I vicini di casa

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

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.

As is evident from the many split decisions to be found on this site, "Neighbors" is not everyone's cup of tea. However, for those who have a taste for dark comedy, it is quite a good film. As has been stated numerous times, this film was a critical and box-office failure, and there were many tensions between Belushi and the director on set. Despite this turmoil, or maybe because of it, "Neighbors" has an authentically skewed, uncomfortable tone. This works in it's favor, however, considering the subject matter. As does the casting of Aykroyd and Belushi in the roles of tormentor and victim, respectively. This choice is probably most responsible for some's dislike of the film. Unfortunately, Belushi, near the end of his life, was being pigeon-holed as a crass, boorish "wild man" of comedy, mostly due to his turns in "National Lampoon's Animal House" and "1941." However, he was a fine comedic actor capable of great subtlety and fine nuance, which is why he consciously chose the role he did (the film was originally conceived with John in the role of Vic). This film and many scenes from his first year on "Saturday Night Live" grandly illustrate his range. Likewise, Dan Aykroyd was quite an intense performer back then - in many "SNL" scenes (again, mostly from the first year), Aykroyd paraded out a variety of high-strung bizarre characters which practically vibrated with energy... indeed, though he did not end up playing it, the role of "D-Day" in "Animal House" was conceived with Dan in mind. Here, he really gets to cut loose and, as always, his and John's interplay are priceless. Not to be overlooked is the incredibly hot Cathy Moriarty who, not to take away from her own formidable comedic prowess, was quite the piece of ass (she was also stunning in "Raging Bull"). This is by no means a perfect film, and it does slow in spots, but it is by no means the disaster many make it out to be. See for yourself... love it or hate it, at least admire it for trying to be different. Funny stuff!

The people at Columbia must have thought this was a surefire winner when they saw the inital idea for this film; with a simple but potentially funny premise and two capable and talented stars, how could it miss?

Unfortunately it does and by a long way. The blame for this shouldn't be at Belushi and Aykroyd's feet as they do what they can with their limited roles; the blame should be with an unfunny and illogical script and very uninspired direction. As a result, there are only a couple of amusing moments in the film.

Two things underline what is wrong with this film. Firstly, the film's music score is atrocious (some earlier reviews disagree on this); it's so heavy-handed and obvious that it almost single-handedly ruins the comedy potential of the film's opening scenes. The film may have been better off without a music score at all.

Secondly, the character of Enid Keese is so poorly constructed that she negates to a large extent the laughs created by the three other main characters in the film; her character simply makes no sense. For example, when her daughter comes back and announces that she has been kicked out of school, while Earl is understandably upset by this Enid hardly seems bothered by it at all.