'Why Him?' Review

2016 has been a very mixed year for comedy movies. There have been some great ones this year with some really clever humour. However, there has been a whole bunch of terrible comedies, mainly in the Rated R range. Unfortunately for viewers, 2016 has powered one last terrible comedy before the year finishes.

On his birthday Ned Fleming (Bryan Cranston) finds out that his darling daughter Stephanie (Zoey Deutch) has a boyfriend. Stephanie invites her family to her boyfriend's home for the holidays in order to meet him. Once the Fleming's arrive, they realise that Stephanie's boyfriend is vulgar, unfiltered, mega-rich Laird Mayhew (James Franco). Ned immediately dislikes Laird who wants to propose on Christmas but won't do so until he has Ned's blessing. Laird has 5 days to win him over whilst Ned tries his best to get his daughter to separate from Laird.

'Why Him?' features the likes of Bryan Cranston, who is an experienced actor in comedies and has done great work in the genre. Alongside him is James Franco, an actor who also has done some good work within the genre. Megan Mullally is also in this movie who has also done great work, receiving multiple award nominations for her role in 'Will & Grace'. One of the best comedic minds in film right now Keegan Michael-Key is also in this movie. With this amount of talent surely this film would be pretty funny right? Sadly, no. Well, surely it'd be fairly entertaining right?......

This is the latest Rated R 'comedy' this year that has completely missed the mark. Instead of coming up with clever jokes that can be crude, the film just resorts to random cussing, terrible pop culture references and characters saying things very loudly. The film relies heavily on these types of jokes which really hurts the film as if you are not a 12-year-old boy, you probably won't find it funny. Director John Hamburg wrote this film in what was his second dud of the year after 'Zoolander 2'. Much like that film, 'Why Him?' seems to lack a lot of creativity as it relies on the characters saying the F word a hundred times in a sentence. This film also looks to rely on cameo appearances throughout the film as well for cheap laughs. If this is the standard of comedy we are getting now then we truly are in dark times. If you like this immature kind of comedy then you will probably love this film but in the end, the film is simply moronic.

Cranston is alway enjoyable to watch and is the least guilty culprit out of the main characters when it comes to the comedy. He can only do so much and his natural likeability also helps but it cannot help the poor writing. The funniest person in this film was easily Keegan Michael-Key who goes all out in his role as a German estate manager. Michael-Key completely transforms into his character and has the best moments of the film, showing why he is one of the best in comedy right now. Unfortunately, it ends just about there. All James Franco does in this film is speak like a 12-year old who think he's cool because he can swear. It gets pretty old very quickly and you are really unsure as to why Stephanie is with him and changing her life for him. The younger brother in this film was pretty insufferable as he looks to follow in Laird's footsteps with the way he acts.

The story looks to contrast Ned and Laird at first and then show them to actually be quite similar at the end. The only thing, though, that the two are similar with is that they are both honest. Ned doesn't hold back in telling people what he thinks but only in private. Laird just says whatever he wants with no filter. This is the basis that the film tries to create a similarity with but it just isn't the same. Due to this, the ending seems very force as Ned seems to just forget about everything and accepts Laird, who hasn't changed at all. This was very lazy as it forced the ending rather than actually building the story to make a visible arc from the characters. 

'Why Him?' really isn't anything spectacular. If you've seen any of the other poor crude comedies this year, then you've pretty much already seen this film. It is the same run of the mill rubbish with no creativity within whatsoever. Some decent performances can't save this terrible comedy, that ends the year of 2016 horribly.

Final Verdict = 

So have you seen 'Why Him?'? If so, what did you think of the film? I hope that this review was useful for if you were planning on seeing this film or not. Once again, thank you for taking the time to read my review, it is much appreciated!

By Angus McGregor

'The Inflitrator' Review

Bryan Cranston really seems to be able to do no wrong recently and 'The Infiltrator' backs that up. Where Cranston shines, the film slowly follows as the film takes its time to reach its true quality.

In 1986, federal agent Robert Mazur (Bryan Cranston) goes undercover to infiltrate the trafficking network of Colombian drug kingpin Pablo Escobar. Working alongside fellow agents Kathy Ertz (Diane Kruger) and Emir Abreu (John Leguizamo), Mazur poses as a slick, money laundering businessman Bob Musella. After gaining the trust of Roberto Alcaino (Benjamin Bratt), one of Escobar's top lieutenant's, Mazur must navigate his way around the criminal underground where one mistake could cost him everything.

Following the huge success of 'Breaking Bad' and off the back of an Academy Award nomination for 'Trumbo', Bryan Cranston is continuing to show why he is one of the best working actors today. Cranston has incredible range and this is shown throughout the film in a number of different ways. He's really allowed to showcase a large number of his talents in 'The Infiltrator' as he delivers great serious scenes portraying Musella but also moments where we see his character as a true family man. Cranston really is a remarkable talent and this performance more than backs it up.

Despite Cranston delivering another great performance, he cannot fully carry the movie to success. 'The Infiltartor' really struggles to find a main focus early on, both in the story and in tone. The film introduces us to a lot of characters early on and it isn't until later on in the film when Alcaino is introduced that the film really finds its main focus. Those who we meet beforehand don't get much time to be fully introduced and aren't interesting enough for you to become fully interested in. Alcaino then is introduced and the story focuses between his and Mazur's relationship and is where the film really improves and flourishes. 

The tone early on the film seems fairly lighthearted with comedy moments being very apparent. This does not help the film for one as the moments don't deliver as well as they could leaving the comedy to fall fairly flat. This also takes away from the tension that the film possesses when Mazur is in these potentially dangerous situations. Due to the comedy incorporated into these scenes and into the build up, the suspense doesn't work that well. Again, going back to the previously mentioned point, the film seems to sort this when Roberto Alcaino is introduced. The film then doesn't use as much comedy which really makes the situations and relationships in the film much more effective. It takes its time to reach this point but when it gets there, the film becomes so much better.

The relationship between Mazur and Alcaino is the strongest part of the film - alongside Cranston's performance - as the bond between the two is very interesting. We see that throughout the film, the pair grow to genuinely become friends and this also has to do with the great performances from Cranston and Bratt. The pair work very well with each other and create a true bond of comradery. The way that the pair bond despite the relationship being built on lies was very intriguing. This added a very interesting look to how people like Mazur would work and how tough their job would be. One mistake could cost them everything which the film does well do emphasise, as Mazur has to keep his real life a secret at all times. Due to this, the film becomes fairly tense as there are moments where he could be exposed at any moment. These work very well in the film especially as the film gets closer to the end.

Overall, I feel that is the best way to describe the film. The further on you get, the higher the quality is. A stuttering start with comedy elements doesn't work too great but Cranston pulls through this and delivers a great performance, as does Benjamin Bratt and Diane Kruger who compliment Cranston very well. A very interesting story which unfortunately wasn't consistent all the way throughout.

Final Verdict = 

So have you seen 'The Infiltrator'? If so what did you think of it? I hope that this review was useful for if you were planning on seeing this movie. Once again, thank you for taking the time to read my review, it is much appreciated!

By Angus McGregor