Neighbors 2 All Encapsulating Review (1 Viewer)

[Tino]

Move far away.

 

[Robert Crawford]

In some regards, I liked this film better than the first one. It was an okay comedy with the usual bathroom humor.

 

[Tino]

Ok, to elaborate further.

I pretty much thought it was terrible. Derivative of the first and nowhere near as funny. Choppy editing and lazy writing.

Chloe's character was annoying as was the fake "sisters" sincerity.

I did laugh a few times but overall I thought it was a typical terrible sequel. Unfortunately The trailer had the best laughs and one was even edited to make it less funny.

️1/2 out of ️️️️

 

[Robert Crawford]

Ok, to elaborate further.

I pretty much thought it was terrible. Derivative of the first and nowhere near as funny. Choppy editing and lazy writing.

Chloe's character was annoying as was the fake "sisters" sincerity.

I did laugh a few times but overall I thought it was a typical terrible sequel. Unfortunately The trailer had the best laughs and one was even edited to make it less funny.

️1/2 out of ️️️️

What do you want me to elaborate on? I found some of the stuff funny, you didn't, end of story. Also, I knew going in, this wasn't going to be some comedic masterpiece with nothing, but cheap, bathroom humor, but it was worth the $6.50 matinee price to seat there, munch of some popcorn, laugh and forget about the world for 90 minutes. I also like the message about how women and men are treated differently by society and the system.

 

[Tino]

Easy friend. My post wasn't directed towards you Robert. I only "elaborated it further" since my first review was only three words long. More than any other genre comedy is subjective. Happy you enjoyed it.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Sorry!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

In essence, "N2" is the same movie as the original. It uses the same premise with similar sentiments and jokes. In the original, the fraternity brothers had to bond together - here it's sorority sisters. All involved come to love and accept each other by the end.

Heck, both movies even share similarly illogical premises, by which I mean the causes of the feuds both make no sense. In the first film, Teddy declares war because of his unexplained obsession with keeping promises. Here Shelby can't keep a lid on partying for one month because that's the raison d'etre for the sorority's existence.

Really? In both cases, these plot points seem lazy as can be and stretch credulity beyond the breaking point. It's harder to ever like the frat/sorority characters because they seem so illogical and selfish.

For reasons I can't explain beyond lowered expectations, I preferred "N2". It starts on an ominous note, as the opening scene made me fear that I'd get nothing more than 90 minutes of body function gags.

And I kind of did, but some of the jokes were moderately funny, and they seemed less gratuitous than they did in the original.

Honestly, I can't really explain why I like the sequel better. In most ways, it's just as lazy as the original, and the attempts at a female empowerment angle couldn't possibly seem more contrived than it does.

Part of me wonders if that theme exists as Rogen's "apology" for what some perceived as the sexist culture in the first movie. Movie critic Ann Hornday wrote a semi-inflammatory essay in which she implied "bros before hos" movies bore some "responsibility" for male misbehavior - including the Elliott Rodger murders. Rogen fought back against that, but I can't help but feel like "N2" focuses on "girl power" so much to compensate for the criticisms.

Maybe not - maybe the filmmakers just felt that a sequel that focuses on girls makes sense after one that concentrated on boys. The first film had its own "male bonding" moments, so it makes sense to take the same approach in the sequel - even if it still feels phony and calculated.

Whatever the reason, "N2" still entertains me more than its predecessor. Maybe I'm getting soft - or dumb - in my old age, but I had abetter time at the sequel. It's just as stupid and illogical as the first, but it comes with more laughs...

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Heck, both movies even share similarly illogical premises, by which I mean the causes of the feuds both make no sense. In the first film, Teddy declares war because of his unexplained obsession with keeping promises. Here Shelby can't keep a lid on partying for one month because that's the raison d'etre for the sorority's existence.

Really? In both cases, these plot points seem lazy as can be and stretch credulity beyond the breaking point. It's harder to ever like the frat/sorority characters because they seem so illogical and selfish.

I haven't seen either Neighbors movie. I had no interest in the first one, but the trailer for the new one made me laugh a few times and I'm actually considering seeing it.

I'm sorry to hear that the inciting action makes no sense. As I was reading your post, the thing that came to mind was the "chicken" thing in Back To The Future Parts 2 and 3, where Marty McFly, who we otherwise see as an intelligent, thoughtful young man who doesn't rush into action and doesn't seek out conflict, suddenly loses his shit and can't contain himself whenever he hears someone call him a "chicken". It just doesn't make sense for the character, and it sounds very similar to what you described here about "Teddy declares war because of his unexplained obsession with keeping promises"

 

[TravisR]

Part of me wonders if that theme exists as Rogen's "apology" for what some perceived as the sexist culture in the first movie.

I don't even begin to understand that complaint because Rose Byrne's character is the only person- male or female- in the movie that isn't cartoonishly dumb for the most part. Anyone that looked at the frat guys in the first movie as being some kind of example of how to act (and it's not like they're date rapists, they're just morons) was an idiot long before they saw Neighbors. It's like the people that criticized The Wolf Of Wall Street because a group of stockbrokers think that DiCaprio's character was a hero. It's not a movie's fault that some dummy misinterprets it or thinks that the bad behavior being shown is the way to act.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I haven't seen either Neighbors movie. I had no interest in the first one, but the trailer for the new one made me laugh a few times and I'm actually considering seeing it.

I'm sorry to hear that the inciting action makes no sense. As I was reading your post, the thing that came to mind was the "chicken" thing in Back To The Future Parts 2 and 3, where Marty McFly, who we otherwise see as an intelligent, thoughtful young man who doesn't rush into action and doesn't seek out conflict, suddenly loses his shit and can't contain himself whenever he hears someone call him a "chicken". It just doesn't make sense for the character, and it sounds very similar to what you described here about "Teddy declares war because of his unexplained obsession with keeping promises"

Yeah, the "chicken" plot point in the 2nd and 3rd "BTTF" movies is a good analogy. It comes out of nowhere, doesn't seem to fit the character we know from the first movie and exists solely because the filmmakers were too lazy to come up with something more organic.

The "inciting actions" in the "Neighbors" movies bug me less, largely because they're intended to be stupid comedies in the first place - they lack the "higher aspirations" of "BTTF". The "Neighbors" flicks throw all sorts of illogical moments at the screen, and I can forgive that - to a degree.

I just dislike laziness when it'd be so easy to offer a more logical scenario. For instance, in the first film, the Efron character goes ballistic because the Rogen role reneged on a promise. It's an iffy situation anyway, but it loses even more points because the filmmakers offer no explanation whatsoever why promises are so important to Efron. All they needed to do was toss in a quick mention of some way his dad or whoever let him down after a promise and it'd improve the movie greatly.

In "N2", the sorority women view partying as their raison d'etre because sororities have never been allowed to throw their own parties - this makes party-throwing their feminist statement. Fine, but their refusal to put a lid on things for 30 days to placate their neighbors seems illogical - and it makes the characters look like spoiled brats.

The solution? Make the Rogen and Byrne characters seem jerkier. Have them be so provocative when the sorority girls move in that we understand why the sorority sisters need to throw parties.

"N2" still has laughs, but its logic issues bug me...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I don't even begin to understand that complaint because Rose Byrne's character is the only person- male or female- in the movie that isn't cartoonishly dumb for the most part.

And that changes in the sequel! She seems to have lost about 30 IQ points over the last 2 years!

Byrne is one of the sequel's highlights, though. She doesn't get a ton to do, but she's funnier than in the first one...