|Page 1 of 7:||      |
|Index||61 reviews in total|
I usually (and quite easily) hand out 8, 9 or 10 stars to a film. In
fact, the majority of movies I watch receive good-to-excellent scores
from me. This one however, does not.
The jokes often feel exaggerated and forced, and are embarrassingly childish with far too much profanity. I can't remember the last time I cringed so often. Sure, there was the occasional joke which received a giggle from just about everyone, but the majority of the humour was replied to with silence and head-shaking. It seriously felt like it was a movie thrown together quickly to make a decent enough trailer to lure an audience. So, don't fall for it. You've been warned.
3.4 / 10
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Stephanie introduces her boyfriend Laird to her family, namely her
overprotective father Ned(Cranston). Who is dismayed at his daughter as
he tries to absorb the reality that Laird is a part of his life now.
Stephanie is so blinded by love that she seems to overlook her
boyfriends obnoxious behavior. There are some original jokes, Yet, this
feels like an R-rated version of "Meet the Parents". Which, in my
opinion is a better film in every way. Don't take my word for it, see
it for yourself and decide.
If you're going to remake a movie at least have the dignity to give it the same name. What's peculiar is, it's made by the same people that created "Meet the Parents". Which leads me to wonder, What were the writers thinking? More importantly, What was the studio that approved this film thinking? I'm usually open minded when it comes to comedies, even if it's raunchy. However that doesn't mean that I will overlook using recycled material and calling it a new brand.
Jonah Hill, James Franco, and another: "Hey I've got only a trailer
length's worth of funny content for a new flick that's another ATM for
us! We'll stick in some (now formulaic) prolonged disturbing sexual
content that differentiates us/the film as young and hip."
Really, if you saw the trailer you saw the best of this movie. Whoever made the trailer really deserves a big payout for creating something people would look forward to as a funny diversion from all the serious political crap of late.
It's got a good cast that's wasted on the lame writing, but hey it's a pay check!
Routine, by-the-numbers tale of a man, repelled by his college-aged
daughter's boyfriend, attempting to show her what a loser he is. It
turns out, however, the boyfriend is an internet multimillionaire, and
an obnoxious, loud, profanity-laden one, at that. There is nothing even
remotely likable about his character, so it is easy to understand why
Cranston doesn't like him.
Little, if anything, we've not seen before (except for the dead moose in a pool of urine, in one of the more disgusting moments) its talented cast carries the film, and its half dozen laughs, and ham-fisted product placement (Subway, Applebee's) The audience I saw this with had a few laughs, but also long, quite stretches in between, so I suppose I'm not the only one unimpressed with this one.
Keenan's genuinely bizarre, guru character was more puzzling than funny, as were his sideburns, the oddest sideburns since Tony The Pimp, from Demons.
While we're on the topic of puzzling things, why did we have to endure five minutes of Brian Cranston sitting on the toilet, try to figure how to use the bidet? Kiss' cameo at the end seemed surreal, like even they were unsure of why they were in the movie.
Released at Christmastime, but barely a Christmas movie, although one of the funnier scenes involved searching for a Christmas tree.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Brian Cranston is the traditional father who struggles to bond with his
daughter's boyfriend, James Franco is the boyfriend, a Tech millionaire
who wants to win him over in order to marry his daughter. There's
frequent forced humour, with particularly lots of bathroom humour. This
film drops the 'F' bomb frequently (too frequently for me anyway!).
The audience had a few laughs, I think I remember laughing 2 or 3 times. The trailer showcased the very few 'funny' scenes and makes this look like a much funnier film than it really is.
If your idea of funny is frequent swearing then (unfortunately) this film is definitely for you. Overuse of the 'F' word soon wears thin, makes you realise it was used instead of clever humour. Please don't waste your time and money supporting this nonsense or they will make 'Why Him2'.
In summary, poor plot which has been done better previously, boring, gross and vulgar. I wouldn't recommend to anyone, whether 15 years old or older.
Would not watch again.
Well, it was a Christmas-related film so we thought it might be a
giggle. A potentially good cast too. Liked the dad figure in Breaking
Bad. The mum figure (Megan Mulally) was great in Will & Grace as Karen.
However, although it's an interesting premise, father trying to decide
if the potential son-in-law is good enough for his beloved daughter,
the non-stop swearing and lack of funny jokes really spoiled it.
It felt to me as though the idea had been given to them by a grown-up and then scriptwriters hired were teenagers who think its' daring & "funny" to swear constantly.
There were a couple of chuckles but overall, it was pathetically unfunny. Hire some scriptwriters like those who worked on Friends, Will & Grace, Frasier etc. They were so much funnier. Really poor.
This movie has some funny scenes but is not a good movie. The reason: the principal character is so obnoxious that story comes off as jarring. Mayhew, played by James Franco, is affable and eccentric but is pushy, controlling, tasteless and above all stupid. The movie asks the audience to believe that he is a billionaire. That's a stretch. Fleming, played by Bryan Cranston, has legitimate cause to be offended by Mayhew. Mayhew goes out his way to offend people. Mayhew is so abrasive, so lacking in finesse, that it is virtually impossible to believe that anyone would seriously want to be around him. Yet, Fleming's daughter finds Mayhew attractive, for reasons that are never explained. Hence the title of the movie. The problem is the running gag, that Fleming's pomposity is misplaced, is not plausible. Mayhew is nasty throughout the movie. He deserves to be disliked. There is nothing endearing about him. He is a crass materialist who lacks the style. He's not even a smooth talker. He's goofy but not self-effacing. Cut through all the pseudo-street talk, bathroom humor and gratuitous use of profanities, and Mayhew is just another decadent rich guy, and not a lovable one at that. Still, the movie has funny moments, but that was because of Cranston who carries this movie. The funny scenes all involve Fleming, when he is being goofed on. The problem is that in this case the straight man is being goofed on by the comic character who comes off as being not only stupid but nasty. Cranston's performance saves this movie from immediate banishment to DVD land.
Be warned - if you weren't brought up with your own cell phone and a
Twitter account, this movie will probably make you sick. I literally
had to FORCE myself to watch it all the way through. It should be a
wake-up call to how selfish, egotistical and banal society has become.
In many cases, people don't bother to actually raise their children any
more. They just sit them in front of tech and expect them to come into
adulthood perfectly balanced.
The main character is SOOO coarse and it takes WAY too long to get to the message (if they intended one). It's almost like Jonas Hill & Company were trying to emulate Kevin Smith's formula of quirky basic human goodness and failed miserably.
Honestly, I can't recommend anyone watch this movie. The only people who will enjoy it are the tech babies who can understand the cursing/stupidity/sexual idiocy. The ending makes it's point, but far too late for anyone to care (except the tech babies who most likely won't even "get" it). Save your money.
This was on my year-end list as well. It was buried somewhere down the
list.. like it was nearly hanging off of it. Actually, it was in a
separate list of "Films I may or may not see in December if reviews are
really bad". Why Him? actually did get awful reviews. But for some
reason, I wanted to take a chance on it. I felt something was there.
For one, I am a Franco-file, and I love him in anything he's in. So I
went and saw it.
I was pleasantly surprised. I laughed a lot. It's really just a goofy movie, and that's alright by me. Don't put too much thought going in. If your afraid of not laughing, even a little bit, leave that nonsense at the door, and enjoy the show. James Franco brings his A-game here, and is once again totally hysterical. Bryan Cranston has great comedic timing. Megan Mullally is a scene stealer. Kegan-Michael Key is bonkers. It's got Kaley Cuoco as an awesome version of Siri, the best of Silicon Valley, Adam Devine, a moose dipped in urine that explodes. Oh, and 1/2 of the band KISS in full costume and makeup. It's been a while since a comedy movie made a tribute to one of the greatest bands of the 70's. Role Models was the last one. You could say that it's shamelessly borrowing from Role Models, but in Role Models it felt forced and unnecessary. In Why Him? It fits in with the craziness.
This is a holiday, cornball comedy that doesn't suck.. as they tend to.
If you enjoy James Franco being James Franco you will love this movie. If you laughed at James Franco's pretentious art in this is the end, and his characters naivety in The Interview you will find more here. Listen this movie was never meant to win best picture or take itself seriously at all. Go into the theatre wanting to laugh and you will find plenty of reasons to. Zoey Deutch play her role with ease. Meghan Melanie is a blast. John Hamburg is again railed by the critics for no reason. He wrote Phillip Seymore Hoffman to hilarity in Along Came Polly, and he wrote Meet The Parents. This guy knows how to write comedies, and direct them.
|Page 1 of 7:||      |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Official site|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|