User Score
6.3 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 192 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 15 out of 192

Review this movie

  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 6, 2010
    4
    Essentially a remake - probably unintended - of Trains, Planes and Automobiles, though while John Candy's heart of gold was wrapped around a recognizable caricature of the overfamiliar shlubby salesman, Galifianakis's is wrapped around an odd amalgamation of schticks: a breathtakingly naive, under-socialized stoned sycophant who alternates randomly from fawning to hostile behavior. It's not that funny. Expand
  2. Mar 10, 2011
    1
    After the huge critical and commercial success of Todd Phillips'(Director of "Old School", â
  3. Apr 10, 2011
    4
    The trailer was way much better than the film. I found the movie somewhat lacking in energy, with some plots running nowhere and with very light in laughs. Like Chandelierical said, it reminded me of "Trains, Planes and Automobiles".
  4. Nov 11, 2010
    4
    Despite its promising cast and director, this film really could have been funnier and it seemed a bit rushed at times. It didnâ
  5. Jun 5, 2011
    0
    This was so boring. So obvious and so basic. B.o.r.i.n.g. The Characters were dull and the movie was so monotonous. I would not recommend this movie. No Thrills here.
  6. Jan 4, 2011
    4
    I suppose â
  7. Nov 7, 2010
    4
    A pretty half-assed effort on the part of the script. The jokes were plain and simply not that funny. The actors really had nothing to work with. A DEFINITE rental not worth 10 bucks.
  8. Apr 9, 2011
    2
    Bad , bad, bad. It if wasn't for Robert Downey, Jr, I would have stopped watching the movie. It tries to be Planes, Trains and Automobiles. But unlike John Candy, Zack's character had no redeeming qualities. He was not lovable at all. The two main characters had no chemistry. Why is chemistry so hard for directors to see? Clearly I'm not the target audience, but even so just not very well done. Mostly gross gags and alot of meanness. It's the first time in a long time I've watched a movie where I could tell they were acting. Even good actors can have bad material. Maybe they just got lost in the editing process. Just a bad movie. Expand
  9. Apr 2, 2013
    2
    Due Date is a film that you don't want to see twice because you will hate the movie even more. I guess the movie was suppose to have humor. Funny (but mostly sad) is that I don't remember a single memorable funny line.
  10. Jul 4, 2012
    4
    Very disappointed with this film. Good potential pairing Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifianakis-predictable straightman/oddman linage. But didn't live up to the possibilities. Throughout the movie I could predict what was going to happen next, and that doesn't make for a good comedy.
  11. Aug 24, 2012
    4
    I love Todd Phillips as a director but this just seems like he made this film to try and live off of the success of The Hangover. It is alright in places but it was almost too childish to be good. Neither character is particularly likable and that is probably this film's biggest problem. I wouldn't not recommend it to anyone but I can think of a lot of films I would recommend before this one.
Metascore

Mixed or average reviews - based on 39 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 15 out of 39
  2. Negative: 4 out of 39
  1. Reviewed by: Mary Pols
    Dec 15, 2010
    40
    This is the kind of movie you should never see twice, because so much of it is based in appall-me humor. Meaning you'll laugh the first time in the reflexive way you do when you can't believe how audacious the comedy is and how uncomfortable the situations are, whereas a second viewing would afford you an opportunity to feel kind of rotten about laughing the first time.
  2. Reviewed by: Joshua Rothkopf
    Dec 15, 2010
    80
    Phillips goes too far sometimes (border-jail breakout?), but his new direction is promising.
  3. Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    Dec 15, 2010
    63
    More a matter of chemistry than deadlines.