User Reviews

Genel olarak vakit kaybı bir yapım. Porno bağımlısı ergenlere mi yazdırıyorlar senaryoyu acaba?

i think they could have come up with a better title than "Why Him", I feel like that title was just come up with the weekend before it came out. But still a pretty good movie.

vhughgughftdtdfffdeqwertyioplkkmnjhhfdadfgdsxcvbmkoougdfhgjjgdfsfsdjghuggfdssdghjjjkuhyfreityr

Offers a few laughs but overall its a predictable throwaway comedy. Keegan-Michael Key’s outrageous but lovable Gustave is the best thing about this movie to start off, whenever he's on screen it lifts the entire movie. Zoey Deutch was a nice casting and the leads all do a fantastic job but the movie is poorly made with uneven comedic timing in an already tired genre of movies

I found this very amusing and it does feature some pretty strong language and many sex references, which usually isnt the sort of thing to greatly appeal to me, so to speak but this is such a sort of zany, silly film that I liked it. The main character reminded me a little of Cuckoo from the BBC3 show of the same name. Bryan Cranston playing the frustrated father who has to somehow not lose his rag, made me laugh and the plot is so goofy and over the top, its hard to take it at all seriously. If I had to compare it to another film, I'd compare it to 'You, Me & Dupree' which I also really liked. I realise their not exactly the most intelligent of films but sometimes a bit of dumb and silly comedy isn't that bad (although I'm still not keen on films like Superbad and Pineapple Express). I would recommend this film as I found myself laughing or giggling to myself for the vast duration of the film really.

I didn't mind this movie. No masterpiece but a funny story that's essentially about the generation gap.

"Why Him?" é realmente hilário. Uma visão única e moderna do pai clássico que conhece o desastroso namorado da sua filha... A química entre James Franco e Byyan Cranston é ótima. 9/10

Este filme foi realmente hilário. Eu, de facto, não entendo as críticas duras a "Why Him?". Foi apenas uma visão única e moderna do pai clássico que conhece o desastroso namorado da sua filha. A química entre James Franco e Byan Cranston foi ótima.

Not why him. Why this movie? Why to do this to myself ? Based on flat humor, most of the time a bad acting and a not so interesting film-maded story, 'Why Him' will make you think at the fifth minute: Why am I doing this to myself, I'm a bad person, but damn I really don't deserve that crap about an super annoying funny looking, trying to act cool, but then pitiful young video game app designer, who for astonishment happened to be a billionaire with the most ridiculous tattoos and ridiculous smile on the face. James Franco act terrible here. And even the brilliant, as always, acting of Bryan Cranston can't help this 'film' to get out of the mud. Shortly, 'Why Him' is a kind of tragicomedy, that I rate with 2/10, because of the Bryan Cranston there and the very few funny jokes.

Why Him? is your typical disposable, but fun "christmas"/family movie. The only thing that makes it enjoyable is the actors. Bryan Cranston, great as always, James Franco plays himself, which is not necessarily a bad thing if you enjoy his persona (which I sometimes do), Zoey Deutch bringing her usual charm and adorable self and lastly I honestly enjoyed Keegan's character more than I expected. So I would not recommend Why Him? to many people, but for me it kinda worked and I could see myself watching it during the holidays.

A few memorable scenes and jokes In what was a mostly unforgettable film. Considering it was a comedy film the jokes were far and in-between wish there were more jokes and laughs as when they happened they were generally quite funny. James Franco was the most memorable role in this movie and the others were very underwhelming. All in all a few good laughs but nothing too memorable.

While Why Him has some genuinely amusing moments these moments are few and far between. While the film is boosted by the performances of the casts the rather juvenile writing makes it so that many strings of jokes miss. Oddly good jokes seem to be limited to a couple scenes interspaced by a number of awkward moments. By the end of the movie you're still not sure of if you actually like Franco's character or if you just think he's an ass which is a major failing on the movie's part as you are clearly supposed to find him endearing by the end. All and all Why Him? isn't a terrible comedy movie but its not all that great either. You'll definitely laugh but you'll also almost definitely reach the end of the movie and feel unsatisfied. 4.5/10

Why Him? was a surprisingly enjoyable Holiday comedy for me. Bryan Cranston and James Franco shine with some really great comedic moments, and the rest of the cast is great too, with the exception of some of the minor side characters. The writing is a little predictable and sometimes falls into the pitfalls of a big-budget Hollywood comedy, but there were some great sidesteps, like making James Franco's character a lovable idiot as opposed to a jerk. Some minor plot elements never went anywhere, but overall, Why Him? is a great movie to put on in the background of a family Holiday occasion. I could even see it become a tradition at some family gatherings.

Printing biz meets the app biz! Paper versus digital! This is not the theme something you could see for the first time. I have seen many classics, probably you would have as well. But the difference is it was a different cast and a bit modernised. Modernised means just the story set in the todays technological trend world like almost everything that related to AI we use in our daily life. It's yet to be a lifestyle, I mean new norm. So you can see a few people who had already progressed like we say Silicon/IT guys. That's the background and with the same old concept that the parents, particularly the father of the girl meets her boyfriend. When they do, those misunderstanding, generation gap and what else, all hell breaks loose. The comedies were okay. In some places it was too much. Instead of a laugh, it only annoyed. Though there were some good jokes, except I hardly had any good laugh in my entire watch. I remind you again that it was an okay film. Some people might find it good, some won't. Still a watchable film for the good performances. It's a face-off between James Franco and Bryan Cranston as expected. Elon Musk was a surprise. It had several opportunities to be better like turnaround its narration, yet they stuck with the same concept for the whole film. So other than mild entertainment, there's nothing in it to laud. I hope it all had ended here. Please, no sequel. 5/10

To put it straight and simple, i loved it. I truly don't understand the negativity comedy movies get. Of course we know whats going to happen, of course we know the plot. However, did it make me laugh? Yes. This was a very funny movie, simple as that.

Comedies should be 90minutes, the scenes in here go on for way too long. A lot of generic jokes. Key and Franco are good; the **** Party scene is funny

uh , the was actually good but it is not that kind of great comedy like dictator or spy . But seeing it won't hurt and can be good for a weekend. Also James Franco has acted good but i liked the Interview more.

This is basically one of the writers of Meet the Parents (John Hamburg) revisiting that movie's premise, only this time with more raunchy and vulgar humor while also sitting in the director's seat. The result is a movie that feels like a rehash with lazier humor. Franco, Cranston, and Keegan Michael-Key are all talented people who give this their all. Unfortunately they just aren't given much to work with. Nobody else onscreen really has any presence. Throughout it's overly long running time we are treated to a bunch of tired gags, constant profanity, crude sex jokes, and shock humor that all feels way too familiar. There are still some chuckle worthy lines here, but when the funniest scene in your movie involves Bryan Cranston sitting on a fancy toilet and not knowing how to work it, you may have a problem. Hamburg just seems to be trying too hard. With a group of people this talented and likable there was a good chance that some more restrained material would have gone a long way to actually delivering laughs. He certainly could have paid more attention to the actual story and relationships of the characters. Why Him? is a generic, disposable, and mediocre Christmas comedy about meeting potential inlaws. One where talented people are brought down by lackluster writing. often goes too far into ridiculousness with it's humor and really pays no attention to the actual intricacies of forming a relationship with the family of one's significant other. A shame, because that is part of what made Meet the Parents enjoyable. Well, that and a much sharper sense of humor. 5.1/10

Offers a few laughs but overall its a predictable comedy in a tired and predictable genre. Keegan-Michael Key’s outrageous but lovable Gustave is the best thing about this movie to start off, whenever he's on screen it lifts the entire movie. Zoey Deutch was a nice casting and the leads all do a fantastic job but the movie is poorly made with uneven comedic timing in an already tired genre of movies

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

"Why Him" is essentially a remake of about a zillion films based on the tensions of disapproving in-laws. There is a lot to like about Why Him, especially the performances from most of the cast. James Franco plays Laird as a lovable lout. He pushes the unlikable side of the character pretty hard, but it is obvious form the get-go that he is a basically decent guy who never had a chance to become properly socialized. Bryan Cranston plays the outraged dad in a way that is much more plausible that one would have expected--he is perpetually flabbergasted, of course, but we see him keeping a lid on his emotions in a realistic way. Megan Mulally plays a sleeper role as Mom--initially she is quiet and sheepish in Cranston's shadow, but before long she breaks out the hilarious in an understated way as she warms to the Laird character much faster than dad does. Sadly, Zoey Deutch has to play the daughter Stephanie, the weakest character in the film. Initially Stephanie seems smart and fetching, but eventually we see too many of the required plot points condemn the character to being an unrealistic, unlikable schemer. Cedric the Entertainer turns in a quiet, serviceable performance (shame he has no laugh lines to work with and his character is so dull it is little more than a prop). Keegan-Michael Key rounds out the cast and gives a goofy comedic performance as a sort of butler to Franco's character. The butler role is pure comic relief, and Key makes the most of the opportunity. The whole project hinges on the extreme crassness of the Laird character. The primary weakness of the film is losing the balance between basic realism of the situation as portrayed by the Cranston family versus the unrealism of the Laird character. The situation provides quite a few good laughs (again, mostly from Mulally and Key), but eventually the sheer number of omnipresent F-bombs becomes unsustainable and they conspire to sink the ship. This fatal flaw is virtually identical to the fatal flaw in Sausage Party, another R-rated comedy that featured Franco and writing credits to Jonah Hill--both films had a lot going for them but were sabotaged by heavy use of foul language as a lame substitute for actual humor. Word to the wise: One or two well placed F-bombs can be very funny, but over a hundred of them are never funny and will always stink up a movie.

If this is supposed to be a old school meets new school thing, I feel a bit insulted that this is supposedly how the new age is viewed. I have no issue with profanity in comedy movies because of the paradigm shift in society, but this movie tries way too hard. You cannot go a minute in this movie without an expletive-filled punchline that is supposed to be funny. Franco's character is supposed to be this new-aged, down-to-Earth good guy, who doesn't know how to filter himself who doubles as a billion dollar company owner (though he doesn't do a single thing work related in the movie), but comes off as a vulgar, impulsive, neanderthal who is blatantly makes an effort to make those around him feel uncomfortable. The daughter does nothing, but exist in this movie, the son is a failed attempt to be a link between the father's ideals and modern concepts, and the mother is just there for the ride. This movie pulls no punches, but it would have been better off doing so. I understand its not to be taken 100% literally, but I feel this movie did more harm then good by having a take on the newer generation as mindless free-thinkers who shoot first and ask questions later and are incapable of understanding basic human concepts such as manners. This wasn't just a bad movie, it was an intelligence insulting one.

At 111 minutes, "Why Him?" is too long. Somewhere down the line, the jokes become repetitive and the film results a bore. But, even if it had been shortened by twenty five minutes, it would have probably ended up the DOA comedy it is anyway.

Fun movie and everything that I basically expected from Franco movies. It is not to be taken too serious. What I did not like though were some over the top jokes and some jokes were they were just trying too hard. Besides that, it was ok, nothing outstanding though.

Крутые актёры на главных ролях, а главная героиня просто конфетка. Юмор по-большей части туалетный, но ценители заценят. Ну очень просто кино, отключаем мозг и смотрим.

Worst movie ever..i'm so sorry for Cranston. The movie is basically swearing swearing aaand again swearing without any sense. Not even one scene made me **** story doesn't **** characters are despicable..actors **** (everyone but cranston..) ..DON'T WASTE MONEY ON THIS TERRIBLE TERRIBLE MOVIE

Why do comedy movies these days have a tendency to assume that taking a no-holds-barred approach to profanity automatically equals laughs? James Franco has shown time and time again that he’s game for whatever weirdness he might have to portray on-screen, but my main thought towards the actions and dialogue of his Laird Mayhew character wasn’t “My God, this guy is really out there…”. It was in actuality more along the lines of “My God, does he kiss his mother with that mouth?” I am not opposed to profanity by any stretch, and when used correctly it can be an important element in film dialogue. It can be used to highlight the blue-collar roots of some characters, show the frustrations of others and allow them to vent when things don’t go their way (a scene that comes to mind where this happens in another movie is Clark’s freak-out in “National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation”), and just create the idea that this is normal, everyday dialogue between average people. Let’s face it, we all probably swear more than we’d like to admit, and therefore it should be both unsurprising and even a little vindicating to see that reflected in cinema. As stated earlier, however, taboo words are in such abundance that it can make for quite an unpleasant viewing experience—an early instance is when Laird comes out to greet his girlfriend’s family, and drops the F-bomb about five times in a matter of twenty seconds. It just doesn’t fit with the presentation of Laird’s character: regardless of age or generation, I don’t know of any millionaire, much less billionaire, who has such a bad mouth on them that anyone they meet would be disgusted at some of the things coming out of it. Anyways, moving on to the summary. Ned Fleming (Bryan Cranston, who is totally wasted in his role) is more or less a live-action Hank Hill: he carries a strong positive reputation among his friends, family, and co-workers, who collectively often refer to him as “the Big Cheese”. Yet his old-fashioned ways are hurting the printing business he owns and operates, and his refusal to go digital has caused many of his clients to either switch to online ads or have their printing done for a much lower cost in China. To further complicate matters, his daughter Stephanie (Zoey Deutch), a student at Stanford University in California, has found a boyfriend (Franco) that she hasn’t mentioned to her family whom they learn about abruptly when he interrupts a Facetime call for her dad’s birthday in a memorable way. In order to break the ice, Stephanie invites her mom (Megan Mullally), dad, and younger brother (Griffin Gluck) to California in order to meet Laird and get to know him. From there it’s your typical “dad vs. fiancé” story, with Laird quickly drawing Ned’s ire with his lack of a filter and intention to marry Stephanie (you know, to give the film something resembling a conflict). All sorts of weirdness abounds within Casa de Mayhew with many a celebrity cameo, a Siri-like artificial intelligence voiced by Kaley Cuoco that sounds far too human to be realistic, and a butler/assistant/trainer/estate manager of some sort of European descent played by Keegan-Michael Key. I feel completely confident in stating that this is probably the most divisive comedy I’ve ever watched in my life. There were moments that almost had me out of my seat (One involves a lie from Laird about the true meaning of the word b*kk*k* that comes back to bite him, and in another Ned humorously quips “I’m going to hell for this” as he guesses passwords related to his daughter’s body while attempting to hack into Laird’s computer), but others felt so forced and unnatural in a desperate attempt to seem over-the-top that they had me cringing involuntarily (perhaps the best example is when a stuffed moose suspended in a tank full of urine explodes onto a fifteen-year-old boy). Tonal inconsistencies are all over the place as well: sappy sentimentality and typical gross-out humor swap places back and forth when, in all honesty, those two elements aren’t really capable of co-existing, as we’ve seen in many an Adam Sandler movie. Also, by the time the picture reaches its conclusion, nothing feels adequately summed up: while the “comedy where everything gets resolved happily at the end” is nothing new, it has no impact because we don’t really care about any of the conflicts. The characters are all cardboard cut-outs of common comedy personalities with no substance or depth to them, and thus nothing they do will make us like them any more or less. Stephanie especially suffers from this: Deutch keeps her likeable enough, but she is given the least development and screen time out of anyone and seems to only be around for Ned and Laird to both fawn and argue over. Those who come to see this based on the ads will get exactly what they expect. Whether that’s good or bad is up to you. 5/10

Give It An Opportunity? Why Not? Romantic comedy has been one of the most harmed film genres in this new era of anodyne artistic revolutions; nowadays, the lucky ones which achieve to lay out unprecedented circumstances are practically non-exist, mixtures are radically away from Judd Apatow' and company's instauration a few years ago, where scatological humor and sarcastic gags were available.Once British people determined the official romcoms prescription, western people sought to make the same thing coming up with more American subjects ("Meet the **** 2016, love story full-length films for couples had no prestigious presence whatsoever, and despite the fact that it is not a resurgence of the genre, Jonah Hill's movie wins audience's hearts through the essential of the plot, irrigating superb comical situations (with lascivious content on the top), pointing out ineluctable generational switchings and exhibiting modern technologies impact in order to get a laugh more than ever. Not every day we have the possibility to see how Bryan Cranston endures mercilessly in a technological toilet, a foreign hygienic body system (used after urination or defecation) controlled through your smartphone, a place where 'toilet paper' expression does not exist; not every day we have a female personal assistant (with own individualities) in Kaley Cuoco's voice ("The Big Bang Theory"), and much less we can see Megan Mullally trying to have impulsive sexual relations with her husband under the influence of marijuana, only by these three constituents, value of the ticket is worth. "Why Him?," set up by the experts in the field, John Hamburg ("Along Came Polly"), Jonah Hill ("Sausage Party") and Ian Helfer ("The Oranges"), fails to formulate something necessarily different in father-vs.-fiancé or parent-child stories, with the abnormality that in these changeable times, bride's dad is not the domineering, but he is the dominated. And that's exactly what makes it an interesting and even welcome idea. Despite the fact that it presents a lack of brand-new elements, it does not destroy or deteriorate genre reusing expressions, moreover, generates hilarious conjunctions, encouraging mostly by a magnificent James Franco and a sumptuous Cranston. After they glimpse in a peculiar way to the guy who is dating their daughter Stephanie (Zoey Deutch) -who has spent several years attending Stanford University, -Ned and Barb Fleming, a deferential and American old-fashioned parents, decide to visit her along with their younger son on the occasion of passing a beautiful Christmas eve in family. Although they've had already a first (incorrect) impression, the only thing what happens when arriving at the mansion of his new son-in-law is to see in flesh and blood how their fears come true, what would be translated as the worst nightmare for a father.Laird Mayhew, played by Franco, is a spoiled son of Sillicon Valley, creator and owner of a mobile games company, he is a man with good intentions but socially small-minded who aims to win the hearts of his in-laws and his younger brother-in-law through gifts of big media relevance from Steve Aoki, Elon Musk to Richard Blais, nonetheless, his 'no filter' personality will make holiday season into a full enjoyment. Ensconce yourself in your seat with fresh popcorn and a glass of your favorite soda, relax, overlook the pubic hair of Franco in the opening scene and prepare for a fun Christmas journey.

For a comedy movie, it's not a bad film, it moves quickly and never really stops with the jokes, it's a pretty standard story of family values, To be honest, the only reason why I even saw this movie was because there appears to currently be a lull in theatrical releases (at least in my area) and this movie appeared to be the most appealing. If there had been any other movies I wanted to see, I would have passed on this one. As a rental or as a streamed movie, it would have been fine, but it doesn't really warrant the kind of money you spend at a theater to actually see it on the big screen.

An absolutely hilarious film! The way it made fun of the father-boyfriend relationship was just spectacular. i think I cried twice. The jokes and the profanity were just so appropriate to the situation.

James Franco is raunchy, but sometimes he's so over-the-top, that his films start out funny, and half way through it's just not that funny anymore. When you use your best lines and dirtiest bits in the first half-hour, an hour later, you're hard pressed to out due yourself. The writers of Why Him? tried to combat this problem, by taking Franco's large than life personality and combining it with the dry humor and physical comedy of Bryan Cranston, and the results were mixed. It's holiday season and Stephanie Fleming (Zoey Deutch), wants her parents to meet her new boyfriend, only she doesn't want to tell them anything about him before hand, because if she did, they probably wouldn't come. They are quiet, reserved suburbanites from Cleveland, and he's a dot com millionaire from California, who loves anything new and unusual. As the two sides of Stephanie's life combine, hilarity ensues or at least it's supposed to. Bryan Cranston and surprisingly young Griffin Gluck had the best lines, and were involved in the funniest moments of this film. As for James Franco, once again, he was too much and he has to realize that every comedic role he takes isn't Pineapple Express. The role here calls for eccentricity, not raunchy and stupid. Right from the start and all the way through, every other word out of his mouth was **** and every stunt he pulled was more immature than the next. It takes a lot away from the film, especially the ending, which was just ridiculous and simply doesn't fit with the rest of the movie. The bottom line, the story is interesting, Bryan Cranston is always great and Griffin Gluck was a riot. The film definitely has it's moments, but every time you think it's about to turn a corner, Franco shows up to drop a million F bomb, talk about his ****, and preform stunts better left to the stoner movies.

It was a pretty normal comedy. Okay acting, okay jokes, not very believable and quite predictable at times. Even if it's not the best comedy to come out in recent memory, it was still enjoyable and entertaining.

"Why Him?" is pretty funny, with a number of laugh-out-loud moments. I do wish, however, that it had less scatalogical humor. i think that raunchy humor is funnier if it used sparingly; otherwise, you just get too used to it. A few less f-bombs and less references to male genitalia, and I would have given it a couple more stars. On the plus side, Bryan Cranston is great, very warm and funny. James Franco is a gas, too. Zoey Deutch does a good job s the daughter, and she looks just like her mom Lea Thompson (of "Back to the Future" fame).

Holiday gathering goes off the rails when well-meaning but protective father (Bryan Cranston) discovers that his daughter’s (Zoey Deutch) freewheeling rich boyfriend (James Franco) is about to pop the marriage question. A wise man once said, if you think you’re so enlightened, go and spend a weekend with your family. After all, it’s the world you come from and it may become your greatest hindrance or support in life, depending on how you make it work for you. Families are also the never-drying fountain of material for comedies. Everybody is secretly weird in one’s own way and what good are our personal quirks and kinks if if one can’t make fun of them! „Why Him?“ is also Christmas comedy because holiday is a perfect excuse to bring very different characters together. Bigger part of the story actually takes places in California, so there’s not gonna be much snow and ice, or much of anything else directly holiday-related for that matter. (For Santa and reindeers, better check recent „Office Christmas Party“, or even some of the genre classics like „Elf“ or the first „Bad Santa“.) But what this new movie does have is energetic mayhem filled with colorful characters armed with enough cute lines to make one at least smile once in a while. You’re probably not gonna LOL much though, because for all it’s quick pace and dirty jokes – which there are plenty of –, the movie is also interested in plot, main characters and feel-good atmosphere. This comes as a surprise because I had no reason to expect anything else than another straightforward gross-out comedy they love to mass produce these days. Even the dialogue feels more natural than in many comedies because it’s given the minimum necessary time to breathe. And having this additional depth makes „Why Him?“ stand out of the crowd, at least a bit. Even if you just want to have some easy laughs. „Why Him?“ is a vehicle for Bryan Cranston still trying to find his way in movie business since the praised drama series „Breaking Bad“ reached to its conclusion over three years ago. He has actually done a lot of movie roles since 2010 but is still looking for something that people really would remember him by. That's because his most valuable movies have made only blips on general radar („Trumbo“ and „The Infiltrator“). This is not gonna be his lucky project either because he has such a thankless character who just has to hang around, be startled or disgusted of all the colourful mayhem happening around him and churn out some fry comments here and then. Almost everybody on screen is more exciting and certainly more unpredictable than his playing-it-straight good family man. I get it, it’s meant to create a contrast with everything else but I still feel that's a waste of his talent. Luckily, the others are more than ready and able to compensate for the boring dad, especially James Franco as a freewheeling bf and Keegan-Michael Key as his best friend slash guru slash weird butler. If you don’t like Franco as much as I do, then you will probably not agree... but he’s kind of perfect for this role, channeling his all to equal parts funny, weird and disarmingly spontaneous character who is really holding the whole thing together. He perfectly matches the overall tone of movie, coming across as unpredictable and always ready for some sudden turns. So, the result may work best for fans of James Franco or current wave of mainstream comedies. But despite being a genre movie – made just because there is a demand for this kind of stuff –, it manages to bring something fresh to the table and offer tightly put together experience altogether. Many recent big-name comedies feel like a series of improvisations looking to find an excuse to exist. „Why Him?“ feels like a proper movie. I have a good feeling about this. By the way, director and one of two screenwriters is John Hamburg („Safe Men“, „Along Came Polly“, „I Love You, Man“) and one of the authors of the story is Jonah Hill. Both useless facts… but I like those guys! Another useless but fun fact: the cast was given free access to improvise as much as they wanted to and eventually 240 hours of films was shot on camera, which had to be trimmed to about 90 minutes for the final film. How come it feels much more compact and natural than many other impro-based comedies (the worst recent offender being "Anchorman 2")?

Even a cast of talented actors can't float this excruciatingly unfunny script. Bryan Cranston and Megan Mullally play parents of a college student who's boyfriend is a Silicon Valley entrepreneur. Enter James Franco, who usually could add his brand of wacky sweetness to any character for instant comedy. Unfortunately, even his energetic efforts can't squeeze one laff out of this dreary mess. The de riguer inappropriate situations are never outrageous and the moments of tender emotional interaction drag down the energy, which is all the film has going for it (plus Franco's tatted/buffed body).

Lighten up people...this movie is an entertaining, one and a half-hour break from reality and is laugh-out-loud funny! I loved it and my older tee kids thought it was hilarious. I'll be watching it again.

Surprisingly touching film. In spite of the over the top language it makes some great points on tolerance and first impressions. Franco's character is annoying and endearing all at the same time. Fun time.

Recently when to see Why Him and I can honestly say it was not one of the best James Franco movies I have seen. The movie was trying to hard to get the one liners to fly.

The moive was great and the whole plot was fine also the Comedy was good. But the best part was in the middle and should not be over looked was a great movie

Provokingly bad. Damn Bryan Cranston, I respected you. But I just got back from the cinema, and even though I poked my nose and burped, I was still the most civilized person in the room. What happened to you? You were great in Argo! And do I even have to mention Breaking Bad? Sure, you have done comedies before, but this, this is just awful! For all of you European watchers, this is basically how you felt about Colin Firth after you watched Kingsman: The Secret Service. So please, do yourself a favour and don't watch this movie!

What’s it about? Wholesome Stanford student Stephanie (Zoey Deutch) has a new eccentric (and utterly loaded) boyfriend (James Franco), and super-close Daddy (Bryan Cranston) is struggling to come to terms with the latest development in his little girl’s life. What did I think? I went in with very low expectations and was actually pleasantly surprised by this crass comedy. The basis for the story has been done to death, sure, but it’s been given a 2016 edge, and the performances, even from Franco, are really good. Special nod to little brother Scotty (played by Griffin Gluck) who is a scream, and to Keegan-Michael Key’s outrageous but lovable Gustave. Watch out, too, for some class lines from Megan Mullally as the mom, Barb. It’s a frankly hilarious script, as long as you don’t mind the f-word. And I don’t. I love it. Not something to watch with your own mom and dad, though, I’d wager.

This movie was really hilarious. I don't really understand the harsh critique; it was a unique, modern take on the classic father meets boyfriend scenario. It was great to watch and the chemistry between the father and boyfriend was great.

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

If I had to nearly describe this film in less than an entire page of reviews and it'd be quite easy to describe it without even making up a review, it'd definitely be: Why does this movie exist?