Good Neighbours (2024) – Film Review
Good Neighbours is a low-budget, indie film made in the UK by Hypericum Films. Part sci-fi and part horror film, it has much in common with Invasion of the Bodysnatchers, but may not be a great choice for those seeking a traditional horror flick. Somewhat more geared towards delivering giggles than goosebumps, Good Neighbours is a better choice for those who enjoy watching comedy horrors such as Lesbian Vampire Killers (2009) or The Vampire Next Door (2024).
Good Neighbours begins with a short segment featuring science fiction writer Suzie Holloway (Caitlin Cameron), who is walking home at night. Initially, Suzy appears quite relaxed but becomes uneasy when she arrives at the housing complex where she lives and finds several men loitering outside the main entrance. When she fails to latch the door properly, they follow her inside, and the tension builds nicely after they force their way through the closing doors to join her in the lift. These early scenes are very well done, and would be a great fit for a thriller. However, they suggest Good Neighbours may be a lot darker than it is, have questionable value, and could easily have been dispensed with.
The film proper begins by introducing Luke and Tameesha Ellery, and their young son Dominic (Param Patel). They live in a small, unexciting village where nothing ever happens; so Tameesha (L.A Rodgers) is quick to visit the new neighbours when Luke (Karl Kennedy-Williams) explains he’s late home from work because there’s a removal van blocking the driveway.
However, when Tameesha knocks at the door of the house across the street, she gets a shock. Although the new neighbours, Mary (Dani Thompson) and Joseph (Judson Vaughan), initially seem nice enough, both of them come to the door naked, causing Tameesha to avert her eyes and become lost for words.
Lack of modesty is not the only unusual thing about the new neighbours. Both of them also have robotic speech patterns that, though not harsh or unpleasant-sounding, are anything but natural. Uncomfortable hanging around, Tameesha keeps the introductions brief, but, before she leaves, invites Mary and Joseph over for dinner. Although she probably only made the invitation to avoid seeming rude, it’s a bad move because Mary immediately throws back the question, “When?” Caught off-guard, Tamesha suggests the following evening at 8 p.m. This sets the stage for a strained social gathering that begins with Mary and Joseph showing a degree of confusion about how they should behave, and quickly goes downhill after one of Mary’s questions breaks a social taboo.
In response to Mary’s mistake, Luke makes one of his own. After telling their guests it’s time to leave, he adds that he doesn’t know what planet they come from, and “here on earth, you can’t say things like that.” Not understanding Luke has only used a common expression, the new neighbours turn on their hosts, revealing their superior strength. Even though Luke is a muscular guy, he proves no match for Mary, who easily drives her dinner fork through his hand, and deep into the table, using only finger pressure.
Although there is a little nastiness at times, Good Neighbours does not contain scenes of graphic gore and pumping blood. Above all else, it’s a fun film. This becomes clear the moment the Ellerys are introduced, and, when Mary and Joseph enter the picture, there is no going back—the overall humour brushes aside earlier indications the film may be a thriller, allowing it to show its true colours.
Even though Good Neighbours was produced on a low budget, it boasts a capable cast, and the simple settings work in the film’s favour, helping to enforce the idea that some very strange things are happening to an average British family, living in a normal home. Most of the action occurs in either the Ellerys’ home or the house of their neighbours, across the street. However, there’s a short scene, featuring a social influencer, that’s set in the woods. Probably included to suggest Mary and Joseph’s craft landed among the trees—where there’s a colourful crater in the ground—though entertaining, like the segment with the writer, it has questionable value. The crater is too small to provide a credible indication of a crash landing, and an explanation of the alien arrival isn’t strictly necessary. The driving force of the film is the interactions between the Ellerys and their new neighbours. Fun or not, the scene in the woods is more distracting than helpful.
The scenes with the Ellery’s dog Bruno is a different matter. He’s a cute little dog that always seems to be watching what’s going on and sitting in judgement. In one scene, Bruno pulls back his ears, turns his back and walks away, after Tameesha’s friend Fern (Chrissie Wunna) farts during a home yoga session. It would be hard to watch this scene without a smile on your face.
Aliens come to earth and start replacing people: it’s been done before many, many times. With a low-budget and limited special effects, Good Neighbours had the potential to be a terrible film, but it’s not. The humorous take on this old idea, gives the production an edge, and the actors do a great job of bringing their characters to life. Thompson and Vaughan get top marks for making Mary and Joseph seem so strange, out of place, and out of their depth when it comes to portraying natural human behaviour. When they arrive at the Ellerys’ house, misunderstandings are rife, and Rodgers and Kennedy-Williams’ portrayal of the uncomfortable hosts, struggling to find common ground, helps to bring the scenes to life.
Unfortunately, Good Neighbours has the disadvantage of a predictable ending, and, after all that has happened, there is no way that the Ellery’s would be able to simply pick up their lives as they do. But these things can be forgiven because it’s not a film that aims to go head-to-head with serious horror or sci-fi films. The bottom line is, despite a few minor flaws, Good Neighbours is an enjoyable film that offers excellent entertainment value.
~~~