“Dinner for Schmucks,” the title pretty much says it all.

I didn’t think the movie was going to be good based on the previews, and I went in only expecting a few cheap laughs. What I got was a couple laughs, and a fair amount of disappointment.

Whoever was in charge of casting for this movie was definitely a schmuck.

One of the leads was Paul Rudd. Rudd is a very funny actor. He knows how to tickle a crowd. In “Dinner for Schmucks,” his talent is wasted. You could have cast anyone in that role and gotten the same results — actually, it might have been funnier if they had used someone that isn’t a comedian.

Now, this isn’t to say Rudd did a bad job, he just wasn’t used well; he shouldn’t have been in the straight-man role.

Next up we have the supporting role from Zach Galifianakis. He’s a funny guy, everybody knows this. His delivery is stellar.

Like Rudd, Galifianakis did a fine job, but simply wasn’t utilized enough. His role had room for a lot of laughs, and there certainly were a few, but it just wasn’t enough. Not using available talent is the same as failing in the film world.

In another supporting role, Jemaine Clement played the insane artist obsessed with philosophical and spiritual enlightenment or truth or whatever it is successful insane artist are looking for. His work was great. His talent was used. This was probably the most successful role of the film.

Now for the leading man, Steve Carell. Carell is, without a doubt, hilarious. His role on “The Office” and his work in a slew of comedic films never fails to garner some chuckles. Just recently he did some very fine voice acting in “Despicable Me.”

On a side note, Carell’s character in “Despicable Me” has a gigantic nose. Carell has a large honker in real life, but I had no idea how large. I swear he has to be wearing a prosthetic nose in “Dinner for Schmucks,” because it just looks impossible. I’m told he isn’t wearing one, but wow, it is ridiculous.

In “Dinner for Schmucks,” Carell displays his comedic gold again. You can’t help but be annoyed by his character. From his body language to his actual speaking, he makes you want to wring his neck, and then feel a little sorry for him. It was a good job.

The problem is, Carell may have been funny, but the situations he was in only worked because he was so good at playing an idiot. The setups and settings were just not getting there. For example, there is a scene where Rudd tells him to not leave a chair. So, naturally, he ends up picking it up and trying to leave.

This could have been funny if the director or writer or whoever was in charge bothered to follow through with the joke. The walking around with a chair gag has been done time and time again. What could have made this occasion funny, was if the movie had followed Carell as he tried to actually maintain sitting in the chair, rather than just having him get up while holding it, then move on to the next scene where he no longer had the chair.

You can say this is just a little choice, maybe it wouldn’t have been a whole lot funnier, but it would have stood out from the rest.

I won’t give away the rest of the story, but I will tell you this: Over and over the scenes are funny-ish, but could have been funnier. It’s like the director just wanted to stifle the laughs. Most scenes are carried purely by Carell’s delivery.

To round out my annoyance of unused talent, the cast was sprinkled with other funny actors who could have either been used or cut from the film. For instance, Kristen Schaal plays Rudd’s assistant at work. Schaal is a fair comedian, and for the first few scenes of the movie, she is off-handedly funny. Then, poof, gone. She disappears from the story.

My point in this is: Why bring her in? Why write a character and cast someone talented in it if they aren’t even there for enough scenes to get in more than two punchlines?

I just think it’s a waste, much like this movie.

On a high note, Jeff Dunham may have given the best ventriloquist performance of his life, which isn’t saying much. I cannot stand this guy’s routine. I think the same people that find him funny might be the same people who made the mistake of giving Carlos Mencia a career.

There are also a few one-liners that are easily repeatable as drunken conversation bits, so I guess there’s that.

All in all, the movie succeeded in getting the point across that you shouldn’t make fun of people. Although, to get this message across the audience has to laugh as people are being made fun of, so really the movie failed at its message too.

Go see this one at a dollar theater if you have nothing better to do during the day, and I mean nothing better.