NEIGHBORS was a fun movie. It told it's story about a couple of new parents who are struggling to accept adulthood battling a legion of college frat members as led by a young man who was rapidly approaching his own moment where he'd have to learn to become an adult as his graduation looms. It's all about both sides inability to let go of carefree youth and accept their responsibilities, focusing their energies on an escalating prank war against each other instead. It made its point. It was funny. It ended. That should have been it. For some reason, it was followed by NEIGHBORS 2 (originally with the subtitle SORORITY RISING, but that seems to have since been dropped). We check back in on Mac (Seth Rogen) and Kelly (Rose Byrne) Radner who are about to have their second child and they're preparing to sell the home they bought (and fought for) in NEIGHBORS to upgrade to a larger home. They've got an interested buyer and all they have to do is get through 30 days of escrow and the deal is done. Unfortunately for them, a group of outcasts from the local college have decided to rebel against college regulations that prevent sororities from throwing parties. These three girls, led by Shelby (Chloë Grace Moretz), found their own sorority, Kappa Nu, in the house next door to the Radners and the battle starts all over again. It's round two of the battle of the young versus the not-quite-as-young (late 30's?).
Comedy sequels are a tricky business because you don't want it to come across as a cash grab. It's real easy for a studio to see a comedy do better than expected and immediately dump money into a sequel that rehashes all the jokes and plot devices from the first film. I'm looking at you, HANGOVER II. The second NEIGHBORS movie actually tries to add something new to the series. I appreciated how one of the first things director Nicholas Stoller addressed in the film's commentary (yes, I listened) was the fact that comedy sequels are generally a bad idea because comedies are premise-based and it makes additional movies tough since you're sort of stuck adhering to the premise that was so popular. So he was aware he'd have to keep the age gap prank war gimmick but he found a way to mix it up, making the adversary a sorority. I'm not saying "It's different because they're girls this time"; it's because the sorority is a bit more sympathetic. The battle isn't against cocky frat guys whose pride won't let them give the Radners peace. It's against a trio of girls who are a bit awkward and were having a rough go at college before they came together and were determined to buck the system and have the first sorority that can throw its own parties instead of forcing them to attend frat parties. They just want equal privileges, and they're not fighting for spite but for survival.
Does it make a huge difference? Big enough, I guess. NEIGHBORS 2 still retreads a lot of the same ground as the first film. The motivations have changed but the execution is the same. The movie even brings back the Radners' former nemesis Teddy (Zac Efron), originally as an adviser to the sorority seeking revenge for his frat before jumping ship to team with the Radners against this new threat. I said it for NEIGHBORS and I'll say it again: Zac Efron is a funny dude. He's one of the best parts of these NEIGHBORS movies. Rogen and Byrne are great in their own right but, just as with the first movie a bit, some of their lines (improv?) seemed forced and disingenuous. Efron's delivery and performance is more natural; I genuinely buy him as a muscle-bound halfwit who only knows a life of partying and sincerely wishes his life held some sort of value. The girls in the sorority do a pretty good job but I found it harder to believe their dip into utter villainy by the end (in part because they were so sympathetic). When Shelby and her friends start chucking tampons at the Radners' house, it feels too extreme for them because I don't think the movie established them as insane as the fraternity from the first film. Regardless, it all works well enough that NEIGHBORS 2 will entertain anyone who liked the first movie. It's pretty harmless. We didn't need it. We got it anyway, it's way better than it could've been, but it's not quite funny/different enough to have warranted its existence in the first place.
Comedy sequels are a tricky business because you don't want it to come across as a cash grab. It's real easy for a studio to see a comedy do better than expected and immediately dump money into a sequel that rehashes all the jokes and plot devices from the first film. I'm looking at you, HANGOVER II. The second NEIGHBORS movie actually tries to add something new to the series. I appreciated how one of the first things director Nicholas Stoller addressed in the film's commentary (yes, I listened) was the fact that comedy sequels are generally a bad idea because comedies are premise-based and it makes additional movies tough since you're sort of stuck adhering to the premise that was so popular. So he was aware he'd have to keep the age gap prank war gimmick but he found a way to mix it up, making the adversary a sorority. I'm not saying "It's different because they're girls this time"; it's because the sorority is a bit more sympathetic. The battle isn't against cocky frat guys whose pride won't let them give the Radners peace. It's against a trio of girls who are a bit awkward and were having a rough go at college before they came together and were determined to buck the system and have the first sorority that can throw its own parties instead of forcing them to attend frat parties. They just want equal privileges, and they're not fighting for spite but for survival.
Does it make a huge difference? Big enough, I guess. NEIGHBORS 2 still retreads a lot of the same ground as the first film. The motivations have changed but the execution is the same. The movie even brings back the Radners' former nemesis Teddy (Zac Efron), originally as an adviser to the sorority seeking revenge for his frat before jumping ship to team with the Radners against this new threat. I said it for NEIGHBORS and I'll say it again: Zac Efron is a funny dude. He's one of the best parts of these NEIGHBORS movies. Rogen and Byrne are great in their own right but, just as with the first movie a bit, some of their lines (improv?) seemed forced and disingenuous. Efron's delivery and performance is more natural; I genuinely buy him as a muscle-bound halfwit who only knows a life of partying and sincerely wishes his life held some sort of value. The girls in the sorority do a pretty good job but I found it harder to believe their dip into utter villainy by the end (in part because they were so sympathetic). When Shelby and her friends start chucking tampons at the Radners' house, it feels too extreme for them because I don't think the movie established them as insane as the fraternity from the first film. Regardless, it all works well enough that NEIGHBORS 2 will entertain anyone who liked the first movie. It's pretty harmless. We didn't need it. We got it anyway, it's way better than it could've been, but it's not quite funny/different enough to have warranted its existence in the first place.