can be interesting without being likeable.
I don’t think it’s a matter of “focus groups”; it’s simply a matter of cultural nuances. The French make movies a one way, Americans another. Vive le difference.
French films are just as cliched as American films - they just use diferent cliches.
Oh, god - I hope not. Trying to reconcile the whole conceit of their game (and everything else we know about the character, such as his infidelitywith any kind of likability is an insoluble problem best left alone. He and his friends are practically Anointed Ones, happy and fortunate, entitled. The way they amuse themselves is too mean-spirited to try to make them really sympathetic. Hell, the idea that it is intolerable behavior is the lynch-pin of a major plot point.
I will be pleased if they don’t screw too much with the ending.I like that he comes to feel ashamed of himself. I like it better that there’s no absolution for him.
I saw it last night. I went in not really expecting all that much and found it to be really hilarious.
Steve Carell has had 5+ years playing an annoying person so he’s got that down pat. But this character is still radically different from the one he plays on The Office. The guy is just stupid and clueless with very few social graces but tries way too hard to glom onto the one friend he thinks he has. It doesn’t really feel forced.
Paul Rudd plays Paul Rudd and of course does that well. This time he’s a “stockbroker” and actually really good at his job (judging by the car he drives and the apartment he lives in) but desperately wants more.
The situations naturally get more and more insane and, of course, like all American films there’s the big payoff at the end and the Major Lessons Learned. I hope I’m not spoiling anything by saying it all works out for (most) everyone.
Oh, and if you’re not a fan of taxidermy you absolutely will be by the end of this film.
BTW, there’s a short scene after the credits so you may want to stick around.
Mom & I saw it last night at the multiplex. There were probably three dozen people there so it looked 2/3 full. We were in hysterics. We’ve never seen the original. I read a couple negative reviews, none of which said anything that made me think twice about seeing it. I’m glad I followed my instincts.
Carrell’s character Barry sometimes does break the bounds of believability in his naivete’ & ignorance, but his essential sweetness brings you back.
One thing a critic got very wrong- he complained that the dinner guests were idiots but not “schmucks”. That is true. That was the point- the schmucks weren’t the idiots but it was indeed a dinner for schmucks.
That makes sense, as it was originally a stage play. And I saw Le Diner de Cons on Friday. It was hilarious. I may have to see more of Francis Veber’s movies.
This was quite possibly the worst movie I’ve ever seen, and I love Carrell and Rudd. My faith in Carrell has been shattered. My faith in Paul will recover…in time.
That being said, the only reason I didn’t walk out was because my friends wanted to “tough it out”. They regretted that decision dearly.
This movie managed to pack in every comedy cliché in history, only they found ways to strip them of any kind of funny.
Paul Rudd was completely wasted in this film. You could have put anyone else in that role.
When they conceived of the animalistic artist character, the writers were clearly thinking “Hey, Russell Brand was really funny in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, we need someone like that!”
The heartfelt resolutions were trite and forced. The characters had none of the genuine heart that seems to infuse those in the other Ap-Pack films.
Do yourselves a favor and watch the Steve Carrell and Paul Rudd Moviefone: Unscripted interview, and skip the movie.
Well, I didn’t expect a lot, but my husband and I really enjoyed it. Lots of laughs. I found it hilarious how Barry could communicate so well with the artist.
And I sheeplishly admit I enjoyed Barry’s little hobby. I think Roger Ebert’s review kind of hit it on the head. Barry is comfortable with who he is. That’s sort of the magic of the movie.