jovanyglez Iabsolutely loved, i really loved it, in the end credits scene you notice, why its such an amazing movie, jonah hill wrote it, i want more ovies like this!

Neil Welch Stephanie 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.

Gavin Purtell 'Why Him?' is a Christmas-set 'Meet The Parents' (and is produced by Ben Stiller), from the director of 'Along Came Polly' and 'I Love You, Man', so you know what kind of humour to expect. The plot is just Stephanie (Deutch) trying to convince her parents, Ned (Cranston) & Barb (Mullally) to like her new boyfriend, Laird (Franco). It doesn't help that he's 10 years older (16 years older in real life!), a billionaire and has no filter!Franco plays his usual loveable doofus, Cranston is great as the straight-man with some moments of madness, but Deutch, Mullally, Cedric The Entertainer and Gluck are underutilised. Keegan-Michael Key does get plenty of chances to shine as Gustav, a German(?) "butler" who is also Laird's martial arts trainer/best friend. Kaley Cuoco also has a pretty funny cameo-type role. There's plenty of sight gags and prat-falls, and an amusing bit with a digital toilet that solves the plot at the end.There's good use of KISS - both "Rock & Roll All Nite" and the 2-3min cameo from Paul & Gene at the end! Franco pretty much steals every scene he's in, with his loveable charm and smile and goofy remarks. It's a fun film, but could be a little quicker and doesn't quite achieve greatness.

sergelamarche I didn't expect a Christmas movie. All styles have been made and it's a challenge to make something different I guess. Once again here, James Franco is ambiguously gay. The lair of Laird is a magical world (Elon Musk cameo, btw) and it's very strange how we feel after the family returns home. But then Laird shows up by helicopter, and two surviving members of Kiss. It get strange again. Funny to have Kiss lead play the triangle while they sign a plain song. Conclusion: if you can stand Homer-sexual references, potty jokes and potty mouthing in a film, you can make it through mildly amused, but mostly intrigued by what's next.