Birdman (9/10): The technical ambition pays off for Iñarritu and Lubezki.

“You're doing this because you're scared to death, like the rest of us, that you don't matter. And you know what? You're right. You don't. It's not important. You're not important. Get used to it.”

No matter how people feel about this film, there is no denying that Birdman is a technical marvel. Emmanuel Lubezki is one of the best cinematographers in Hollywood and he should continue working and experimenting with his fellow Mexican directors. Birdman is visually astonishing and one of the most unforgettable moviegoing experiences of the year. He blew us away last year when he took us to space in Gravity, and now he astonishes audiences once again by giving us the illusion that the film is taking place entirely in one single shot. From the opening shot, Lubezki is letting us know that we are going to get our heads spun and so he circles around a table with four actors discussing their roles in the play they are about to act in. Birdman is unlike any other film I’ve seen in that sense, where you feel like you are watching actors in a live theater. The audience becomes the camera which follows around these egocentric and troubled actors as they interact with one another. The film has stuck with me and it is one of those rare movies I’d like to experience once again in the theaters. I can’t think of another film that manages to portray the passage of time so well without having to cut from one scene to the next the way Birdman does. 

Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu is better known for his realistic and depressive films focusing on separate characters whose lives intertwine someway or another (Amores Perros, 21 Grams, Babel). This was quite a fantastic change of tone from his previous and more depressing films. He has crafted one of the best films of the year with groundbreaking editing effects that magically make us believe the film is all a continuous shot. He also uses dark and satirical humor to critique egocentric Hollywood actors, critics, artists, and even audiences who eat up anything they are served as long as there are loud explosions and non-stop action scenes. Iñarritu takes a shot at just about everyone.

Alexander Dinelaris's script was wickedly smart and satirical with some great and memorable dialogues that complement the technical achievements of the film very well. Birdman has a lot to say about our human nature and our desperation to become relevant and important. It is a complete film that deserves all the recognition and awards it has been receiving.

The performances in Birdman also stand out above most films released this year. Michael Keaton is fantastic as Riggan Thomson, a once popular actor who starred in a superhero franchise but hasn’t been able to do anything relevant since. He is known for the character of Birdman, but he wants to prove he is a real artist and not just a washed up celebrity. That is why he is risking everything in a play he is directing, writing, producing, and starring in. His good friend, Jake (Zach Galifianakis) is co-producing the play with him. Lesley (Naomi Watts), Laura (Andrea Riseborough), and Mike (Edward Norton) are the actors he hires for the play, while his daughter Sam (Emma Stone) is working for him as his personal assistant as she tries to recover from her former drug addictions. The supporting cast is excellent in this film, especially Edward Norton and Emma Stone who share several great scenes together along with Michael Keaton. Galifianakis also impresses in a much more serious role than what we are used to seeing him in, but this is still Keaton’s film who displays a wide range of emotions. Birdman has become such an important part of his life that he actually interacts with him in a surreal way. The film balances this magical realism very well and Keaton pulls off the feat of having these inner conversations with himself. The intimate camerawork only enhances these performances even more. 

My Review: Are You Here (3/10)

"That's the thing about friendship - it's a lot rarer than love; there's nothing in it for anybody."

I feel sorry for the Matthew Weiner fans out there who are approaching his first feature film basically for their love of Mad Men because there isn't anything here for anybody. The creator of the successful HBO series seems lost in his intentions with this film. The trailers are selling this film as a comedy and we'd expect that considering the fact it stars Owen Wilson, Zach Galifianakis, and Amy Poehler, all extremely hilarious comedic actors. But despite the fact that the first fifteen or so minutes begin as your average comedy, it ends up taking a rather unconventional and bizarre path. It would be much more appropriate to classify this film as a drama which tries to study the effects of mental illness, although it fails to do so. There are few films who have been able to pull it off (the most recent that comes to mind is David O. Russell's Silver Lining Playbook) because it is such a sensitive and reserved area. This film never really decides what it wants to be and the story takes unexpected directions (and I say this in a negative way). Nothing really makes sense and the characters never feel authentic; some of the decisions they make are confounding and disturbing. The decisions they make don't make sense at all, but the story goes on as if everything is perfectly normal and expects us to believe it. The biggest problem with Are You Here is that it lacks identity, it doesn't know what direction to take after establishing the characters and the premise. The tone of this film is so strange that it will engage very few audiences and I'm not one of them. This is neither a bromance nor a romantic comedy nor a serious attempt at examining mental illness, although at times the film seems to try to be all these things. It adds up to nothing. The greatest thing about Are You Here ended up being Galifianakis' shaved beard.

There was a time in the past when only seeing Owen Wilson on screen would tear me up no matter what, but his recent films haven't resonated with me so well and I haven't found him as funny as I once did. I am sure he will bounce back soon, but for now I really don't have high expectations for his films. Galifianakis has been either hit or miss with me and  he seems to play a similar character in most of his films. I'm not a huge fan of Amy Poehler unless she is working alongside Tina Fey. She is funny, but in a more serious role she feels completely miscast. Laura Ramsey was beautiful, but her hippie character had no personality and was perhaps the weakest character in the film whose motivations are never understood. As much as I admire these actors, I really can't think of one performance in this film that actually worked. There is no memorable comedic moment and there isn't anything worth examining about mental illness here either. If the film was trying to be a dramedy it failed completely because it never managed to do either. If you don't believe me go and see it for yourself, but at least I tried to warn you!

My Review: The Hangover Part III (7/10)

"I told myself, I would never come back."

I had read so many bad reviews about this third installment of The Hangover that I kept putting off this movie until I finally decided to watch it last night and was glad I did. The second film was a lazy copy of the first (which I had loved), but I was let down by that sequel and wasn't expecting much from this. I guess that my lowered expectations helped me enjoy this film a lot more because I had a great time at the movies and laughed during several scenes what I hadn't laughed in any other comedy I'd seen this year (Identity Thief, The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, He's Way More Famous Than You, The Guilt Trip, and This is 40). The Hangover Part III is a lot funnier than any of those movies were, and it is better than the first sequel; just don't expect it to be like the original. I'm glad Todd Phillips decided to take an entirely different direction here and incorporate some action. I didn't find this movie dark like a lot of people are saying it was and I didn't think it was serious either. I laughed several times and enjoyed the new characters. I think the film could have used a little less of Ken Jeong and not have made Zach Gallifianakis's character as mean as he was here, but overall I still think this film worked. Todd Phillips has had several hit and misses in his career as a director, and I would say The Hangover Part III kind of stands in the middle. It helped me that I went with such low expectations for this film and left the theater entertained.

The wolfpack is back together again for a third time, although this time no one is getting married and there is no bachelor party. Doug (Justin Bartha) convinces Phil (Bradley Cooper) and Stu (Ed Helms) to help him take Alan (Zach Galifinakis) to a mental institution after he has decided to stop taking his medication. Alan has been having a bit of anger issues, and so the wolfpack decide to get together again to drive Alan to an institution, but on their way they are assaulted by Black Doug (Mike Epps) and his boss Marshall (John Goodman). They kidnapp Doug and are forced to find Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong). If they don't find him in less than 72 hours then Doug will be dead. Apparently Mr. Chow has stolen from Marshall a large amount of gold, and he wants it back. This is where the madness begins, and the three friends are forced to locate Mr. Chow and bring him back in exchange for Doug.

I really enjoyed John Goodman's performance here although he didn't get much screen time. He was really good in his role as Marshall and set the tone of the film. There is a lot more action and thrills in this third installment. Another new secondary character in this film is Cassie (Melissa McCarthy), although she's barely five minutes in this movie. I thought she was funny, but I don't agree that her scenes were the highlight of the film. I'm not in love with her as most critics are, and have only enjoyed her role in Bridesmaids. Maybe Identity Thief is still to fresh on my mind and it doesn't allow me to enjoy her more. The Hangover Part III is a worthy sequel and I think a great place to end the trilogy. None of these films will be as fresh as the original however.

My Review: Puss in Boots (5/10)

¨My thirst for adventure will never be quenched! ¨

Puss in Boots is a character we came to love in the Shrek franchise, and this time director Chris Miller (who wrote the original Shrek screenplay and directed some of the sequels) makes him the star of his own animated film. Antonio Banderas is back again voicing his character, and the similarities with the Zorro can`t be ignored (considering he played this famous hero in two films). Puss in Boots takes place before the adventures with Shrek, and we get to see his background story and his interactions with other famous fairytale characters such as Jack and Jill, Humpty Dumpty, the Mother Goose, Jack and the Beanstalk, and many more. Of course the stories are very different from the ones we`ve heard: Jack and Jill are two thieves who remind us a lot of Bonnie and Clyde; Humpty Dumpty is a smart great inventor, but at the same time is always getting into mischief; Jack sold a stolen cow for the magic beans and therefore is in prison, and so on. DreamWorks has done the same thing with the Shrek franchise so we are used to these funny alterations to classical characters. I really enjoyed the first half of this story and laughed throughout it. Puss in Boots is a great character and he deserved to star in his own movie. I did have a problem with some of the secondary characters, and especially with the last 20 minutes of the film which just got beyond ridiculous. It`s too bad because the film really had a lot of potential and it began with a lot of promise.

Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas) is a wanted man, or should I say cat. There is a reward on his head and he`s living as a fugitive traveling from town to town and gaining reputation with the kitties. One night at a bar he hears that Jack and Jill (voiced by Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris) are headed towards their town and that they have stolen the magical green beans. Puss wants those beans and is ready to steal them, but another kitten gets in his way: Kitty Softpaws (Salma Hayek) so neither of them is able to do so. Puss is furious and when he discovers that Humpty Dumpty (Zach Galifianakis) is involved he wants nothing to do with them. Dumpty and Kitty both want Puss to join them and help them finding the beans in order to climb the beanstalk and reach the giant`s mansion to steal the goose that lays golden eggs, but Puss wants nothing to do with Dumpty. Something happened in their past and he refuses to help. After Kitty insists that he join them, Puss tells her how he met Dumpty and what happened to their friendship. We see a flashback of how Dumpty and Puss met in an orphanage where they were taken care of by Imelda (Constance Marie) and how their friendship begins. We even see how Puss gets his boots, but eventually he is betrayed by Dumpty, and they each go their separate way. Eventually Kitty convinces Puss to join them by telling him he has a chance to clear his name, and therefore the three embark on the mission.

I really enjoyed the first half of the story, the dialogue was funny and the main characters were interesting. The movie felt kind of fast paced at first and everything was happening real fast. Puss, Dumpty, and Kitty were interesting characters, but the villains aren`t really memorable. My favorite part was perhaps the flashback where we get to see Puss`s background and how he was betrayed by Dumpty. Another great scene was when Kitty and Puss have a dance off in a glitter club full of cats. Those were the highlights of the movie, but then once they get a hold of the magical beans the movie goes downhill. The plot gets really ridiculous and ends pretty badly. I wish they would`ve just kept the same pace of the first half of the movie. Puss in Boots still had its funny moments and I found myself laughing a lot, but I was disappointed with the second half. This wasn`t as good a year for animated films as it was last year, but I guess I would have to say that my favorite one this year is Rio. The best thing about this film is definitely Puss and his endearing eyes.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: Dinner for Schmucks (5/10)

¨Vincent Van Gogh: everyone said to him, you can’t be a great painter, you only have one ear. And you know what he said? I can’t hear you.¨

I was expecting great things from this slapstick comedy that featured some of today`s best and funniest comedians, but the truth of the matter was that I left disappointed because it was painful to watch at times. Surprisingly despite starring Steve Carell and Paul Rudd there are very few funny scenes. Not even Zach Galifianakis was able to save the movie. All these actors have made much better films in the past and they usually are reliable actors, but this time around they failed due to a very weak screenplay. The movie was actually based on a 1998 French film named Le Diner de Cons and the screenplay was adapted by David Guion and Michael Handelman. Together with director Jay Roach (Austin Powers and Meet the Parents) they managed to do the impossible: turn these hilarious actors into your average wannabe comedians. There is no other reasonable explanation as to why this comedy didn’t work. They merely managed to create very uncomfortable situations and ridiculous characters. The moral of the story seems to be telling us how evil these men are who simply invite the most idiotic guests for dinner just to have a good time, but at the same time that is exactly what we are supposed to be laughing at. So they seem to be pointing at us and making us realize how wrong it is for the businessmen to make fun of these characters, but at the same time we are supposed to be laughing at them for being so stupid. Talk about being hypocritical this is number one.

Tim (Paul Rudd) is an executive who is working his way up in the equity firm. One of the top employees has been fired so Tim finds the opportunity to climb the corporate ladder. His boss Lance (Bruce Greenwood) is impressed by Tim`s new ideas and offers him the opportunity to replace the fired Jacobson, but first he will have to find the most idiotic person he can find and invite him for a monthly dinner he and his colleagues share called ¨dinner for idiots.¨ Tim knows this is his chance to impress his boss although he feels morally wrong about making fun of other people. Tim accidently runs into an IRS employee named Barry (Steve Carell) who happens to have a hobby: creating mouseterpieces (he imitates famous works of art with stuffed dead mice). Tim knows Barry is the perfect candidate for this dinner so he decides to invite him. Big mistake; Barry ends up pretty much stalking Tim and following him everywhere and at the same time destroying everything around him, including his relationship with his long time girlfriend, Julie (Stephanie Szostak). Julie, who works for an egocentric artist named Kieran (Jemaine Clement), is a very sweet girl, but when she finds out about the dinner she gets in a big fight with Tim. The situation gets worse thanks to a couple of mix ups with Barry and Tim`s life begins to go downhill.

I kept on waiting for the comedy to begin, but as the movie progressed I kept on finding it more and more mean-spirited up to the very end when the actual dinner takes place. The situations just kept on getting more and more awkward kind of in the same way Meet the Parents did, except this time without the comedy. It was hard to root for any of the characters because they were just poorly developed. Rudd seemed like a nice guy, but he would do anything to move up the corporate ladder and get the promotion, Carell was just too annoying and overly characterized to sympathize with, and Galifianakis was perhaps the funniest in the film but had very little screen time. Szostak was the only character I really liked, but she deserved much better than Rudd. By the end of the film I really didn’t care much what happened to any of them. The movie just ended up building a lot of unwanted tension without ever being funny. The screenwriters and director just went way too far out with Carell`s character and it was impossible to sympathize with him. They missed the mark by making his character really unlikeable and irritating. I’m always amused as to how these doomed characters always find some sort of enlightenment near the end of the film and somehow save the day. It`s as if Carell`s character is a completely different person at the end in order for everything to fit in its place. This is a forgettable film and another remake gone bad: definitely worth a skip.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: The Hangover Part II (7/10)

¨Well we`re living here in Allentown, and he`s driven our lives into the ground. When we woke up we were wasted and drunk; Phil got shot, we got beaten by a monk. I was happy and my life was good; getting married like a dentist should.¨

The trailers got it right when they said the Wolfpack was back; Phil, Stu, Alan, and Doug got together again in this follow up to the highly successful 2008 comedy The Hangover. They even got Mr. Chow to return for the sequel, but what they failed to mention was that one of the main characters from the previous film was missing: Las Vegas. The second part takes place in sunny Bangkok, a long ways away from home. Instead of waking up at a five star suite hotel room, the guys wake up in a roach infested cheap motel room. The movie follows an almost identical premise and the jokes are pretty much the same, but Bangkok just isn’t Vegas and that was actually missing in this film. Other than that I had no other problems with this movie: it was fun, entertaining, and all the main characters were back at it again. Same players, same scenarios, different location. With these talented actors it is pretty hard to mess up a movie like this so if you enjoyed the previous movie than odds are you will like this one. The Hangover was one of my favorite comedies of the decade, the second one doesn’t quite live up to that category, but it still is entertaining. Of course the originality and freshness from the original was missing, but I didn’t have any problems in seeing these guys reunite once again. Todd Phillips was also back as the director after the disappointing and unsuccessful Due Date (which also starred Zach Galifianakis), but he got right back on track where he had left out in The Hangover. He also collaborated with the screenplay along with Craig Mazin and Scot Armstrong (who replaced Jon Lucas and Scott Moore from the original).

Its been two years since Doug (Justin Bartha) got married and now it`s Stu`s (Ed Helms) turn. He has fallen in love with Lauren (Jamie Chung) and is planning on getting married in Thailand where her family currently lives. Phil (Bradley Cooper) is upset that Stu is getting married abroad because he has to buy tickets for him and his wife, but he gets even more upset when he discovers that Stu isn’t going to have a bachelor party. Stu invited them to IHOP the morning before they had to travel and tells them that there will be no party, so they must enjoy their breakfast and consider that his bachelor party. He wants to avoid everything that happened to them in Vegas. Alan (Zach Galifianakis) finds out Stu is getting married and is depressed because he hasn’t been invited to the wedding. Doug convinces Stu to invite Alan since that trip to Vegas has been the highlight of his life and seems to have mentally never left the place. Stu reluctantly decides to invite him so the Wolfpack get together again and travel to a beautiful resort in Thailand. Lauren`s younger brother, Teddy (Mason Lee), is studying in Stanford and also travels with the crew, although Alan doesn’t like this one bit because he isn’t part of the Wolfpack. A couple of nights before the wedding the guys decide to roast marshmallows by a campfire on the beach. They all have one beer and the next thing we know they wake up in a cheap motel room in Bangkok without remembering what happened the night before. Phil wakes up first and finds a finger in a bucket full of water that seems to belong to Teddy, Alan wakes up with his head shaved, Stu wakes up with a tattoo on his face, and Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong) wakes up alongside them. The movie then follows the same premise the first one did as they try to find clues to piece together what happened to them and where Teddy is.

The movie is missing some of the freshness the original film had, but I still had a fun time. More of the same is not necessarily bad, but it just isn’t as funny either. We kind of expect some of the things that are going to happen. Some of the highlights of the film include new secondary characters like Kingsley, who is played by Paul Giamatti and he is really funny in this film. There is also Samir (Bryan Callen), an Arab dealer searching for Mr. Chow, who has a few funny seconds on screen, but I wish his character would have been given more time. There are also some more funny cameos along the way and surprising moments, although pretty much all the suspense and mystery that the first film had is missing in this one. The Hangover II is still a very raunchy comedy like the first, but the effect the first film had on me was just missing this time. I still can’t complain because I laughed throughout the film. It was fun seeing these characters back in action again and was very pleased with the film. If you liked the first film, you will probably like this one, if you didn’t like the first one then there is no need for you to see the second one because the premise is the same. Just don’t expect another masterpiece.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: It`s Kind of a Funny Story (8/10)

¨The difference between today and last Saturday is that for the first time in a while, I can look forward to the things I want to do in my life. Bike, eat, drink, talk, ride the subway, read, run, travel, swim, skip.¨

They say that two heads think better than one, and that might be the case with directors Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck who have collaborated in the past with films such as Half Nelson (which gave Ryan Gosling his first Oscar nomination), and the surprise critical hit of 2009: Sugar, about a Dominican baseball player trying to make it in the major leagues and adapting to his new life in the United States. The Cohen brothers also prove this point so there is nothing wrong with teaming up as directors. Boden and Fleck have demonstrated their directorial talents before and do it once again with It`s Kind of a Funny Story. The three films they have directed are all very different from each other, and this is more or less a dramatic comedy with probably more drama to it than comedy. This isn`t one of those laugh out loud Galifianakis comedies, it is much more serious, but there are still plenty of laughs (or at least scenes that will make you smile). This movie has some heart to it as well; there is good chemistry between the two young characters played by Gilchrist and Roberts. The romantic story works, the drama works, and so does the comedy as long as you aren`t expecting a film like The Hangover. Boden and Fleck adapted the screenplay themselves from the novel of the same name written by Ned Vizzini. This is not your typical Hollywood film, it is different and you probably would expect that if you`ve seen the rest of the films they have directed. 

Craig (Keir Gilchrist from the United States of Tara series) is a smart kid, who studies at a gifted school, and has a normal loving family, but who deals with depression and suicidal thoughts. He is obsessed with his best friend Aaron`s (Thomas Mann) girlfriend Nia (Zoe Kravitz). Craig decides to check himself into a mental institution on Sunday expecting to spend the day there, but doctors decide he should stay a week and follow the program since he claims to be a danger to himself. His parents Lynn (Lauren Graham from Gilmore Girls) and George (Jim Gaffigan) are supportive of the doctor`s decision and decide to let him stay at the mental hospital in the adult ward since the juvenile section is under renovation. Craig is really stressed out with his life and about getting the Gates Application for Summer school which would look great for his college resume. His father is always focused on his job, but is pushing Craig so that he can get the application. Craig seems to be obsessed and stressed out with all these little things, and forgotten therefore to enjoy life. In the ward he meets patients with much greater problems than his own. He befriends Bobby (Zach Galifianakis) who teaches him a couple things about life, but who seems to have a lot of issues of his own. Then there is his Egyptian roommate who never speaks to anyone or leaves the room, Muqtada (Bernard White). And finally he meets Noelle (Emma Roberts) a girl about his age who he begins falling for. Together the patients learn from each other and Craig begins to find help in his therapy sessions with Dr. Eden Minerva (Viola Davis), as well as with drawing and music sessions.

It`s Kind of a Funny Story might not be as funny as you expect, but it is kind of a sweet story. The film doesn`t try to be preachy or anything like that at all, but it is kind of uplifting and one can find a way out of depression by watching this movie. Finding the things one enjoys in life and focusing on them instead of all the other issues can help live a less stressful life. The characters in the ward are much more interesting than the rest of the characters from the outside world. Craig`s parents, his friend Aaron and his girlfriend all are left in the background since they are outshined by the patients who are way better developed in the film. Galifianakis shines in every scene he is in, Gilchrist and Roberts are really good together on screen and share some great chemistry, and the rest of the patients all share the most memorable moments of the movie. We are drawn into the world of the mental hospital and could care less about the outside world. One of the best scenes of the movie is when the patients get together for their musical therapy and they all play the song Under Pressure. It`s Kind of a Funny Story reminds us that there is more to life than just study and work, it`s the little things which can give us the most pleasure out of life. We can´t change anything through worrying so why stress out so much. I really enjoyed this movie and recommend it although be warned it's not your typical Hollywood film. It is kind of slowly paced, but once you meet the characters inside the ward it`s worth it.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: Due Date (4/10)

¨My father loved coffee, and now we loved him as coffee.¨

Todd Phillips is the man responsible for directing The Hangover, one of my favorite comedies of the decade. He`s also directed some other funny movies like Old School and is currently working on the sequel for The Hangover. However his latest film, Due Date, was hugely disappointing. Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifianakis are among today`s best comedic actors, but they were badly miscast in this film. The biggest mistake was the approach this road trip/comedy took because the lead characters were immensely annoying and very unlikeable. Robert Downey Jr. `s character is really mean spirited and hateful. He yells at people all the time, easily losses his temper, hits kids, spits at dogs, and even fights with a guy in a wheelchair. It’s impossible to sympathize with him even if he`s Robert Downey Jr. Zach Galifianakis on the other hand has to play the typical annoying character, but he hugely exaggerates it in his approach. He`s really annoying and not someone you actually feel sorry for or could wish the best for him. He`s just way too immature and a little too crazy. It’s impossible in this genre to avoid comparisons with Hughes` 1987 film: Plain, Trains, & Automobiles, one of the all time best road trip comedies. Phillips could have learned several lessons from that movie before directing Due Date. Steve Martin`s character is in no way as mean or hurtful as Downey was, and Candy might have been annoying, but he was still a likeable guy who made you feel sorry for him, unlike Galifianakis. There are really very few funny moments in this comedy (and the best were already shown in the trailer). Due Date relies too heavily on pot jokes, foul language, and masturbating dogs; and it has no heart.

The story is actually not very different from any other road trip comedy. Peter Highman (Robert Downey Jr.) is an architect and expectant father from Los Angeles who happens to be working in Atlanta. He is trying to make it home on time for the birth of his son/daughter because his wife, Sarah (Michelle Monoghan) is expecting him to show up at the hospital, but an unexpected problem surfaces when Peter has a discussion with one of the passengers of the plane, Ethan Tremblay (Zach Galifianakis), and both end up on the no flying list. Peter is forced to travel to LA in a rental car along with Ethan because he left his wallet with money and documents on the plane. As much as Peter seems to despise Ethan he decides to travel with him and their troubles begin. Ethan is not the person with whom you`d want to travel with on the road from coast to coast across the States, much less when he also carries around a masturbating dog with him that believes he`s human. Along their journey we meet some other characters like Heidi (Juliette Lewis) the drug dealer, Lonnie (Danny McBride) an ex War veteran working at Western Union, and Darryl (Jamie Foxx) a long time friend of Peter and Sarah. Neither of the supporting characters have enough screen time to make their performances any memorable although some of the funniest scenes revolve around them.

Whatever Todd Phillips did right in The Hangover, he failed to do so with Due Date. There are very few laughs, and there are characters we can`t sympathize with despite the fact that the actors are hugely talented. I can`t even imagine how these two films were directed by the same guy, but I hope he redeems himself with The Hangover sequel. Due Date is a forgettable comedy and a really mean spirited film. Phillips goes a little too over the top in his approach to this road trip comedy. Perhaps the best and funniest moments of the film come from the individual performances of the actors, like the scene where Galifianakis begins to act out a scene from The Godfather. There is also a SNL like moment in the scene at Western Union between Danny McBride and Robert Downey Jr. It`s a funny scene, but if that`s one of the highlights of the film I`d rather watch a full episode of SNL. The truth of the matter is that the movie fails because the audience is unable to connect or find sympathy with any of the characters. There is not one likeable person in this film and that makes us care less whether or not Peter and Ethan make it to Los Angeles on time together. Skip this film and watch Planes, Trains, & Automobiles instead because that is how you make a hilarious road trip movie with likeable and memorable characters.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/