Neighbors has the odd distinction of being a film that’s both very funny and yet, at 96 minutes long, overstays its welcome. I blame most of this on what seems to be the prevailing idea in comedies involving Seth Rogen suggesting smoking weed is somehow both cool and hilarious. For Rogen in particular it seems to be something of a self-loathing sense of “look at how pathetically awesome this is” personality trait, and it’s a contradiction I can’t quite wrap my head around. It isn’t funny as much as it grows tired and redundant, but perhaps that’s my own personal hang up.
Directed by Nicholas Stoller (Forgetting Sarah Marshall) and written by newcomers Andrew J. Cohen and Brendan O’Brien, Neighbors is hardly high concept as a young couple, Mac and Kelly (Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne), with a newborn buy their first house in the suburbs only to find a fraternity is moving in next door.
Led by Teddy (Zac Efron) and Pete (Dave Franco), the fraternity does what fraternities will do, which is party into the wee hours of the morning and make the life of anyone not in college and living next to them a living hell. For the sake of this film, however, it’s only Mac and Kelly that seem to have an issue, but that’s a narrative construct easy enough to overlook, given we’re not talking about high drama here.
The jokes we’re looking at in Neighbors range from the obvious to the absurd, but for the most part it’s the cast that sells it. Rogen is easy to see in “man-child wanting to hold on to his younger years” mode, but it’s really Byrne that sells most of the comedy as it’s refreshing to see her in a character so far against type. I also loved the fact they allowed her character to maintain Byrne’s Australian accent, it only added to the comedy as she lets the expletives fly, especially opposite Rogen’s standard, slow-witted persona.
Efron and Franco also offer a great one-two punch and while the film does have its moments where it devolves into moments of dramatic tension it does it with a comedic bend, realizing the audience showed up to laugh, not to get involved with these characters on any real emotional level.
As I’ve already said, though, the biggest issue the film faces is the reliance on weed smoking and how redundant the pot and drug jokes can get. It’s apparently not enough to get drunk, pull stunts and throw toga parties, which this film touches upon frequently, many times as almost an homage to films such as Animal House, which this clearly wants to ape, only for the modern era.
I’d also love to know just how much of what’s on screen was scripted and how much was improvised on set. A couple scenes between Efron and Franco go on a little too long, but they are funny enough they ultimately work. Also, I’d wager any time Rogen begins saying “fuck” more than once or twice in any given moment of dialogue he’s going off script. He seems to think a punchline is exponentially funnier if he says “fuck” as many times as possible. It isn’t.
For the most part this is a series of punchlines and while the pot smoking jokes get old, the rest remains rather funny. This doesn’t change the fact that it’s a rather narrative-less feature, but I’d much rather watch a comedy that knows it’s a comedy and doesn’t try to turn the final act into something more dramatic than it needs to be.
The consequences for the debauchery on display are either recognized or so absurd you forgive them for ignoring them for the sake of laughter. Where the movie succeeds, which only adds to the comedy, is a clear representation of two sides of the age fence. On one side we all remember what it was like to party and have fun during our college years while older audiences will find a connection with the older, more mature couple, starting a family and finding comfort in a quiet night at home. Yet, that yearning for the days of their youth and occasionally allowing for a night of craziness of their own remains. Trust me, I know…
