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.
Add a Review
-
littlemartinarocena1 October 2017
-
aciessi26 December 2016This 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. -
fimorales30 March 2017It 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. -
robyn_hopkins28 July 2019Despite what other people wrote I thought it was fun and hilarious. My daughter talked me into watching it...I was not disappointed 🙂
-
zhyarTheChosen21 September 2019This movie is so underrated I really like its smooth story
-
Faristuta6 July 2019It'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 !
-
brankovranjkovic27 December 2016Brian 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. -
urbanfarmerdenice15 October 2019I 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.
-
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.
-
suzannecarroll1 October 2017Sometimes, 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.
-
loversofmovies19 July 2020Thank 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.
-
nathannicolarobertscouk21 December 2016Possibly 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 -
Harun_Karali21 December 2016Stephanie 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. -
phd_travel7 June 2017If you ignore the over the top vulgarities this comedy is actually okay. The best part is the ending which is actually quite refreshing in that the young girl turns out to be sensible. The story is kind of familiar father disapproves of future son in law. Especially when he is convincing his daughter to drop out of Stanford.
The cast is good - anything with Bryan Cranston can't be that bad. James Franco is over the top - could have toned it down a bit. Zoey Deutsch looks prettier than in her previous movies - she is quite sweet here.
Almost all big budget comedies are vulgar nowadays and this one is no exception at least the ending makes up for it. -
Everyone that wrote a bad review and thinks this is a boring, horrible, stupid, etc movie..... must have the worst sense of humor in the world! This was Brilliantly written and the cast was picked perfectly. A NEW ADDITION TO OUR "FAMILY FAVORITES"!
-
romanowskibree9 January 2017James Franco is one of my favorite actors and does a very good job in this movie. I would recommend being eighteen or older to watch this movie. Teenagers could connect with this movie because there is a lot of teen slang and culture in the movie. James Franco usually plays the frat boy or wild teen in movies. However, he plays an irresponsible adult in this movie. I like how he tries to impress his girlfriends parents by buying them things he thinks they would like. He goes over board and things get interesting. He has no filter and will say almost anything to anyone. When he talks to her parents he says some inappropriate comments and her parents are not impressed. He talks to her parents like he is talking to his friends and this causes her dad to dislike him. James has to earn there respect back and get them to approve of him.
-
neil-47616 May 2018Stephanie prevails upon her parents, Ned and Barb, to travel with her younger brother from Michigan to California, to spend Christmas at her (newly disclosed to her parents) boyfriend Laird's place. Laird turns out to be unable to utter a sentence without the word "f*ck" or one of its derivatives appearing in it at least once, usually more often. He also wears fewer clothes than conservative Ned is comfortable with. It also turns out that he is very wealthy, and that there are a number of other important issues which Stephanie has been less than frank about.
Comedies based on generation gaps or, more usually, attitude gaps are not rarities, so the chasm between rather prim and conservative Ned, and the extravagantly unexpurgated Laird is familiar territory, ripe to be mined for comedy. It is surprising, then, that this film isn't funnier than it is.
The characters might have been drawn more broadly, but Cranston reins Ned back to the extent that he is a person rather than a caricature and, surprisingly, so does Franco, albeit less so. And so we get two real people both struggling with their own conflicting mindsets in the best interests of Stephanie who isn't always co-operating with them. Among the large brushstrokes of Laird's crassness and ridiculous works of art, and Ned's kneejerk horror, we have a genuine drama of real people trying to make real accommodations and, while it may be dramatically credible, it's not particularly funny.
Which is why we have the daftly hilarious Gustav (Keegan Michael-Key) as Laird's preposterous estate manager, and a short but comical routine with a rather baked Barb coming on to a husband whose mind is elsewhere. Less amusing are the hacking, paperless toilet, and moose p!ss sequences.
As a comedy this came across rather unsuccessfully to me, although I quite liked it because I quite liked the characters in it, even Laird. -
LnBK24 December 2016I 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 -
asterladybug3 March 2017Okay 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.
-
Thanos_Alfie21 November 2018"Why Him?" is a Comedy movie in which we watch a young man having a relationship with a young woman who hasn't said anything about him to her parents. Her overprotective father goes crazy when he finds out about her boyfriend but tries to calm down and figure out what to do about it. When her father, her mother, and her brother visit her in order to be all the family together for the holidays they could not imagine what will happen and who exactly her boyfriend is.
I liked this movie because it is very funny and it has many good scenes. The plot of it as you can imagine is very simple but interesting and this in combination with some hilarious scenes it's simply amazing. I liked the interpretation of James Franco who played as Laird Mayhew the millionaire boyfriend and he was simply hilarious in many scenes. I also liked the interpretation of Bryan Cranston who played as Ned Fleming the father and he was also amazing. Other interpretations that have to be mentioned are Zoey Deutch's who played as Stephanie Fleming the daughter of Bryan Cranston and she was very good, and Megan Mullally's who played as Barb Fleming the mother and she was equally good. The direction which was made by John Hamburg was interesting and with some very nice moments such as the ending.
Lastly, I have to say that "Why Him?" is a nice comedy movie with which I am sure you are going to have fun and you are going to enjoy it very much. It has a nice sense of humor but sometimes it maybe goes too far but if you have watched some other movies with James Franco such as "This Is the End", "The Interview" and "Pineapple Express" you are ready for it. -
cherchezan22 March 2017Honestly 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...
-
dreeves811514 March 2017Honestly, 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.
-
lisafordeay2 April 2023Why Him is a 2016 comedy starring Bryan Cranston,James Franco,Zoey Deutch,Keegan Michael Key and Megan Mullally.
Ned Fleming (Cranston)along with his wife Barb (Mullally)and son Scotty(Griffin Glick)decide to pay a visit to meet Ned's daughter Stephaine Fleming(Deutch) and her foul mouthed boyfriend Laird Mayhew(Franco) in California during the Christmas period. But with Laird's obnoxious behaviour and his profanity will himself and Ned make amends with each other?
Overall I thought it was a funny movie with a lot of crude jokes thrown here and there. James Franco was great as Laird and the story was good too. If you like Guess Who then you'll like it. Also has Cedric the Entertainer. -
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. -
fifigod30 June 2023The humor in this movie is extremely crude. It makes you say what the hell but in a funny way. Some scenes were really funny because of how it makes almost no sense. It combines funny scenes with happy scenes that help the story move forward. Sadly nothing is perfect at it is clearly visible here. I felt like it does not have a big enough story progression at it tries to be funny in so many unnecessary ways. It cannot go a scene without mentioning sex. It is funny at first but it does straight up get annoying after a while. A good way to make a comedy movie is to not repeat the same idea of a joke multiple times. Why Him completely fails at this. In conclusion: a good comedy movie for a way to spend free time but it is not the best and it has some flaws which bring it down quite a bit. Overall score 6/10.