Review: The Change-Up

Jason Bateman is a workaholic corporate lawyer and father of three who never has enough time for his wife (Leslie Mann) because he’s trying to close a big business deal for his boss (Gregory Itzin). Best mate Ryan Reynolds is a fledgling actor who smokes dope all day, and shags as many women as possible. And yet he wonders why his father (Alan Arkin) is always disappointed in him. One night after a heavy drinking session, the duo are peeing into a fountain (as you do), and they wish aloud that they had each other’s lives. The next morning, they wake up in just that situation, with Bateman trapped in Reynolds’ body, and Reynolds in Bateman’s body. And because the statue has (somewhat conveniently) been moved by the local council, they’re stuck that way until they can find out where it has been moved to. So now the irresponsible commitment-phobic Reynolds must contend with three kids and a nagging wife (whom he wouldn’t mind shagging), and Bateman fronts up to Reynolds’ acting gig only to find that it’s a ‘lorno’ (light porno). But hey, at least Bateman can take a break from his hectic life and maybe even score with hot co-worker Wilde, since he’s in another man’s body. Can he really go through with it, though? Craig Bierko plays the heavily-accented, intimidating ‘lorno’ director.

 

Dear reader, I’m not proud of myself, but I was mostly entertained by this 2011 comedy from director David Dobkin (the amusing “Wedding Crashers”) and writers Jon Lucas and Scott Moore. It’s got one of those embarrassingly silly ‘body swap’ plots, but like “Big”, “All of Me”, and “Vice Versa”, this is one of the rare ones worth seeing. For starters, it’s funny, which for me is like 75% of what a comedy needs to succeed (If it’s also a good movie, that’s a bonus). The opening fifteen minutes in particular (before the ‘body swap’) are really funny. Even some of the gross-out humour is funny, particularly a disgusting (but funny) bit involving baby poo, and a child who surely must have a giant headache (Apparently it’s CGI, and you’d think it would have to be, but I must say I didn’t notice the deception except in the pooping scene). There’s a particularly funny exchange between the two men where Bateman (in Reynolds’ body) tells Reynolds (in Bateman’s body) that he can’t have sex with his wife or anyone else. ‘What the hell is that?’ asks Reynolds. ‘Marriage’ is the response from Bateman. And anyone who doesn’t chuckle at the “Untouchables” reference (albeit a deliberate misquote) has no sense of humour whatsoever (I won’t spoil the gag). I also have to give the writers credit, because as much as the reason behind the ‘body swap’ (let alone the idea of a ‘body swap’ in the first place) is stupid and lazily done, some genuine thought has gone into it so that it makes a lot of sense that the two characters end up where they end up at the end of the film. **** SPOILER WARNING **** That Bateman in Reynolds’ body will learn to not be such a stuffed shirt and Reynolds will learn responsibility whilst pretending to be Bateman, is obvious from the outset. However, I really liked that since Wilde had a crush on the more mature Bateman, Reynolds goes through a character transformation of sorts whilst in Bateman’s body that, at the end of the day, will no doubt help him in his relationship with Wilde. It was well thought out. Not only that, but since he’s maturing whilst in Bateman’s body, and Bateman is hanging out with Wilde whilst in Reynolds’ body, the transition of Reynolds back into his own body would be more seamless so Wilde likely won’t notice because Reynolds in Bateman’s body still struggles to hide his own persona and vice versa, so obviously once they switch back, it won’t seem so jarring (Still with me?). Of course, we’re talking about a ‘body swap’ film, so logic isn’t a pre-requisite. **** END SPOILER ****

 

On the downside, I found the character played by Leslie ‘Mrs. Apatow’ Mann a complete moron. Actually, that’s an insult to morons. Whilst it is almost plausible that Wilde won’t notice something amiss with Reynolds in Bateman’s body (he’s her boss, hardly familiar outside of that context), I simply refused to believe, even in the context of a dopey ‘body swap’ comedy, that Leslie Mann didn’t catch on at all. Reynolds and Bateman even try to explain it to her early on, and the contrivance used to get around that simply weren’t believable. But at the moment of the ‘dinner song’ scene, the jig should’ve most certainly been up. Bateman (inhabited by Reynolds) clearly doesn’t know the song, swears in front of the kids, and acts in a manner that not even a moron would be fooled by. Mann takes it as Bateman simply being a dick, but that just isn’t plausible, as written. She didn’t believe their confession? Fine, but the confession is still on the table, and after a while, it surely becomes obvious that at least something is going on. Yes, I know this is in a film where two guys swap bodies whilst peeing into a statue fountain, but movies need to make some sense within their own context at least. So it bugged me.

 

I also have a problem, believe it or not, with the nudity in the film. It’s mostly CGI, and whilst I love this idea in principle (Jessica Alba doesn’t want to nude up in a film? Fuck it, add some CGI titties! It’s genius and I wholeheartedly and chauvinistically endorse it), it is poorly executed here. The boobs are way too large and at no point do they look like they can move. I didn’t pick up on the CGI baby, but these phony mammaries stuck out like a sore thumb (And speaking of thumbs...no, if you’ve seen the film, it’s probably best not to go there). I also found some of the toilet humour unfunny, especially one completely unnecessary toilet scene with Mann. I get what they were doing there, and call me sexist, but there are some things I just don’t want to see a woman do, even if it’s for a comedic purpose.

 

But look, funny is funny, and I laughed at this a lot more than I was expecting (You might hate it. Comedy is subjective, especially when Ryan Reynolds is involved). And it’s a lot funnier than “The Hangover”, a previous effort from writers Lucas and Moore, not to mention funnier than a lot of the crap Adam Sandler comes out with. It’s funny that Roger Ebert criticises this film for featuring unlikeable characters and not being as good as “The Hangover”, because I think this is much funnier, and the two lead characters are a lot more likeable and interesting than any of the drug-taking, boozing creeps in “The Hangover” (And thankfully Reynolds isn’t imitating Jim Carrey anymore). The two leads are excellent and perfectly cast, and although underused, Alan Arkin and Olivia Wilde are solid too.

 

These sorts of films rarely work, so I was pleasantly surprised to see that this one at least made me laugh, especially when so many other comedies these days are terribly unfunny (“The Hangover”, “Your Highness”, “Due Date”, “Just Go With It”, “Easy A”, “Couples Retreat”, “Bad Teacher”, “Dinner for Schmucks”, etc). Points off, though, for setting up a gag involving an embarrassing tattoo and never paying it off. What the hell?

 

Rating: B-