Skip to content

At The Movies With Peter Clease: Due Date

"Due Date" is composed of two characters: a creep; a freak--neither, however, is ossified in one area or the other. The creep can be the freak; the freak can be the creep--and, so, this is how their world is.


"Due Date" is composed of two characters: a creep; a freak--neither, however, is ossified in one area or the other. The creep can be the freak; the freak can be the creep--and, so, this is how their world is. However, I was quite certain on which character I would, most definitely, strangle to death had I been the creep: - the creep.


The film, while not intentionally creepy, is not deferential. Very thin. Very claustrophobic. No humour is allowed to breathe; nothing is allowed to breathe. No characters or jokes or laughs. The humour is indistinguishable and manic--thus, as manic, when this type of humour fails to retain sardonic or satiric wit, it fails. And it does fail. It fails on all levels.


Of course, there are a few laughs, minor as they are; however, I should, having said this, lead this to a climax--so, a short recap: two fools meet. One Ethan. One Peter (who I take particular issue with since he dare tarnish the name of a great man!). They meet at an airport where fool number one, the insufferable Ethan, shouts bomb... over and again...


Anyway, this leads Peter and Ethan barred from airport, but since the film is so wildly innovative, not thievery, not trite, it spares us from barring them from trains and automobiles. This does, however, lead them to Ethan's vehicle. He introduces Peter to his dad who lives in a coffee-can. (They later will drink his dad.) It also leads Ethan to play with his genitals while his dog watches (and plays with his genitals) and Peter is just a few seats away. This scene, for your note, is also the most depth and breadth the film will ever demonstrate. It suggests, you see, that Ethan does not know the boundaries of male camaraderie. Perhaps, also, some sort of gay innuendo? Who knows.


I do not care: the entire film is such a modicum of boredom and tedium that it defies reason. No, no, no! The characters are not funny. The pacing and writing is terrible. And all directing effort--if there is any directing effort--is overtly pedestrian. Three for three as we say. I will not mention the acting, for it is the only reasonable trait in the entire film, sparingly, in certain instances; and I refuse to mention such, in this case, 'reservations' at this immediacy because no credit should be given to a film that clearly demonstrates a corrupt standard to be blandly ordinary, which is quite an accomplishment: bland and ordinary.

Note: 2.5 out of 5 popcorns.