I’ll give “Why Him?” credit: it nailed the awkwardness of its plot. It is the tried-and-true formula of the odd couple, this time in the just as tried-and-true formula of the outlandish boyfriend and the disapproving father. The boyfriend is Laird Mayhew (James Franco), an internet zillionaire banking off a string of successful apps. The father is Ned Fleming (Bryan Cranston), a conservative CEO of a printing company that is naïve to the world around him. The two hit it off terribly; Laird’s foul-mouth and lude behavior upsetting the right as rain Fleming patriarch. He can’t fathom what his daughter, Stephanie (Zoey Deutch), sees in him and is appalled at the notion of the two marrying. It should come as no surprise that the two bond by film’s end, but not before a slew of raunchy hijinks.
While the raunchy hijinks do ensue, the presentation of them is incredibly stilted! Nearly every joke is dragged out and accompanied by an awkward pause, as if the film is on pause to allow the audience to laugh. Other instances give way to copious amounts of adlibbing, most of which falls flat on its face. Cedric the Entertainer, a co-worker of Cranston’s, harps on a joke about him hating his child’s fiancé long past its expiration date…and it wasn’t even funny to begin with! It’s as if they forgot to edit the film, leaving in the outtakes.
Even the jokes that do connect only muster up a chuckle. They are met with uncomfortableness due to them not being allowed to die. The characters embarrassingly gawk at one another as jokes continue to fester, as if they’re waiting on the director to yell cut. One gag involves Ned not knowing how to operate a Japanese toilet, the kind that cleanse the person after using the facilities. Cranston must sit on this toilet awkwardly as water is spritzed into his face, then his privacy is invaded as Laird’s assistant/life coach, Gustav (Keegan-Michael Key), enters the bathroom in order to fix the machine. It goes on for far too long, as does the film.
I felt bad for the film, as it felt more the victim of desensitization than lack of effort. John Hamburg’s direction may feel uninspired, but the cast is game, trying their hardest to make the material work. Franco is as weird as ever, yet honest enough in his approach to endear the audience to him. Even so, he struggles in making the one-dimensional antics palatable. Cranston is going for the haggard father figure, but his conservatism is downplayed. He acts slightly bothered instead of appalled by Laird’s unfiltered attitude, diminishing the impact of the straight man act. It’s hard to laugh at his misery when he doesn’t come across as such.
Take for example Ned’s reaction to his fifteen year-old son, Scotty (Griffin Gluck), being shown hardcore pornography during a party. He is disgusted by the video, but makes no effort to prevent his son from seeing it. This is the same man whose conservatism has been beaten into the audience’s skulls from the outset, yet he never follows through on it. He’s miffed when Laird swears around his son, but never outraged. He’s annoyed that his friends got his wife, Barb (Megan Mullaly), stoned, but meekly confronts the situation. Where’s the conflict? By the time he does snap and comically fights Laird, it feels limp.
“Why Him?” is the victim of the raunchy comedy, valiantly trying to keep up, but coming across as rather tame. The script (credited to Hamburg, Ian Helfer, & Jonah Hill) is littered with vulgarity, sexual innuendos, bizarre side characters, and an adherence to the strange. Laird decorates his house with the zaniest of curiosities, including bizarre paintings of animal intercourse, eccentric murals of sexuality, and a stuffed moose encased in its own urine. And yes, the casing cracks, causing a flood of urine to drench the house. There’s even a moose teabagging to go along with it.
Also adorning the walls are portraits of the Fleming family. An overdone running gag involves Laird’s obsession with accepting the Flemings as his own, despite only meeting them for the first time. He’s instructed his version of Siri, named Justine and inexplicably voiced by Kaley Cuoco, to dig up information on them in order to make their stay more pleasant. This includes constructing a bowling alley with a portrait of Ned acting as the banner. He even gets their family Christmas card tattooed on his back. All of this is meant to elicit uncomfortable laughter, but it missed the mark. Again, because nobody seems to be that bothered by it.
There are but two inspired moments of comedy in the film. One involves Ned’s misunderstanding of the word bukkake, hilariously misusing it during the party! The other involves a hack retaliation on Laird’s part that is so crass it’s amusing. Attempting to hack into his system is Kevin Dingle (Zack Pearlman), a creepy IT guy enlisted by Ned to dig up dirt on his daughter’s boyfriend. Kevin has the hots for Stephanie and creepily asks her father (who is also his boss) for nudes of his daughter. At one point, she and Laird have sex while Ned is hiding in the office and Kevin demands he get to see it over the video chat. Ned dismisses him, but acts as if this is normal behavior. How is this man conservative!?!
And yes, Ned gets stuck in the office whilst his daughter has sex because that’s a trope that hasn’t been played out. Half of “Why Him?” is a recycling bin of familiar tropes, all done better elsewhere. Characters referencing pop culture they’re unfamiliar with is done here, with Laird & Gustav’s fight training being reminiscent of Inspector Clouseau & Cato in “The Pink Panther.” This was done better with the band TLC & Michael Keaton in “The Other Guys.” The Flemings’ affinity for the band KISS reminded me of the superior “Role Models,” where the band’s music was put to better use. There was comedy mined from it in that film, as to where it’s just used here to spice up the soundtrack.
Speaking of the soundtrack, the film’s score (conducted by Theodore Shapiro) is eerily quiet. There are numerous times where there’s no musical score playing, not even background noise. It’s noticeable thanks to the countless awkward pauses, making for a rather bizarre experience. I started to wonder if my theater’s copy had a defect, as the sound of silence on the soundtrack was unusual. This is something I wouldn’t have paid much attention to had I been laughing, but alas that was a rare occurrence.
“Why Him?” isn’t even an awful comedy. It’s just a lousy one with poor pacing and recycled gags. The script tries too hard to be shocking and quirky, forgetting to play up the odd couple aspect. Nobody works off of each other as they should due to their characters being underwritten. There’s no tension to be had to mine humor from. Just a cavalcade of bawdy humor that feels tame by today’s standards.
Final Rating: C-