Review: Dinner for Schmucks

Over-the-top. Hilarious Moments. Contrived story. Inconsistent. Very funny.

While this movie had some great moments and at times it was really funny, over all it left me feeling very strange about it. It made 'Meet the Parents' seem realistic in that it was so over the top, so far from any sort of reality, but often acted like it was reality, that it left me with mixed feelings. They create all these huge problems and then wrap it up in the end with voice over, which I was not a fan of.

Steve Carell is very funny, but his character was inconsistent for me. I didn't understand him. He was crazy, and then not. Logical and then totally illogical. He basically ruins peoples lives in the movie and no one is upset with him, which made no sense to me.

Paul Rudd gave a moderately bland performance for me.

Zach Galifianakis was the highlight of the movie for me. He was awesome.

This film has the potential to be a sort of cult classic. It has some great lines and seriously memorable moments. But because the story is so slapstick, but many characters are played so dramatically, it doesn't quite come together. The Steve Carell character basically ruins the life of Paul Rudds character, and then the movie ends. It didn't really make sense to me.

That said, I do still laugh when I think about parts of it.

"Keeping up with the Media"

In one sense 'the model will fall away'. But the studios are not going anywhere, and tent-pole filmmaking is not going anywhere. They will change with the market, as all good businesses do.

'The Calculator' is on the right track, but seems to have missed the how and why.

The studios are not going to be like the Record Labels -- virtually dissolve -- they are going to be like the Networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, etc) and diversify -- embrace cable (new models), and "buy into the change."

The Studios (and networks) are all part of massive media conglomerates so they change their models/strategies often, and the media business is booming like never before. People consume more media today than imagined possible 10 or 20 years ago. Smart phones, iPads and emerging markets like China and India will provide ever increasing patrons and opportunities, which will often require ever more 'models' and strategies to tap into these markets. But the demand for big films is there.

If you ask me, looking forward, studios are better suited to look at more universal themes -- not just known American remakes -- for making tent-pole films because those will play better in a global market place.

Original ideas about science, religion, the mind, and the human experience have potential to sell in a global market, and we are fast transitioning into a totally global market place for films. America's big cities are very much 'a diverse global market' - hence a lack of interest in 'established American brands'.

The diversification of the studios into video games, web & cable programing allows for the funding of synergized 'tent-poles' projects. But idea of TV shows and video games becoming tent-poles is a model that I think is not as viable as once thought... It's already become stale. I think people prefer smart, original entertainment if they are going to pay a premium; which makes perfect sense when you think about it.

Even 3-D is in it's infancy. The recent abuse of calling films 3-D, when they really converted, not shot in 3-D, is really annoying though. It's a waste if you ask me. If it is not filmed as 3-D >> IT'S NOT 3-D.

3-D as a way of filmmaking is bursting with mind blowing potential, as the technology rapidly improves, creative geniuses will find ways to tap this and pair it with powerful stories, and thus will be able to top even Avatar - which had universal appeal - box office numbers.

Because of this, it is my belief that the 'tent-pole' box office has the potential to get even bigger.

Superhero tent-poles that tap ever improving film technology, is a model is not going anywhere either. I just hope they don't skimp on the writing. Chris Nolan can't oversee them all...

Media is one of America's largest/greatest export products. No other economy in the world is capable of funding 20-30 $200 million motion pictures a year, but even America has it's limits. Which is why the studios have cut back the 'irrational exuberance'. That should not be confused with the breakdown of the studio system. The costs are up, so fewer are made.

It cost about $30-$60 million -- so it needs to be worth it -- just to market a film these days, so it's either go all-in-big, or go the indie route. The studios are going big.

But the indie world is also going strong. Technology that was once only available to the studios is now available to anyone with a laptop. Hence the pressure for the studios to go big and make 'tent-pole'.

The markets are changing very fast, so the studios are also cutting the lag time in development so that they don't miss the market/mark. That is why the recent duds have happened. People were over the trend even before it was able to set in. The market changed before the films even came out...

Try and keep up!

The beauty is that anyone can make movies these days, and market them virtually for free on the internet. If it catches on -- Justin Beiber effect -- it can work out real nice. If not, try again!

It's an exciting time to be in media.

And if you keep up, it is very exciting.