Good Neighbors

Horror movies are generally not good. Good comedies, although hard to write well, are easier to find. I normally wouldn't recommend anybody attempt a horror comedy, but "Good Neighbours" is Jacob Tierney and Jay Baruchel's follow-up to "The Trotsky" (2009) and I couldn't pass up that potential. The result though is something that's not scary and not very funny. "The Trotsky" mixed Russian political history with teen coming-of-age comedy and it was brilliant. "Good Neighbours" starts off with the Québec separation referendum in 1995, and frustratingly, they didn't do anything with that. I guess it was just supposed to be another check mark for as many Canadian references that you can put in a film. Victor (Jay Baruchel) is an elementary school teacher and new to Montreal; Louise (Emily Hampshire) is a waitress and lives with her cats; Spencer (Scott Speedman) is in a wheelchair and he's handsome. "Tragically handsome," as the gossiping ladies like to say. It's a good role for Speedman who has struggled to get away from the "cute" role that "Felicity" pigeon-holed him into, so he might as well embrace his looks. Here, he's supposed to smile at the camera and look cute and evil at the same time. They all live in the same apartment building in a neighbourhood that is being terrorized by a serial killer and rapist. This is a comedy but it's hard to figure out which parts to laugh at since rape and murder aren't all that funny. More deaths occur and more reasons to kill other people become apparent. Our three heroes / nonsensical characters each become potential suspects and potential serial killers in the making. We spent a long time being introduced to all of the characters which did provide for an interesting atmosphere but not an entertaining one. It didn't lead to anywhere fruitful. The plot which then became painfully apparent involved lots of blood, sex and sex jokes. Exactly the types of things you would expect to find in an unintentionally-funny horror flick. But this is a horror which is supposed to be funny. It was kind of funny but too stupid to be scary and too stupid to be enjoyable enough.

Gave this film a watch, the trailer made me curious. Specially when Spencer (the paralysed guy) gets up out of his wheelchair and begins walking. However, these are the things that didn't make this film a good one to watch: >What's with the cats? It made the scenes with Louise and the cats very cringy to watch and it was never really explained why she loved them so much. >Louise's attitude. What was with how impolite and rude she was? She barely smiles throughout the whole film and barely speaks a whole sentence. It was always one or two blunt words. >Who is the murderer/rapist? They kind of make it obvious with Spencer being it but its never really explained if it is or not. >We never understand what happens with the fact that Victor's sperm is inside the french lady who kills Louise's cats. So how after DNA testing would the evidence not point toward Victor. >What happens to Louise? Spencer says "you do not know what kind of woman she is." But then he gets killed. So what does he mean? Yeah she did that weird thing with the french lady over her cats but is their more to her character. >Lastly the end scene. Does no one know how to correctly end a film anymore? What is with the cat standing on the fish tank with piranha's in it? What does this have to do with anything? Over all. The film was very drawn out and bland all the way through. Each character was awkward to watch for different reasons and nothing was properly explained. I think the film's original ideas were good, however they couldn't think of a good story line to go with it. I wouldn't watch it again.

i just lost about 2 hours of my life watching this s#!t,it had nothing interesting and i already knew who the killer was.. .such a cliché.. it was sick and not worth seeing.i don't recommend it.. and now i will just write random things just to have 10 lines of text because i can't post it otherwise and i am really angry for expecting too much from this movie.i read the pro comments and i said i should give it a shot, but this movie cannot be seen not even if you are way too bored because it will make you fall asleep.i have already talked too much and i did not filled all the lines...as a good movie i would recommend This is England and In Brudges, i really enjoyed watching them.xx

SPOILER This movie SUCKED, the ending did not wrap up all the questions that the movie created, the DNA, of the sperm, it would match to the innocent guy but it would also show the sperm had been frozen. So he would have gotten off that charge. It also didn't answer the question of what was wrong with the female lead character....as each characters "flaw" was shown in the beginning of the movie. The cops seemed to be stupid as the lead female character knew or had involvement of two serial killer victims and they didn't find that suspicious ???? a waste of money the ONLY perk was the semi * scene with the massage therapy and that was seriously lacking... total disappointment

"A woman your age should always be concerned for her safety, it's a nasty world." Victor (Baruchel) has just moved to Montreal in the middle of a killing spree by a serial killer. He meets his new neighbors Louise and Spencer (Speedman) and does his best to become friends with them. Soon secrets are revealed. I will start by saying that I did enjoy this movie. The big problem with it is that it was very flat all the way through. Never got bad enough to stop watching and trying to figure out the killer made you want to keep watching till the end. The movie never really got to an exciting point where you are totally engrossed in it. I can't really say anything bad about this because I did like it, but I can't say anything good about it because it was slow and drawn out with very little action. Overall, not a bad movie so worth a watch. Not a good movie so don't rush to watch it though. I give it a B-. Would I watch again? - I don't think so. *Also try - Perfect Host

OK, nothing about this movie was funny. I found this completely boring and stupid. Besides the completely predictable 'plot twist' where the killer is the guy in a wheelchair who can actually walk (ugh, really?) most of this movie is split up between a bumbling idiot trying to win over a waitress who spends at least a fourth of the movie talking to her two cats. I like animals but I would never remotely believe that anyone would watch a movie where nothing happens and someone spends 70% of their dialog saying the same few things over and over to pets. Actually even the last five minutes of this movie is the woman having another identical conversation with a cat for like the fourth time. It adds insult to injury. I thought this was going to be a mystery movie, not 'conversations lonely cat woman has with her pets'. Don't watch this movie, it's really terrible.

***Spoiler alert*** What horrible SLOWWWWWW movie.... I seriously would've killed the cats in the 1st 10 min of this movie just so I wouldn't hear them whining in every scene of her apartment. Oh and you'd have to be pretty dumb not to guess who the killer is with in the 1st 10 min of the movie... SO mad I actually paid money to rent this piece of crap for $1.00 at Red Box.Seriously? I have to write 10 lines of text to review this thing? OK, I talked about turning off this movie 10 times in the first 1/2 hour because it was so boring and didn't seem to be going anywhere except for everyone I was watching it with wanting to drive to Canada, yank the crazy lady out of the apartment window and kill her ourselves.

but since I need 10 lines to write this review, here goes... Likable actors - notice I said actors and not characters. I thought Speedman was very good in "The Strangers" and that movie had some suspense. This movie was lacking direction, suspense and interest. When you read the summary, you think this sounds like a great movie. When you watch the movie, you think "how did they screw this up?" I like animals, but cats got on my nerves after watching this movie. The french speaking just felt contrived and introduced to seem more artsy. Ending - blew. No climax whatsoever. No resolution. If it was open to interpretation, I was too turned off to care. Now can someone please take the plot for this movie and make a good suspenseful one???

Although the film is not perfect by any means, and does contain so holes here that will have most scratching their heads, this is a brilliant piece of Canadian cinema considering it's track record with few to more hits recently. Parts of this film felt somewhat inspired by Kubrick's The Shining minus the hallucinatory elements as well as a Hitchockian noir element in the mix. This is a character piece that really gets into your head and keeps you guessing all the way through with the who-done-it element quite alive here. It is a bit slow paced, but that pacing works very well here, although, it may be the factor that loses most of it's audiences that happen to stumble upon it. The cast here is nearly flawless as well, and Canadian actor Jay Baruchel is great as always, but doesn't drown the rest of the cast. This makes for a nearly perfect drama thriller noir with some darkly comedic elements within.

Good Neighbors (2010) A Canadian indie thriller with spritely charm. Yup! The cast is small, the concept cute and macabre (both), and the filming and editing first rate. This is the latest installment of what is a new genre, mostly American, where a bright, lighthearted tone keeps a relatively serious theme tipped on edge the whole time. It's almost as if the filmmakers are tired of high drama movies, from true horror films to action adventure to even the moving dramas that win the awards. It's also, though, a product of budget, and making the most of small resources. "Good Neighbors" is in many ways a perfect small movie. Imagine the most common of situations--a small apartment building where two main characters each have an apartment. One is a disgruntled young woman with two sweet cats, her only real friends. The other is a charming handsome man in a wheelchair, with a cynical and mean interior. Then a newcomer arrives, all sweetness and kindness. Meanwhile, a serial killer is in the neighborhood, and the woman in particular follows the story for her own self-preservation. Because it's a tightly constructed movie you suspect that one of the three has something to do with the killings, but maybe not, as a fourth apartment dweller makes her viciousness known. This is the turning point, and things get complicated in a funny/tragic way in the last quarter of the film. As convincing as all these characters are (most of the time), there are few holes here and there. One of them is the series of crimes, and the minimal presence of the police (and rather unconvincing tough detective who looks better than he sounds for the part). In a way we're not supposed to believe or care about the crimes themselves, but in another way, the crimes become, increasingly, the whole movie. Thank goodness for the director that the Montreal police are apparently pretty relaxed about gathering evidence. Never mind the nitpicking, however. If you like the "indie" feel of movies like "Timer" or even "Juno" (which is better overall), this one will really take you in. It's a "delight" in the best sense of that word.