Review of Duck (2005) by Simone R — 20 Mar 2011

This seemed like a quirky enough premise to perhaps be worthwhile. It was not. It gets a full star because of the duck. Otherwise, why are these humans in this movie? Many of them seem to have successful lives as actors or dermatologists. What were they thinking?

This movie tries to be a great many things and fails terribly at all of them. A commentary on aging in America? Scratch. A commentary on homelessness? Scratch. A commentary on the artificiality of social milieus and the possibility of transcending them if one can just give up attachment or recognition of them? Scratch.

Arthur makes repeated references to WWII, leading one to believe that he was there - except that he was born in 1933, and I doubt he was there at the age of 11. A man who appears to have lived a normal life by the world's standards - albeit one lined with tragedy - transitions to being the homeless guardian and friend of a duck with little or no apparent angst, bitterness, or even self-awareness.

The story relies on trite stereotypes but doesn't even bother to do anything with them. There are plenty of moments where it's clear we're supposed to just be gasping with sudden insight and appreciation - the film does everything except flash a blinking "GASP APPRECIATIVELY!" or "CHUCKLE SYMPATHETICALLY" sign in the corner of the screen. I sort of wish it had - it would have provided something better to watch. This film has no point, no resolution, and no characters that we can truly empathize or connect with in any way.

Except perhaps the duck. And I felt *bad* for him that he didn't have a better agent.