Comparable to Don't Breathe?
-
highlandpercussion — 9 years ago(August 31, 2016 12:59 PM)
The "hermit with a dark past" idea is definitely similar, but I see this film as more of a psychological thriller and Don't Breathe as decidedly a horror film. That is, Don't Breathe's intention (to me) seemed to be to frighten its audience, whereas this film was more driven by an in-depth examination of human motives.
-
Teriek-Williams — 9 years ago(September 13, 2016 03:32 PM)
Actually, Don't Breathe was never scary. It was more psychological in forcing the audience to consider how horrific a real situation can be. As a film, it examined the motivations of all the characters. And the "dark past" isn't really that dark. In fact, the lead protagonist had a more dark past.
The Good Neighbor seems like its exploring mischievous kids who learn that not everyone is to be messed with. In that, it comes off as a moral story with thriller techniques. -
Teriek-Williams — 9 years ago(September 17, 2016 10:30 PM)
I just watched The Good Neighbor yesterday night. Neither film is a horror film. Of the two Don't Breathe is the better film. One must be patient with The Good Neighbor for it pay off because the pay off is at the end. However, in the case of both, neither give the audience what they expect.
-
hi_im_manic — 9 years ago(September 18, 2016 09:56 PM)
The Good Neighbor is actually superior in terms of production value and giving thinking audiences an indulgence. They are similar indeed, but one outshines the other in satisfaction, particularly where acting set and direction were concerned.
-
Teriek-Williams — 9 years ago(September 19, 2016 12:00 AM)
I disagree.
Don't Breathe has vastly better production value (directing, cinematography, editing, production design). Much of The Good Neighbor consists of stationary cameras and ordinary settings whereas Don't Breathe pulls off a more logistically-challenging feat taking into account space, movement and lighting (or lack of). People are actually talking about Fede Alvarez's directing in Don't Breathe. I cannot say that of Kasra Farahani.
As a story, Don't Breathe has better pacing as it successfully explains the motivations of its characters within short, simple sequences ultimately contributing to 10 to 15 minutes of setup before moving into its main conflict. By comparison, The Good Neighbor plods and has brief narrative "courtroom" breaks that takes half the run-time before it can get into the deeper (and more interesting) motivations of the characters. Much of the first half is exposition in the form of "found footage" sequences some of which don't serve the narrative well or could be better written to reflect its purposes. The second half is where The Good Neighbor begins to click as begins to focus more fully on the underlying aspects of its characters. However, the film's overall strength lies with its final 20 minutes posing more thought, implication and wonder than a single sequence that came before it.
And I assume I'm talking to the minority here, considering that consensus shows Don't Breathe being better received in all respects than The Good Neighbor, which has received mixed-to-negative reviews from critics overall and borderline-average reviews from audiences, all of which are lower than the reception of Don't Breathe both critically and from audiences even on this site. The biggest satisfaction I got from The Good Neighbor was the last 20 minutes. All of Don't Breathe was satisfying because its a tighter, more direct and better crafted film all around. -
Thrill_KillZ — 9 years ago(September 21, 2016 02:01 PM)
The Good Neighbor is actually superior in terms of production value and giving thinking audiences an indulgence.
Obviously you're free to have your own opinion, but imo this direct to VOD flick is by far inferior to Don't Breath in every category, not just in my opinion, it had a ridiculously successful theatrical run(made a ton multiple weeks) and has extremely positive reviews. It stands at 7.6/10 with over 25k votes, that's nearly the highest rated horror/thriller film on IMDb. This on the other hand, a lot of meh and extremely forgettable. That doesn't mean everyone preferred it over this, but they are the facts, the rest all falls under personal objectivity.
About "giving thinking audiences an indulgence", I don't really understand what it was about watching two immature boys play cruel pranks on an old man that indulged your cerebrum so furiously, guess we'll agree to disagree as I found neither film in that category. -
cyclonajade150 — 9 years ago(September 16, 2016 06:07 AM)
If you're looking for a scary movie, you're looking in the wrong place. Don't think it could be compared to 'Don't Breathe' at all, other than an old man and teenagers. Thats where the similarity ends. This is more an emotional sucker punch.
-
hindsights5150 — 9 years ago(November 28, 2016 02:27 AM)
Don't Breathe was a great movie, very suspenseful and well paced the whole way through. The Good Neighbor was boring and the whole movie was filler just to get to the twist. This movie had nothing going for it, they thought of that twist, then wrote a lame movie around it.
-
songod-95003 — 9 years ago(September 22, 2016 12:32 PM)
"Don't Breathe" had a great concept and started out somewhat promising (though the idea of breaking into anyone's home you have ever been in and "finding" their money is pretty idiotic) but then devolved into nonsense.
James Caan here
did something he has not done since I saw "Brian Song" when I was a kid made me cry. -
Caulk_Rocket — 9 years ago(December 06, 2016 05:13 AM)
Don't Breathe was a modern-day exploitation film.
The Good Neighbor was an attempt at making a found footage thriller less annoying by using real actors and actual scenes spliced in (which I can commend), but the twist almost turned this into Boyhood.