It would be interesting to view director Francis Veber's comedy film 'Le Dîner de Cons' in the context of a monumental work about laughter written by the great French philosopher Henri Bergson (1859-1951). According to Bergson's theory of laughter, comedy is necessarily human : we laugh at people or the things they do. He goes on to add that laughter is purely cerebral : being able to laugh seems to require a detached attitude, an emotional distance to the object of laughter. Bergson also added that the laughter has a social function. These three points have been perfectly assimilated in 'The dinner game' but with some differences. Firstly, rich people like Pierre Brochant do not simply laugh at ugly people like François Pignon as what they do is more than a simple act of laughter. They mock people whom they consider to be inferior to them in intelligence. This is a very flawed idea as nobody has been given the authority to judge other people's intelligence. Secondly, most acts of laughter shown in 'Le dîner de cons' were not cerebral. This is because a person like Pierre Brochant maintained a lot of emotional contact with people whom he mocked. Thirdly, that laughter has a social function was not properly respected in the film as snobs like Pierre Brochant used innocent simpletons like François Pignon as guinea pigs for their own personal pleasure. They always made it a point to invite idiots for mockery but never cared to invite them for laughter. No prizes for guessing what the difference between mockery and laughter is. As a comedy film, the success of 'Le Dîner de Cons' is quite phenomenal as a lot of its humor is specifically country specific. From this yardstick, it is nice to learn that a French film has been able to make viewers of the entire world laugh heartily. This has to be recognized as this film's redeeming quality as without it, 'The dinner game' would have ended in a fiasco by hurting people more than making them laugh.

"Le Dîner de Cons" is one of the funniest French movies of all time. It's adapted from a play and this can be guessed when watching the movie since much of the plot is set in the same place, the main character's Parisian apartment. Apart from the actors' pay (all of them are very famous in France), the movie is low budget. While this doesn't sound appealing, let it not fool you. There are sufficient plot twists for it to stay entertaining from start to finish, and the comedy is pure gold. Obviously, the actors are stupendous, delivering believable yet hilariously funny acts. Unlike most French comedies, I believe this movie is very accessible for non-French people, as the humor in it is pretty much universal and simple. I saw the movie when I was 11 or so and I was roaring with laughter. Now I'm 24 and it's still a great movie for me to work my abdominal area. So I can confidently say that it's a comedy accessible for all ages.As is now common for successful French movies, Hollywood remade it to cash in on the great plot idea. And thus we were graced with "Dinner for Schmucks" staring Steve Carell. While I love Carell and many Hollywood comedies, "Dinner for Schmucks" was a disgrace, and can't be compared to the great original French version (the American version is also very different plot-wise although the main idea is the same). So if you have seen and disliked the American remake, let it not stop you from watching "Le Dîner de Cons" which I am absolutely sure you will like, wherever you're from and whoever you are.

Francis Veber wrote and directed La Doublure, which was cute, creative, light and fun, so we figured Veber's Le dîner de cons would be another winner. What a disappointment! The premise had promise. The acting was excellent. The characters worked. The movie flowed somewhat logically, and the ending was great...yet something was terribly wrong. Instead of laughing out loud as we did during La Doublure, we cringed as one stupid thing after another happened to people we didn't like or care about. It wasn't funny: it was embarrassingly dumb. In La Doublure, the main character may have been down and out, but he was a genuinely nice person, and we wanted him to succeed; here, everyone was either rotten or downright dumb. We lost interest in everyone, and thus lost interest in the movie.

"The Dinner Game" has a cruel premise. Like "The Last Supper", it involves deceiving invited dinner guests for one's own pleasure. While "The Last Supper" preyed on conservative right wingers, "The Dinner Game" is even crueler, exploiting innocent odd eccentrics. Perhaps the best way to judge someone's character, is by observing how they treat people who can do them absolutely no good. "The Dinner Game" has protagonists who are absolutely the worst. They abuse people, not for personal gain, but simply for amusement. It is quite gratifying to see the tables turned, where the meek, dinner guest, "idiot", unwittingly outsmarts his host, and in the process teaches him a valuable lesson. - MERK