dinner for schmucks review

Has already laughed a lot during the "Dinner for Schmuck," like the friend I saw it. Like seemingly the majority of people in the screening I went to (and I'm sure some people lie in the ratings). Nigel Smith's own indie WIRE acknowledged that this was the hardest was smiling since "Anchorman." I'm not sure I can say the same but this is the funniest film I have seen for a while. Yet I feel guilty for laughing so much. After all, the humor is very much against the morals of the film.Inspired by Francis Veber, the French comedy from 1998 (and some surprisingly good remake of French comedy), "Dinner Schmuck" is a common party, where all involved, the biggest idiot they can find, having regard to all this ridiculous "buffoon". This is a hypocrite, and I think it's ironic comedy by accident? Expect the audience to laugh at the idiots, why are idiots. The viewer is forced, if he is in the broad sense of humor, are no better than the film's villains.

This is acceptable? This is not the first time that the film is a hypocrite. Recently, "Avatar" proclaimed an anti-technology, anti-capitalist message, while the most expensive and technologically advanced video yet. Is "Wall-E" in his lawsuit is difficult merchanized while an anti-consumerist theme. But these films are not exactly those that seemed to disapprove. I have maybe three or four jokes "Dinner for Schmuck" will not adversely affect the idiot characters.It is not good to laugh at silly characters? If yes, Steve Carell, and many other comic actors to find new jobs. Or so exaggerated caricatures that stupid, that we can laugh at a good conscience? I do not feel bad for the economy "Billy Madison", "Step Brothers," Cabin Boy "and Carell Brick Tamland in" Anchorman. "These films remind us that it is not bad to laugh at the mentally retarded.But wouldn’t Carell still be the biggest loser if he’s the one being tricked into thinking he’s being dominated telepathically?