Good Neighbours (2011)
Neighbors Spencer and Louise have bonded over their fascination with a recent string of murders terrorizing their community. When a new tenant named Victor moves into the building, all three quickly hit it off. However, they soon discover each has his or her own dark secret. As the violence outside mounts, the city retreats indoors for safety. But the more time these three neighbors spend together in their apartment building, the clearer it becomes that what they once thought of as a safe haven is as dangerous as any outside terrors they could imagine.
Watch Trailer
Cast
Similar titles
Reviews
Memorable, crazy movie
From my favorite movies..
Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.
Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.
On several movie site I visit, there had been a buzz about an independent Canadian murder mystery film, that was supposed to be quite a thriller with big twist at the end. It sounded like the perfect movie for me and I couldn't wait to see it! Good Neighbors is about an apartment building in Canada that is getting a new tenant named Victor (Jay Baruchel). Victor immediately sees that something isn't right about the new place and soon learns that everyone is on edge because of a serial killer on the loose. A serial killer that I was able to identify ten minutes into the movie. How in the world can anyone, much less a movie fan, call this a thriller with a twist in the end? The killer was obvious from the very beginning and I'm willing to bet the average fourth grader would agree. As for the notion that this is a thriller? Come on, a thriller is supposed to have you on the edge of your seat, not falling asleep in it! The story was slow, sloppy, and predictable, but what about the acting. I generally like Jay Baruchel, but he is a mess in this film. Baruchel is way out of his element here and would probably do best sticking to Apatow comedies. The only bright spot in the film is Emily Hampshire, she's been around a while, but has never been in anything big. Hampshire was terrific and is really the only interesting character in this film. Good Neighbors is a huge disappointment and anyone who tells you otherwise can't be as big a movie fan as they proclaim to be. I can deal with slow moving, I can live with some boring parts here and there, but a painfully predictable story with very below average performances is a recipe for disaster.
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 nude scene with the massage therapy and that was seriously lacking... total disappointment
Huge flaw: The DNA of Victor's semen in the murdered drunk lady would be matched by the cops with the DNA of Spencer (now dead). They would not find a match, because Louise used Victor's semen for the fake (staged) rape. This makes the whole premise of a solved case totally illogical. I can't believe they did this. Awful and obvious storyline flaw. I suppose they could have fixed this flaw with a variety of other solutions. Too bad they didn't because it was a good movie otherwise. The other weak part about the plot is that you know Spencer is the murderer about 4 minutes into the plot -- maybe that part was designed. The semen error is obvious to anyone who ever watches 48 hours or Cops or CSI or Dexter, etc. etc. Hollywood and its Canadian counterparts have turned us all into backseat drivers in the crime business!
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.