I vicini di casa

In the times I have seen this movie(too many to count). I always find more to it.I enjoy this lost classic from the late great John Belushi more than so many over produced conventional movies and more than almost all of the SNL cast made movies.Belushi and Acroyd,a duo who didn't do enough together.

See this movie!

A plot synopsis here would be something of a waste of time, as one or more already appear on this site, but I felt some comments might attract another viewer to this unique film. The movie was very poorly received upon its release, by critics and audience alike. Many fans of Belushi and Aykroyd did not take to their reversal of what was typically their typecasts: here Belushi plays the straight man against Aykroyd's lunatic, which is what I beleive makes the movie so incredibly funny.

On another note: when watching this film, give some attention to the soundtrack, brilliantly done by Bill Conti. The soundtrack, which would probably not work with any other movie, fits Neighbors perfectly. Using the Wagnerian technique of leitmotives, Conti assigns themes to each character: Earl is portrayed by some "shlub" music on bass trombone, Vic gets an eerie theremin melody, Ramona's appearances are always underscored by a sultry saxophone, and native american drums accompany Earl's wife Enid. The way the music underlines the drama is hard to describe without sounding like it cheaply "mickey-mouses" the actions onscreen, so I will forgo an in-depth analysis.

Suffice to say: great movie, brilliant soundtrack.

The people at Columbia must have thought this was a surefire winner when they saw the inital idea for this film; with a simple but potentially funny premise and two capable and talented stars, how could it miss?

Unfortunately it does and by a long way. The blame for this shouldn't be at Belushi and Aykroyd's feet as they do what they can with their limited roles; the blame should be with an unfunny and illogical script and very uninspired direction. As a result, there are only a couple of amusing moments in the film.

Two things underline what is wrong with this film. Firstly, the film's music score is atrocious (some earlier reviews disagree on this); it's so heavy-handed and obvious that it almost single-handedly ruins the comedy potential of the film's opening scenes. The film may have been better off without a music score at all.

Secondly, the character of Enid Keese is so poorly constructed that she negates to a large extent the laughs created by the three other main characters in the film; her character simply makes no sense. For example, when her daughter comes back and announces that she has been kicked out of school, while Earl is understandably upset by this Enid hardly seems bothered by it at all.

This turd won't send many running to Thomas Berger's rich novel, which is a shame. The book is everything the film failed to be: a scathing satire on moronic American suburban life.

The problem is a director far out of his depth. Though armed with a script largely faithful to its subversive source material, director John Avildsen (Rocky, Karate Kid) is a maker of feel-good entertainment who hasn't a clue how to handle satire or absurdity. It's like asking John Ashcroft to rap.

While Belushi is serviceable and Akroyd is fun, we can only imagine how this last partnership might have turned out in competent hands. They're frequently misdirected by Avildsen who thinks he's doing Reagan-era Abbott and Costello. Painful; read the novel.

My memories of real youth, like from five to ten years old are completely blurred for the most part but for some reason I remember watching John Belushi movies. I remember going to see `Neighbors' and `Continental Divide' in the theater! I haven't really examined this but basically since I was born I have adored John Belushi. I remember renting `Neighbors' when the VCR was a new item and I'd watch it over and over again. I guess I was a pretty strange ten-year old. Memories of watching his movies, his death and whatever else are still with me in strange little flashes.

I find `Neighbors' to be his best work. This is a controversial opinion! I've recently reread Woodward's `Wired' and it seems John detested everything about this movie. He had sincere hatred for the director, Alvidsen- he continually asked to replace him. Yet, John's biggest concern for `Neighbors', again citing from Woodward's book, was the soundtrack. He wanted it to be punk rock and Holy Christ did it ever wind up the antithesis. Of course I would love to have seen `Neighbors' done the way John would have intended it but I still am very fond of this movie as is. I think Alvidsen did a great job of bottling all of John's manic energy and I think he summoned his best performance. It's such a strange contradiction that, again from reading `Wired', John wanted desperately to lose the `Bluto' stigma and prove he could be a versatile actor. This role reversal gave him that chance and yet he was against this film from the beginning.

I think `Neighbors' is fantastic. It's like `Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf' on acid or something. This film should be examined by future filmmakers as an example of how what seems like all the wrong ingredients can make a positive and an unforgettable piece of cinema in the end.