| Review:
|
At the start of "Due Date," Robert Downey, Jr.'s character
leaves a message on his pregnant wife's cell phone. He describes
a dream he had, one in which a bear chews through his child's
umbilical cord immediately after the birth. By the end of
the film, he becomes convinced that the dream was prophetic.
I became convinced he was deluding himself - or, more accurately,
the filmmakers were deluding themselves into believing they
had actually pulled off a display of twisted symbolism.
The only thing they pull off is an act of desperate contrivance,
which comes in the form of an oddity played by Zach Galifianakis.
No, not a character. An oddity. When the moment comes and
the dream is interpreted, I sank in my seat, realizing that
I had endured nearly 100 minutes of lowbrow humor for nothing.
There's no payoff, apart from more oddness.***
"Due Date" is directed by Todd Phillips, who a year
ago helmed "The Hangover" to tremendous box office and critical
acclaim. I admit that the film never appealed to my sense
of humor, but at least it had an engaging story. Not only
does "Due Date" suffer from a plot that's neither original
nor interesting, it's also a nonstop barrage of unappealing
physical and verbal gags. Many of these are given to Galifianakis,
whose character doesn't even work within the context of
a vulgar road trip buddy comedy; he's a bizarre goofball
caricature that plays on one note - a man defined solely
by flat, tiresome, scene-killing quirks. He's so thoroughly
off-putting, it's impossible to believe anyone could grow
to love him as a friend. In real life, a man like this would
be committed to a sanitarium and forced to undergo extensive
psychological testing.***
Downey plays Los Angeles architect Peter Highman, a
father-to-be excited to fly home from Atlanta in time for
his child's birth. As soon as he arrives at the airport,
he crosses paths with the over-the-top Ethan Tremblay (Galifianakis),
who, as it turns out, is also on his way to Los Angeles.
Specifically, he's on his way to Hollywood; he's an aspiring
actor who dreams of making an appearance on "Two and a Half
Men." An unlikely luggage mix-up forces both Peter and Ethan
off the plane and onto a no-fly list. This forces Peter
into hitching a ride with Ethan and his beloved pet dog,
Sonny, in a rented car. Thus begins a madcap, disaster ridden
cross-country journey, highlighted by such pleasant visuals
as the dog masturbating, Peter getting beaten by a surly
paraplegic veteran, and Peter punching a young boy in the
chest. We're also treated to a run in with corrupt Mexican
border-patrol officers, resulting in a car chase that miraculously
resolves itself as soon as the scene ends.***
Ethan is developed on nothing other than his ability
to drive Peter and everyone else he comes into contact with
insane. He has no social skills. He's immature, pretty much
to the point where it's obvious he has a mental disorder.
He regularly smokes marijuana, which he claims is for glaucoma.
He dresses like a bum who robbed a thrift store. He has
a curious habit of asking incredibly stupid questions, saying
the wrong thing at the wrong time, and spouting facts and
figures that are wrong. He carries his father's ashes in
a coffee can. He parades his dog around as if the poor little
thing were actually a human friend. He's so utterly unlikable
that I simply didn't buy the idea that Peter could ever
come to accept him. Perhaps Galifianakis is qualified to
play a role like this, but to be perfectly frank, I'm getting
tired of seeing him play the same eccentric loony he has
been playing pretty much his entire career.***
This leaves Downey. While playing the hapless straight
man allowed me to like his character a lot more than Galifianakis',
I'm wondering if that ultimately contributed to the film's
unappealing tone. Comedy has thrived on mismatching (Laurel
and Hardy, Abbot and Costello, Martin and Lewis), but here,
it doesn't feel like a calculated move so much as an unfortunate
misdirection. Downey and Galifianakis are so completely
ill-fitting together that absolutely nothing they say or
do registers as funny - it merely registers as awkward.***
The same can be said about the story, which draws in
the audience not through a genuinely intriguing series of
events but by appealing to our inner immature teenager.
Crude movies can be hilariously enjoyable, but there has
to be something more to it other than crudeness, if you
get my meaning; there needs to be an engaging plot, good
characters, and a clever screenplay. This movie falls short
in every respect. Consider a brief subplot involving Jamie
Foxx, who plays Peter's best friend. When Peter suspects
him of something terrible, we expect it to be integral to
the rest of the film. But it isn't. In fact, it's resolved
almost as soon as it begins. That begs the question of why
this particular subplot was included in the first place.
I suspect it was only because it gave Downey and Foxx the
chance to work together again following "The Soloist."
|
