User Reviews (223)

Add a Review

  • 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.
  • suzannecarroll1 October 2017
    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.
  • Warning: 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.
  • cherchezan22 March 2017
    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...
  • 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
  • Warning: 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.
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Okay so this movie takes some time to get into. At first I cringed a lot at the humour (and the completely unnecessary moment of showing the pubes), but as half an hour passed I started to laugh more and more. The rest of the audience was kind of the same, at first they were silent and some awkward giggles, but over time the movie became hilarious. Definitely not the best Comedy I have seen, but it's a good one. I liked it at least, and if you watch it at home with friends (and possibly under the influence), this movie would be awesome.
  • 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.
  • Tin Tin-328 December 2016
    Just back from a near-deserted screen whose tiny number of patrons held an uncomfortable silence throughout.

    This is the sort of film that could get cinema banned, it was just appalling. Unfunny script, 'gross-out' gags that the writers of American Pie would have turned their noses up at, phoned-in performances (Cranston apart), wafer-thin plot.

    All forgivable, I guess, if it were funny, at least in part, but it certainly didn't work for me.

    Please spend your hard-earned on seeing something other than this cinematic excrement - you'll know what I mean when this appears on Pirate Bay in two months tops.

    A truly awful film. I didn't have to pay to get in, but still wanted my money back.
  • 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!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The main problem of this movie is that it tries too be funny way too much, all the time. It only succeeds a few times, but even if it were more, it would not be much better.

    The premise and the story had potential,the casting is OK, they even have the Kiss playing Christmas carols near the end. But it just doesn't work.

    It seems that actors felt this is too much, too. Most of the time they look like they feel this will not pass, but, hey, it's their job,so... Since they are not buying it, why should we?

    Of course, the "vote Hilary" ending doesn't help, not just because it is not in line with the characters or the story. But it's too late but that time.

    It's not the worst bad comedy, has good production and a few moments, but there are much, much better ones too see.
  • The jokes are sadly cringe worthy,and unfunny. I feel the whole script is underdeveloped.There is so much fun you can have with the whole My parents don't like my boyfriend. Instead they go for the easy, overly used up stuff instead. I also feel very little chemistry between the actors but, that maybe just the way they're suppose to act.

    James Franco haven't got what it takes to be funny. Even in Freaks and geeks he was this brooding guy.

    The funniest moments in the movie is,the dad arguing, with the in house computer system.Actually the in-house computer system should have a lead instead of the rest of the cast
  • Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki26 December 2016
    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.

    Zzzzz.

    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.
  • When is crude humor actually funny? Any answer to that question is highly subjective and there are probably as many ways to answer it as there are Movie Fans reading this review. For some, the answer would be simply "never", but for most, it seems to depend at least a little on age, gender and ethnicity, but mostly on personal experiences and outlook on life. In the opinion of this Movie Fan / film reviewer, comedic cinematic crudities are the best which offend the least. In other words, it's all about the context in which the humor is presented. Adult language, for example, isn't funny just because there's a lot of it, but the use and/or amount of it can be very funny if it's in service to a plot which calls for it – and in situations that are otherwise comical on their own. Adult humor (such as R-rated language, personal insults, juvenile humor, sex jokes, outrageous sight gags, etc.) is much funnier when it's good natured – as opposed to mean-spirited – especially when children or other vulnerable or minority populations are involved. All this is especially true for holiday comedies, which is why I can hate the "Bad Santa" movies, but still love films like 2011's "A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas" – and 2016's "Why Him?" (R, 1:51).

    The character asking this film's titular question is Ned Fleming (Bryan Cranston), an old-fashioned owner of a struggling printing company and loving husband to similarly uptight Barb (Megan Mullally), 15-year-old budding businessman Scotty (Griffin Gluck) and college student Stephanie (Zoey Deutch). Stephanie has fallen in love with a somewhat older and very successful video game company CEO named Laird Mayhew (James Franco). Laird is completely without guile, but, as the mother of "The Waterboy" (1998) described her son, "lacks the social skills". Laird isn't a nerd, but his father and mother were both lacking in… the positive parental influences… and Laird is now an adult without inhibitions – or a filter between what comes into his head and what comes out of his mouth. (Think… an even more free-spirited, cruder and much more intelligent version of most of Adam Sandler's movie characters from the mid-late 90s).

    After Stephanie's relationship with Laird is unexpectedly and hilariously… exposed to her family, they fly from their home in Michigan to California in order to meet and spend Christmas with Steph's new beau. Let's just say that Laird makes quite a first impression. His estate manager, the European and vaguely Germanic Gustav (Keegan-Michael Key), is only a little more socially astute than Laird and tries to advise his employer and friend on how to get on Ned's good side, noting, "You two don't speak the same language. You speak English, with resounding amounts of f---." Laird is able to win over Scotty and even Barb, but is very desperate to impress Ned, so he can get Ned's blessing to propose to Stephanie. Laird's millennial eccentric lifestyle, his impromptu self-defense training sessions with Gustav and his wild parties make winning Ned's approval even more challenging, but makes for a lot of fun for the audience.

    "Why Him?" is crudely hilarious and hilariously crude, mostly because of the film's stellar cast. It's not just that this cast is experienced and talented (which they are – in spades), but they are amazingly well-suited for their roles. Franco is pitch perfect playing what seems to be a more outlandish version of himself. Cranston and Mullally's TV sitcom cred make them ideal as the parents – and with excellent chemistry. Key is similarly comedically inspired, rising star Gluck is just the right amount of earnestly precocious and Deutch is a wonderful combination of smart, strong and sexy. There are also some great cameos – in person and via voice work, as is the case with Kaley Cuoco, playing herself, serving as the voice of Laird's practically sentient and seemingly omniscient and omnipresent household AI system. (Think… a smarter, humorous, sarcastic and conversant version of the ubiquitous Amazon Echo's Alexa.) Of course, the script by John Hamburg and Ian Helfer give the actors plenty of jokes and funny situations to work with, while Hamburg's direction makes great use of his ensemble's chemistry and comedic talents (including allowing for and encouraging plenty of improvisation) and he keeps the film's pacing and the timing of its gags on point. Unfortunately, some of the jokes are more bizarre than humorous, there are a few unintentionally awkward moments and the amount of Laird's bizarre behavior that Stephanie tolerates feels unrealistic, but those are relatively minor issues. The basic question at this point is… why see "Why Him?" The answer for those who aren't automatically offended by crude humor and who enjoy that type of comedy when it comes with heart and is actually funny, is… Why Not? "A-"
  • 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.
  • This movie is an exercise in how revolting they can go. But stupid scatological humor, and a plethora of f-bombs is one thing; when disgusting explicit sexual descriptions come out of the mouth of children, well I think this descends into the category of child pornography. Everyone involved in this film should be ashamed.

    I didn't expect this kind of movie from an actor like Bryan Cranston, or the director of "I Love You Man". There must be a grown-up somewhere in the process, you would think, to say no, this is beyond decency. I've seen a couple films from Jason Bateman, "Bad Words" and "The Change-Up", that both put children in sexual situations, which should be offensive to everyone. Studios need to feel repercussions from foisting this kind of sleazy contemptible depravity on unsuspecting audiences.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    'Why Him' is actually sharp in terms of the satire of how the zoomers are just going to take over everything, via mindblowingly irresponsible means. When his helicopter interrupts the shin dig and bringing KISS in, it's pretty much exactly how the youth want to play god. Courting the girl is another obstacle to win at all costs. Displaying horrible manners is a battleground over what can he get away with while money makes that right. (The answer is everything.) Cranston's surrender is the old guard moving out. Of course the script hands him an out that it was 'her decision all along'; and look what a surprise, her decision is the billionaire. 'Why him? I'll tell you why, dad.' But what a creep. Upstaging the patriarch in every way, and after destroying everything, he gets to be the one to pick up the pieces with phony revelations. See how he corrupts the family one at a time. It's insidious stuff. I mean how accurate is it that these tech guys and hollywood elitists attempt to lecture and control and divvy out humanity when there is nothing in there to speak of. We are all victims of them playing out psychosis. Like the genZ 'All the Money in the World.' Elon Musk got out of there at record speed.
  • Yet another undeservingly underrated film! What's not to like about this?

    Perfectly cast, and I do mean perfectly! Zoey Deutch, James Franco (played his character beyond perfect), Bryan Cranston (a surprisingly great role for him), Cedric the Entertainer and primarily Keegan- Michael Key as Gustav... wow, did he nail his character! Every time he came on the screen, his crazy outfits, his facial expressions, and his antics are the reason this film made it to a 10/10 from me.

    The directing and writing by John Hamburg was cinematic comedy perfection. I've seen this film over 5 times with various family and friends and am craving to see it again.

    This is the best comedy of 2017 if not the best I've seen in a while. It's a must see and will certainly be part of my DVD collection!
  • Terrible movie.

    I would say even the worst one i have watched this Year! Long, boring, stupid and predictable!

    Funny?!

    I didn't find anything funny in it! Unbearable flat, shallow, idiotic American humor.

    I can't believe i spent 1 hour and 51 min. of my life lobotomizing my brain with such a cliché!

    Why this people in Hollywood continue making such a crap for God sake!?

    The only good and maybe funny moment was the Elon Musk scene. I rate it with 2 and i think it deserved it completely.
  • 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.
  • Every Christmas, my sisters have this new tradition where they take my mom and I and go see a movie. Last year, we saw Daddy's Home. This year, we saw Why Him? Oh boy...

    Firstly, when I saw the trailer for this movie, I thought it looked stupid, unfunny, and really annoying. But I choose not to judge a book by it's cover, so I went and saw it. Besides, it's something to do.

    What I got out of this film was a real bad experience. For starters, it's one of those modern comedies that think that just plain swearing and private part jokes are funny. They're not. Swearing could be funny, but you have to make it funny by adding something to the swear. For example, the Angry Video Game Nerd saying things like "F*ckfarts". The main character, Laird, is pretty much nothing but a walking swearing and sexual humor machine. All that spews out of this guy's mouth is constant cursing and talking about wanting to plow his girlfriend's mother.... Eww. He's played by James Franco, who I actually respect as an actor and even a filmmaker. But he's really got to pick better movies. As for the comedy, well... Like I said before, it's nothing but swearing and sex jokes. Only a few random bits got a laugh out of me, like when Laird's trainer or whatever makes some random noise at a party, since I didn't see that coming. As for performances, well... James Franco is a complete annoyance, and the rest of the actors are passable. But the one I really feel bad for is Bryan Cranston. Seeing him go through all these lame comedic scenes, it doesn't feel like he's acting, it actually feels like he's really suffering on set. I mean, who could blame him? If you had to go through all this failed comedy, you'd be feeling miserable, too. Speaking of failing on things, this movie fails on the heart aspect, which seems to be absent from most comedies of today. You see, in a movie like this, there's always a scene where the straight man comes to understand the goofball and sees that he's not that bad of a guy. In Daddy's Home, they played it well, but here? All I remember is just Bryan Cranston randomly having a liking to James Franco, even though he didn't really change his ways or Cranston didn't really see the good in him.

    Overall, this movie is another one of the typical comedies that is shat out from Hollywood these days. It's annoying, it's unfunny, and it's completely stupid. Even though I hated this movie, there was one thing I actually liked, and that was a scene where Laird is going "cheap cheap cheap" to his chickens, only because this seems like a subtle foreshadow to the upcoming Disaster Artist movie that James Franco is attached to.
  • I was troubled by everything in this sick, sick, movie; so much so that I did a search to see if it was just me, or if other people felt the same. My faith in humanity has been restored a bit based on most of the reviews I have read. This is probably the first comedy I have ever watched where I had to shield my eyes because I was terrified to watch what would be next. This movie goes beyond just burning brain cells. To say that it is lewd and raunchy does not begin to describe it. Only watch this movie if you enjoying cringing the entire time.
  • 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.
An error has occured. Please try again.