If you were to tell me that I would be able to stomach more of Dinner For Schmucks than this a month ago, I’d probably look at you funny. Reality is often surprising.
Twenty-four minutes. That’s all I could take. Really, everything I had said about how atrocious Dinner For Schmucks is could easily apply here, except somehow worse. The formulaic plotline, the absurd silliness to it all, the obvious running jokes… it clearly caters to a specific audience. I am not part of it, it seems.
This specific, er, subgenre? They call it “stoner films.” From title alone, one has a good idea as to whether or not it’s for them. Very silly, doesn’t take itself too seriously, lots of wacky shit happens. Characters smoke a lot of weed and act like… uh… stereotyped potheads? I don’t know, I don’t smoke.
What’s notable about this is that I actually remember watching this and thinking, “Okay, that was pretty good.” I gave this an 8/10, once upon a Christmas (sometime after its release). Ironic that that was the score I had given to Dinner For Schmucks, too. My expectations for these kinds of films were… really low, apparently.
Everything within those twenty-four minutes were simply annoying to me. This film annoyed me to the point where, about ten minutes in, I told myself, “Okay, I’ll try and get halfway through. It’s only 90 minutes. That seems fair, right?” I tried, I really did. But the power of this film’s signature appeal was just too great for me to handle.
If you like goofy shit with really predictable storylines and weed, you’ll probably like it. I didn’t. At all. By the way, I just want to personally thank the film for showing me Paula Garcés’s bare ass for zero reason. Really cool, bro. Dig it.
Final Score: 1/10
The rating for all other films can be found at Letterboxd.
For more, check out the March of the Movies Archive!
Thank you for your time. Have a great day.
The Visualist's Veranda 