Couch Potato Club Review: Due Date

Couch Potato Club:
In the end, Due Date is really nothing more than a Planes, Trains and Automobiles rip-off that ultimately fails to impress. While Robert Downey, Jr. and Zack Galifianakis turn in some solid performances, the script just isn’t there to let this stand on par with Todd Phillips’ previous outings The Hangover and Old School. Granted there are undoubtedly some funny moments in Due Date, the rest of the movie just seems to drag on and leaves you rather wanting in comparison to last year’s The Hangover.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
darklordzor2176d ago

Wow....Although Planes, Trains, and Automobiles wasn't a bad movie. I hate to hear you didn't like it though.

JL2176d ago (Edited 2176d ago )

Not that I hated it or anything, just it was a very mediocre comedy. On my review scale, 5/10 is right down the middle of the road of mediocracy (I hate these places that pretty much only use 5-10 of the scale with 5 being absolutely dreadful and a movie has to get like 7 to be just average...sorry but 7 is above average, below average would be somewhere below 5).

But yea, it provides a few laughs, but in the end it's an average/forgettable movie that nobody will be talking about again soon enough (not like they still talk about The Hangover or Old School). I'd put this more in line with his School for Scoundrels.

Edit: I thought Planes, Trains and Automobiles was a very enjoyable and fun movie when I was younger (the last time I saw it).

blur992176d ago

Sometimes ideas from prior movies are used in current films.
This kinda makes current films lack originality.
I think this hurts the quality these films. Maybe this occurred with Due Date.

JL2176d ago

I don't think it was anything like that for me. I could dealt with lack of originality if the movie had any character. But that was the thing, there never was any real character. The writing just wasn't that good and didn't allow for you to connect with the characters. There were plenty of one-liners that provided a nice laugh here and there. But there was no depth or substance to back all that up and give the movie that extra layer it needed.

For instance, in Planes/Trains the characters go through a character arc and you begin to sympathize with John Candy's character. The attempt to recreate this for Galifianakis' character falls short because any 'emotional' or 'heartfelt' scene that was meant to do that just felt contrived, thus it could draw you in like John Candy's sob story did in Planes/Trains. That's just one example where it was lacking that extra depth it needed. And it needed that extra depth/substance because ultimately it was going for that connection with the audience and the characters. Also, the comedy it the movie wasn't intelligent...rather juvenile and sophomoric really, and that type of comedy, while funny, can't hold up a movie all by itself (especially a movie that's try to take itself somewhat serious). So all the one-liners Downey and Zack could muster couldn't hold it up alone.

-Mezzo-2176d ago

Agreed, i'll be seeing it tomorrow night, so i can have verdict of my own, Soon.

blur992175d ago

Character development lacking probably.
Sometimes these films are just churned out liked tuna cans.

Sunny_D2172d ago

I knew this movie was going to suck. It had cheesy dialogue and horrible actors.