A Review of “Neighbors”

Posted on by

Released on May 9, Neighbors stars Zac Efron, Seth Rogan, Dave Franco and Rose Byrne. The film has lead to theaters across the country being filled with people laughing hysterically — some consider it to be very similar to films such as Superbad and Borat in terms of it’s humor. Although many people find the film to be quite comical, some find parts of it to be very disturbing.

This film is R-rated due to it’s consistent profanity, vulgarity, nudity, and excessive drug and alcohol references. The ideal audience for this film is people ranging in age from 17-25-years-old. This is definitely not a movie you would take your little brother or grandma to.  The type of humor is designed to relate to college-aged individuals, while some older adults may find it to be funny, too.

Neighbors is the story of a young couple, the Radners (played by Seth Rogan and Rose Byrne) and their newborn baby just moving into their first home in a suburban neighborhood. To their surprise, a fraternity purchases the house next door. As imaginable, a variety of frat-related stereotypes cause many issues for the Radners and their infant. Routine partying, marijuana smoke, loud music, half-naked girls, and used condoms in the from yard are just a few of the nuisances that the Radner family encounter.

As new parents, the Radners are struggling with trying to remain hip and young, but still get sleep and keep their daughter safe. The film turns into a war between the fraternity brothers and the Radner family — who can make the other’s lives more miserable?

Aesthetically, the film does an excellent job of portraying the ideal frat house. It uses props such as giant Greek letters, beer kegs, large speakers, giant bongs, hot girls, and copious amounts of alcohol to do this. Each of the fraternity members are dressed in the standard frat-bro attire of pastel-colored shorts cut off just above the knee, mid-calf cut socks, Vans, and a tight, preppy shirt of some kind.

With regard to the Radners, it is easy for the audience to understand that they are a young couple trying to remain cool. The film does this by portraying them as serious with regard to their baby and their jobs, but wild in terms of their risqué intimacy and not-so-nonshalant marijuana use.

One aspect of the editing that really stands out in this film is how the camera is used to portray the parties through the lens of a drunk and/or stoned person. I don’t know what the method is called, but the camera would film in slow-motion and sort of skim the crowd of the party in a drunken gaze that one may find themselves in from time to time.

Although this film may be very funny, it is not very impressive in regard to the narrative structure. It’s predictable and anticlimactic. Some people may find the use of humor in this film to be offensive.

All in all, this film does a great job of portraying the conflict between the college Greek community and other members of society. The editing techniques used in this film add to the humor and make the film more interesting than the standard frat film. A lot of the disputes illustrated in this film are very likely to happen in real life, however certain parts of the film seem very unrealistic. If you’re looking for a good laugh with friends, this film is a great option.

23 thoughts on “A Review of “Neighbors””

  1. This is an interesting analysis of the movie and how you point out that the film does a great job of portraying college Greek life and their interaction with others in the community. Nicholas Stoller has a style that encompasses the raunchy humor kind of atmosphere that he has included in his films Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Get Him to the Greek, and The Five Year Engagement. Hollywood has a way of overdramatizing events so that the consumer will find it funny or outrageous to make a reaction occur.

    Reply ↓

  2. I really liked how you focused on the frat boys attire and camera motion during the party scenes. The wardrobe definitely helped establish the characters as being stereotypical frat-boys, but I also think the over emphasis of their wardrobe, especially for Zach Effron, was a way to mock the frat-boys and the frat life. I really enjoyed the movement of the camera during the party scenes, it really placed the audience in the party with an inebriated state of mind. I felt that those two elements really added to the humor of the film.

    Reply ↓

  3. This is an awesome, honest review of The Neighbors and I agree with the second comment about choosing to focus on the unique cinematography that this film includes. I especially appreciate that you let readers know what audience this movie is appropriate for as it is definitely not suited for all ages. Your review does a great job giving an overview of the film without completely summarizing it, as some reviews tend to do. I thought it was exceptional that you commented on the plot, cinematography, and editing elements to give a balanced overview of the film.

    Reply ↓

  4. Thanks for this review of Neighbors, Angie! I like your observations about the drunk point-of-view shots, and about the predictable narrative structure. Sometimes, a good three-act structure comedy can be perfect . . . “Neighbors” did big business, so obviously a lot of people agree.

    I haven’t seen it yet, but one thing that a lot of reviewers mentioned is that it turns the tables on the typical college comedy by making the older couple the protagonists and the fun-loving college students the villains. I’m wondering how young people responded to this aspect of the film – did you identify with Seth Rogen’s forty-something character?

    Also, I’m really interested in the idea of “neighborliness.” I’ve been following the debate over the Eugene social host ordinance, and the conflicts between West University residents and college students. What does the film say about what it means to be a good neighbor?

    Reply ↓

  5. I thought this film also did a great job of portraying the typical frat-bro life style with the wardrobe and party scene. The situations that happen between the frat and the family are very unrealistic like you said. Your analysis about the humor in the film is spot on. It has the typical Seth Rogan dirty humor that definitely appeals to a college aged audience. Your analysis is totally correct with the film and it’s a pretty entertaining movie.

    Reply ↓

  6. I appreciate the fact that you note what kind of an audience this is movie is for. My grandparents insisted that we go see this movie (I still to this day have no idea why) . That being said it was a bit…..awkward? to say the least. I agree also that the filming of the party scenes were well done. The audience members definitely felt like they were in a college fraternity party.

    Reply ↓

  7. I appreciate that you reviewed this film because I have been wanting to see it so badly, but I know that I am going to either love it or hate it. I have mostly heard raving comments from people who laughed hysterically the whole time, but I know if I go in with that expectation, it might be a let-down. I also wonder what specifically you would consider the most offensive parts of the film? You eluded to it a couple different times that there were parts that were way cruder than typical comedy films, but I come from a family of crude jokers, so I’m wondering how crude is too crude. But otherwise, your review has further prompted me to go see this movie. Thanks!

    Reply ↓

  8. I haven’t seen this yet, but I definitely want to. I liked how you talked about how the camera portrays the first-person views of people who are drunk/stoned. Sounds really funny!

    Reply ↓

  9. Very great post.
    I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have truly loved browsing your blog posts.
    In any case I will be subscribing on your feed and I hope you write again very soon!
    Feel free to visit my website ✅

    온라인 카지노 게임
    스포츠 토토 일정
    토토 라이브 스코어
    온라인 카지노 사이트
    안전 카지노 사이트
    https://www.j9korea.com

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *