The Late Bloomer

I don't really get why this movie got so much hate. I almost didn't watch it because of all the negative reviews. I'm not a huge fan of overly stupid humor, but I found this to be quite funny. I compare it to Role Models for the level of humor. I saw at least one other reviewer state that the supporting cast was excellent, and it truly was. It was worth the watch alone for the lead's two best friends. An easy watch, not long or tedious, funny dialogue and banter, some good cameos and supporting cast. IMDB doesn't let me do half star ratings but a solid 6.5/10 for me.

This film is okay for adults but no children please. Not really my cup of tea but some really liked it.

This film tells the story of a doctor who educates on diverting people's sexual energy into some other aspects of life, and create success as a result. It turns out that he never underwent puberty, and hence has no sexual desire. When his condition is treated, he goes through puberty with hilarious results.

"The Late Bloomer" is really quite funny! The idea of someone supposedly grown up going through puberty is funny, and the story is funny too. The two sidekick friends provide good support to the story and to Peter, the main character. He learns how to deal with his mood swings, his sexual urges and basically learns to have a new place in the world. It is actually what all adolescents go through, but it is funny to see it happen in an adult. Because of the universality of the adolescent experience, people can relate to the story. I liked watching it.

Okay, so here's the thing -- I watched this film over a week ago, and I'm still thinking about it. Why? Because I get riled up over films that are SO CLOSE to being good, but just... aren't.

The Late Bloomer definitely falls into this category. There are bits of dialogue and interactions between characters which are genuinely top-notch comedy, and the supporting cast put in one of the best ensemble performances I've seen in ages. Seriously. Kumail Nanjiani in particular is fantastic, and J.K. Simmons continues to be the best supporting actor in Hollywood right now.

Buuuuuut... there are six writing credits listed, and it's likely that therein lies the problem. The moments of brilliance are almost completely overshadowed by other bits of writing which are, at best, trite, and at worst completely cringe-worthy. The last twenty minutes or so of the film legitimately don't even make sense, and are among the worst I've seen all year. It really feels like something that was cobbled together from different people who had different ideas of what the film should be, and maybe some of those people were... incorrect.

So yeah, I wish this film was as good as it could have been. A lot of inspired performances and great dialogue that deserved better than what this ends up being.

I turned into this because it seemed like a good premise and there were like 500 stars in this thing. I was a bit confused by the start of this movie. We are introduced to Peter Newmans, a therapist. For me though, this part went on wayyyy too long. But it is to establish that Peter has no sexual desires and, due to that, a very successful life as a sex addiction therapist. Eventually at about the half way point Peter is hurt and goes to the ER and during the examination it comes to light that he has a tumor on his pituitary gland and has not "matured" properly. I have a bit of a problem buying that this was never discovered by a doctor before this or brought to the doctor's attention. After removal of his tumor puberty decends on Peter and his perfect asexual life - confusing and upsetting just about everyone. The second half of this movie is played for crass laughs - when it should have been played for heartfelt humor about what would happen to a 30 year old entering puberty. I thought everyone tried and there was good talent, but it was the script and writing.