When you watch a serious film and it is made so badly, acted so poorly or just doesn't work it can be quite entertaining, if for all the wrong reasons. Unfortunately if you are watching a comedy that that has the same problem there isn't an equivalent response. That was the thought that went through my mind whilst watching You, Me and Dupree. The idea behind the film is simple; a couple that seem made for each other have the idyllic honeymoon, return to start their new life together and everything is wonderful until, due to circumstances beyond his control, their unemployed slacker friend finds himself homeless. Invited to stay for a few days, his lifestyle starts to tear the couple apart and then on the very verge of breakdown he comes to the rescue, his charm and good nature saving the day.

It's a concept that has been done to death, since the time when that odd couple of Walter Matthau and Jack Lemon brilliantly played their version of it. What I am wondering is, with that classic film as an example of how it should be done, what did the main star and co-producer think that he could bring to the table to improve on it. My other thought was how did he manage to rope in Michael Douglas, Kate Hudson and Matt Dillon? They all do their best with the roles that they are given, but then they don't appear to have actually been given much. Douglas seems to be a token bad guy, only there to justify his son in laws character changes as the film progresses, when on screen he is at best adequate and when not seen he is forgotten. Matt Dillon fares better, believable as the nice guy husband and best friend and even better when he is playing the nasty side to the character. Only Kate Hudson manages to salvage something watchable from the two dimensional characters that populate the film and that has to be more to do with her internal qualities that anything found in the script.

Owen Wilson as the main character seems to get it all wrong, often too sickly sweet and at a turn too earnest. Comedy is injected in the form of prat-falls and overflowing toilets, falling off of bikes, falling off of skateboards and falling off of buildings and then in the closing scenes falling off of the kerb. Hardly the stuff of comedic genius. It seems humour has been put on the back burner by the filmmakers to push the characters into the foreground and make us engage with them. Unfortunately the characters are so clichéd and obvious not only do you not engage with them by the end of the film I was glad to see the back of the damned lot of them.

One of the big problems is that the plot seems so contrived, why doesn't the fairly well off couple just pay for a hotel for the guy, but no he keeps coming back and the joyless ride of pointless "joke" and illogical plot twist continues. It seems obvious that the film is just a vehicle for Wilson, I can't think of any other reason for its creation, but I feel that this film has done him little good. It's even worse than his previous film, The Wedding Crashers, and I can't remember laughing much in that either. Maybe this type of humour just doesn't travel well, after all I would put this on par with the idiotic "Meet the Parents" and that went down a storm, a fact that still makes me slightly scared to go outside my house. If you like the Ben Stiller school of lame humour trying to deliver heart rendering relationship messages then you may just get something out of this film, however for the vast majority I would have to advise that you give this a very wide berth.