Delivery Man fumbles its attempts of something meaningful

There’s a classic problem with remakes of something that was already good. What’s the point? The argument that could be made is to expose the original story to a wider audience, or perhaps to expand on the ideas, or maybe to have a new twist on it. Or maybe it’s because Americans don’t like to read subtitles and find other cultures confusing and hey, if the movie was good already, why not just do it again without having to worry about doing anything original? That takes effort. Of course, some themes are universal; worrying about being a good father, worrying about whether or not the father will be a good person, etc. All of these things were explored in the original movie, of course. And as for the remake? Well….

So Delivery Man is essentially a near shot for shot remake of Starbuck, released widely earlier this year, and is both written and directed by the same people as the original. So far so good, right? Well … Vince Vaughn stars as David, a “delivery man” (get it?) for a family owned butcher shop and delivery business. David is a layabout, if a charming one, incompetent at his easy job and without any real skills. But as he keeps coasting through a life of nothing much, his girlfriend (Cobie Smulders) drops the bomb: she’s pregnant. And doesn’t want him to be a part of her or the child’s life. David wants to prove her wrong, that he can be a good father — and soon he gets that opportunity through a bizarre circumstance. Apparently David donated many, many times to sperm clinic as a young man, and due to a clerical error, the clinic used all of his donations. So now David is the father of over 500 grown children, and 142 of them are suing the clinic to reveal David’s true identify (as he donated under confidentiality). David decides to learn a bit about them, maybe helping them out in small ways, trying to become himself a better person, while other problems threaten everything he holds dear.

The original movie was a very nice movie, with performances that connected you to the emotional core of these kids searching for identity and a man trying to be a father. Many of the plotlines were a bit forced, used only to push towards specific, artificially created resolutions. But the acting and ambience got you past those flaws in the story and enhanced the ridiculousness of the plot to give a warm feeling as the movie ended. Unfortunately, the American remake doesn’t quite hit the same notes. Vince Vaughn has great comedic timing when the comedy is written well, so when the (basically identical) script gives him good lines, it’s still funny. He does his best to show off a deeper side here, but he doesn’t quite pull it off. The pacing is a bit tighter, a bit faster, which makes the whole thing seem a bit too rushed. You can’t take enough time to really get to know these people, so ultimately the end comes and you feel … fine. There are those that are already calling this movie terrible, which I think is unfair. Many of the cliched and simplistic elements worked because of the small scale of the original. Introduce the slick Hollywood feel and everything can end up seeming kind of cold. I can appreciate what Vince Vaughn is trying to do here; it’s a sweet story with some funny bits. Perhaps he’s trying to grow as an artist into something past the typical smarmy fast talker he’s known for. I can appreciate the sentiment even if I don’t think he pulls it off. Here, things like the unfortunately overlooked lack of female characters in the original becomes magnified and seem indicative of critical story failures.

I wasn’t optimistic when I heard about this remake when I saw the original, which I still think was a good movie. But I guess it’s predictable what happened. It became a light and ultimately forgettable speck in the mass spectrum of far more interesting movies released this year.