Benutzerrezensionen

Why him? I tell you why, because I can't think of any other actor who can transform this this cinematic excrement into a gourmet dish. There is a matteroffactness in his character that lives somewhere between Rupert Pumpkin and Howard Hughes, the thing is that the life James Franco gives to his character is absolutely real. The film could have turned into a horror thriller, because Franco forces you, in the most entertaining way, to feel slightly off-balance. That alone keeps you glued to it in spite of the moronic lack of ideas. Bryan Cranston, of course, is sheer perfection. Reacting hilariously to the absurdity with infinite generosity - A trait of great actors - I wish them a Billy Wilder next time or a Preston Sturges or...you know. Fearless originals just like Franco and Cranston.

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.

It might be prudent never to judge a book by its cover, but often enough, the author would give you a good idea what you're about to invest your time in. Bryan Cranston and James Franco doing a comedy together was enough to give me the necessary shove to press "Play" on this one.

I like comedies but finding a good one lately has been a challenge. Been disappointed many times with trailers that seem promising only to find out that those scenes are the best the entire movie has to offer. There have also recently been a bunch of comedies relying on the director's or the leads' reputation to carry the film to box office and critical success only to crash and burn upon release. This one is a rare exception. Congratulations to the team for getting it just right! James' Laird was a delicate balance. Annoying yet sweet, sometimes offensive but without being repulsive. Bryan's Ned fits the stereotype yet has been restrained enough to remain relatable. Even the cameo from Gene and Paul, though expected, came out fresh.

If you're looking for a fun movie, give this one a try. Be forewarned though of the liberal use of profanities.

I mean where to start. This movie was something it's not your usual Rom-Com. It goes way n beyond in both drama and comedy. It has no boundaries which makes it exciting and funny. Yes super hilarious combined with unexpected scenarios but still it somehow manages to find ways to tell a romantic story through it all.

Cast has amazing actresses like Zoey and megan. They spark the plug whenever they're on the screen but Franco, Bryan and Keegan they create that fire. That fire might be cringy, exaggerated but it's extremely hilarious to watch as they act out.

It really is just a funny and raunchy movie to watch and not over-focus on the plots and its logic making (although it is important). Cameos are cool and unpredictable. Music in it is a vibe and matched it really well. Scenes are amazingly shot. They are rich in colours and feels stylish.

7/10

Thank you for reading this :)

Despite what other people wrote I thought it was fun and hilarious. My daughter talked me into watching it...I was not disappointed 🙂

"Why Him" is a movie with jokes that actually got me to laugh.

I like the concept of a programmer/hermit (Laird) getting with a smart girl from Stanford (Stephanie) and making a first impression to her parents, which is an absolute failure.

There's a fair bit of sex scenes and profanity (Laird's swearing, especially when unintended, is entertaining) so don't watch this with your children. While a comedy, not a comedy for the whole family.

However, I don't really like any other aspects. The plot is sloppy and repetitive, and the whole film centers around 1 day or so. Camerawork could have been better executed.

Sending my love to Gustav (especially the actor).

Thank god I have dry humour as I found this movie so funny. How people can say it's not funny I will never know. If you're reading this and have NOT yet seen the movie, go ahead and which it as it's bloody funny.

My question is simply this, why would Brian Cranston, the fine actor that he is, appear in this farce. The premise is silly and the story line is boring at best. This movie makes Cranston's character out to be an idiot just because he doesn't agree with everything the fiancé does. Besides, no Father would honestly agree to approve a marriage of his daughter to this guy. A waste of 2 hours

This is a very weird comedy, that goes all out and has the acting talent to pull it off (or spray it on or do all kinds of kinky stuff, probably more than you can imagine). So I think I established (if you didn't know already), that this is not for the faint-hearted or rather the easily offended. Yes Bryan Cranston has won quite a few accolades and awards, but that doesn't mean he can't enjoy a silly comedy from time to time. And that's what he's doing here.

There's also a very recognizable (AI) voice, not from Scarlett Johannson in this case, but from Kaley Cuoco. She has an integral part in this whole mess. A lovely and very funny mess, if you can lower yourself into that level, you'll understand and enjoy this. If not, you probably should stay as far away from this as possible.

Sometimes, when watching a movie billed as a comedy, and finding myself over an hour into it without cracking a smile, I ask myself, "Why? Why did I waste these precious moments of my life on such crap?" This was my exact sentiment during this film. Contrived, sophomoric and actually quite boring. If you want to experience those feelings, by all means, watch this two hour exercise in profanity- laced verbal exchanges between unlikable, one-dimensional characters. I gave it two stars because I normally like Bryan Cranston and Megan Mullally, and they give it their best despite having minimal material to work with.

Honestly, everyone who reviewed this movie must be very sad individuals. This movie obviously wasn't meant to be the best picture of the year, but it really had its own way of speaking to its viewers. The comedy wasn't what I thought it would be, but the overall emotion I felt from this movie was impeccable. It made me happy, it made me cringe, it made me laugh. This movie deserves no negative reviews, simply because it is what it is and if you don't appreciate that then don't bother leaving your negative opinion.

It's a bit silly, I don't think I learned anything new or had to think about any controversial thing the movie could've possible raised, however it gave some enormous laughs and that's good enough for me. It's hard to make me laugh !

I see there are a lot of bad reviews again. Like most of the time with comedies. But it's normal that this genre of movies gets the most opposite reviews because not all people have the same kind of sense of humor. And a lot of people have no sense of humor at all so for them it's just pointless to watch a comedy but they still do. I on the other hand had some good laughs with Why Him? There's a lot of cursing but that's the whole point of the movie. James Franco as Laird Mayhew and Bryan Cranston as Ned Fleming just want the best for Zoey Deutch as Stephanie Fleming. Her boyfriend and father are quite opposites in life and so you get some funny scenes where they clashes. The story is what it is when it's a comedy. It's never far fetched but that's not the point, a comedy just has to be funny. And this one definitely is funny, despise what others may think.

Why Him? is another comedy about a over caring father and boyfriend relationship in which has been done before. Although this film has less of a filter and is rated R (since the Meet the Parents films were PG-13 and less tame), Why Him? does stand out for that reason. In most cases where the plot surrounds withe the daughters boyfriend and father meeting and bonding, this one is different since the boyfriend (James Franco) is a rich billionaire.

This film's comedy isn't for everyone, and is filled with a lot of cursing, sexual jokes and over the top antics, which has clearly offended many people. Though once you get to the humor and comedy, there are many funny jokes in this film. Though they could have used without much of the toilet humor. Franco's character is typical over the top 'no filter' character and we see this quickly as the film starts. He carries the film along with Bryan Cranston and is a reason why Why Him? is an entertaining watch.

Although predictable, this film is more so for the nature of the comedic elements and the journey we see the characters go through. It could have been better but it was better than expected (considering it received a lot of lousy reviews from critics). As a rewatch 08/10/18' Why Him? remains a funny and insightful comedy which is better and more natural on a second watch.

This movie is so underrated I really like its smooth story

Honestly this movie scares me, the fact that it has a score higher than 6 makes me afraid that this is the future of comedies, targeted for the new generation. I was hoping to see a Superbad style movie but this one is just full of absurdity, completely unrealistic, everything feels forced and absurd, the dialogue is just ridiculous... I don't understand how these good actors accepted to star in this massive garbage of a movie... huge disappointment...

Possibly more so than any other genre, a solid ensemble cast (as well as the script, of course) is the absolute key to unlocking a decent comedy and unfortunately, the very central piece lets the whole film down: Bryan Cranston is not a leading comic and it very obviously shows. As one of this year's Best Actor nominees, Cranston fails to come across naturally in this lead role, with every joke and riff feeling more like a stiff and laboured effort than an organic energy, as the rest of his cast demonstrate, who are all more typically associated with the genre - and it really rather shows. His lead co-star, Franco, does a far more convincing job and manages to translate what should be an irritating and obnoxious character into a far more likable and funny character than expected. Megan Mullally is also worth a mention; the Parks and Rec star has a rather small role but manages to make quite the impression as Barb, even when the script doesn't quite serve her well enough, including a prolonged scene in which she is determined to have sex with her husband - this same plot was employed with absolutely hilarious results in Parks and Rec (in which she played the outrageous Tammy Two) but it falls completely flat here through no fault of her own. It's another example of a committed performance ploughing against all the odds. Talking of ploughing, the absolute star of this film is the youngest cast member - Griffin Gluck is continually hilarious and awarded the script's biggest laughs, but it is his conviction and joyous performance that secures these laughs, making him the most memorable element of the film, even with the lowest-billing of the main five stars.

FULL REVIEW - http://perksofbeingnath.blogspot.com/2016/12/why-him-2016-review.html

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

I find this movie hilarious! I have watched Why Him? more times than I can count. When I am in a down mood this is a "Go-To"! Yes, it's entirely dumb the stuff that goes on, but accepting the movie as not an Oscar winner is just fine; not ALL movies have to be just that. There are many poor reviews of this film, I suggest watching it for yourself. If you are a movie buff and enjoy stupid laughter this is the film for you. Maybe I have a twisted form of thought process, but I laugh from start to finish.