Why Him?

Why Him?

(2016)

Of all the guys his daughter could have chosen...

A loving father (Bryan Cranston) cannot allow a happy-go-douchie millenial millionare (James Franco) to marry his daughter in this comedy. From the director of I Love You, Man.... More

Over the holidays, Ned (Cranston) and his family visit his daughter (Zoey Deutch) at Stanford, where he meets his biggest nightmare: her well-meaning but socially awkward Silicon Valley billionaire boyfriend, Laird (Franco). The straight-laced Ned thinks Laird, who has absolutely no filter, is a wildly inappropriate match for his daughter. The one-sided rivalry and Ned’s panic level escalate when he finds himself increasingly out of step in the glamorous high-tech hub, and learns that Laird is about to pop the question.Hide

On Demand, DVD & Blu-Ray

Available from 6 providers

The Peoples' Reviews

Average ratings from 2 ratings, 1 reviews
Reviewed & Rated by
Your rating & review
Rate / Review this movie

BY cinemusefilm superstar

The holy grail of comedy is to make you laugh but there are many different types of laughter. It can range from a joyful belly laugh about the funny side of being human to a cringe laugh based on the psychology of shame and embarrassment. Joyful comedy makes us feel good while cringers lessen us. The sit-com Why Him (2016) goes hell-for-leather at extreme cringe and is seriously lessened by its choice. Puerile body-function jokes, non-stop obscenities, and sexual and pornographic references... More ruin what otherwise could have been the comedy of the year.

The plotline and central premise is genuinely hilarious. Ned (Bryan Cranston) and Barb (Megan Mullaly) are conservative middle-American parents who visit their out-of-state daughter Stephanie (Zoey Deutch) to meet the new boyfriend Laird (James Franco). Steph’s 15 year-old brother is thrown into the mix to heighten the cringe-effect of R-rated humour. Steph does not tell her parents that Laird has no social filters: he says what he thinks, is crude, rude and unpredictable. He is also a mega-rich Silicon Valley entrepreneur while Ned is facing bankruptcy. The outcome is a predictable disaster that gets worse when Laird tells Ned he wants to marry Steph. That’s the bare bones of it; the rest is essentially layers of sit-com skits, toilet humour, and no-holds-barred cringe attacks.

The central premise is a comedic cliché that pops up in countless films: a new love object is odious to someone’s parents. But this one is not content to cross a few boundaries; it shatters them with a sledgehammer. The ‘absence of social filters’ loosely refers to disorders like Bipolar and Asperger’s Syndrome and featuring it in comedies makes it an object of ridicule that contributes little understanding or insight. But that’s a minor objection. The real low-point of the film is a script peppered with F-bombs and worse, with a running gag referring to a category of pornography especially degrading to women. We all expect colourful language these days, but it’s a substitute vocabulary that loses impact quickly. Cheap gags are more affordable than a quality script and even a strong cast cannot pull this film up from the depths it chose.

There will doubtlessly be audiences who enjoy the film’s excesses. Many will not even see the timeless sexist spectacle of a father and a suitor haggling over the life choices of a young woman as if she must forever remain male property. Unlike the freedom enjoyed by audiences, film critics must keep an objective view and find the positives in a film. Zoey Deutch is gorgeous and the film made me laugh; I then felt lessened for seeing it.Hide


Showing 1 of 1 reviews. See all reviews

The Press Reviews

  • The title isn't the only "why" question viewers should be asking themselves. Full Review

  • It's bluntly cheeky, it goes on for too long, but the concept keeps on giving. Full Review

  • Almost nothing anyone does registers as recognisably human; it's all just a pretext for yet another round of envelope-pushing outrageousness. Full Review

  • There is a passable 85-minute comedy in here, caked in an additional 30 minutes of flab. Call it a dad-bod comedy. Full Review

  • The question in this movie's title gets a lot of use. A version of it could also apply to pretty much everyone involved, especially Cranston. Full Review

  • Proving definitively that slapping Mr. Franco's scenery-eating grin on any old drivel doesn't guarantee entertainment, "Why Him?" is trite, crass and insultingly moronic. Full Review

  • Why Him? is the best Judd Apatow movie that Judd Apatow had nothing to do with: it's sweet, raunchy, big-hearted, and very, very funny. Full Review