I vicini di casa

Belushi and Aykroyd team up for a dark comedy unlike any I've seen.

Earl (Belushi) is quietly living his life in the suburbs with his wife and daughter, but it takes a decided turn for the worse when a lunatic (Aykroyd) and his wife move in next door.

Earl's life is turned into a nonsensical nightmare by the new couple; Vic tells nonstop lies about everything including whether his 'home-made' spaghetti sauce came from a jar and if the spaghetti is from a non-existent Italian restaurant while his wife Ramona (Cathy Moriarty) alternately seduces and blackmails Earl. Particularly funny is the segment in which Earl tries to sneak out in the middle of the night for a rendezvous with Ramona, only to be caught by Vic, who is awake, on his rooftop, and wearing scuba gear.

I didn't really care for this movie the first time I saw it, because almost nothing made any sense. Now, it's one of the few movies I've purchased. I suppose it's an acquired taste, but don't give up too quickly on it. After all, Belushi isn't making any new ones, is he?

ps- Great musical score! No instruments lend themselves to bizarre going-ons quite as readily as a trombone and kazoo.

not a mainstream comedy by any means This movie fails on nearly every front but has 2 things going for it, the cast, its an almost forgotten piece of Ackroyd and Belushi in their prime, secondly its off kilter pace and atmosphere, these alone are enough to give it a place in my collection.

If your not into either of the above then give this a wide berth as its sure to disappoint. apparently the film had a difficult gestation and this seems plausible as its very inconsistent and aimless at times, shifting gear unexpectedly. an eclectic and patchy dark comedy it should suit die hard fans who want to see more of A&B

Anyone familiar with John Belushi's work will remember him as rarely being reputed for his subtle acting style. While Aykroyd delivers his usual quality performance, for me, the brilliance of the film lies in Belushi's performance as a suburban loser. They say that outsiders are the best observers of any culture. Examples might be De Tocqueville's book Democracy in America or even Christian Bales's performance in American Psycho. In Neighbours, Belushi is no exception. He plays the suburban American loser better than the real thing! Consider his appearance, his sexual frustration, the way he automatically goes for the TV when he gets home, how he expects his wife to make dinner when he comes home from work... In fact, he's so devoted to this role that through the entire film he manages to invariably avoid slipping into the hysterical personality that made him famous. He is fantastic at satirizing everything that his lifestyle defies.

This turd won't send many running to Thomas Berger's rich novel, which is a shame. The book is everything the film failed to be: a scathing satire on moronic American suburban life.

The problem is a director far out of his depth. Though armed with a script largely faithful to its subversive source material, director John Avildsen (Rocky, Karate Kid) is a maker of feel-good entertainment who hasn't a clue how to handle satire or absurdity. It's like asking John Ashcroft to rap.

While Belushi is serviceable and Akroyd is fun, we can only imagine how this last partnership might have turned out in competent hands. They're frequently misdirected by Avildsen who thinks he's doing Reagan-era Abbott and Costello. Painful; read the novel.

My memories of real youth, like from five to ten years old are completely blurred for the most part but for some reason I remember watching John Belushi movies. I remember going to see `Neighbors' and `Continental Divide' in the theater! I haven't really examined this but basically since I was born I have adored John Belushi. I remember renting `Neighbors' when the VCR was a new item and I'd watch it over and over again. I guess I was a pretty strange ten-year old. Memories of watching his movies, his death and whatever else are still with me in strange little flashes.

I find `Neighbors' to be his best work. This is a controversial opinion! I've recently reread Woodward's `Wired' and it seems John detested everything about this movie. He had sincere hatred for the director, Alvidsen- he continually asked to replace him. Yet, John's biggest concern for `Neighbors', again citing from Woodward's book, was the soundtrack. He wanted it to be punk rock and Holy Christ did it ever wind up the antithesis. Of course I would love to have seen `Neighbors' done the way John would have intended it but I still am very fond of this movie as is. I think Alvidsen did a great job of bottling all of John's manic energy and I think he summoned his best performance. It's such a strange contradiction that, again from reading `Wired', John wanted desperately to lose the `Bluto' stigma and prove he could be a versatile actor. This role reversal gave him that chance and yet he was against this film from the beginning.

I think `Neighbors' is fantastic. It's like `Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf' on acid or something. This film should be examined by future filmmakers as an example of how what seems like all the wrong ingredients can make a positive and an unforgettable piece of cinema in the end.