IMDb > Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Forgetting Sarah Marshall More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 32:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 319 reviews in total 

16 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

Just not funny

1/10
Author: tamemlin from United States
2 August 2010

I cannot understand why this film has received such a high rating. It's slow, moany and not in the least bit funny. Jason Segel is not leading man material. And neither is his penis.

The characters are all unlikable, one dimensional bores. There's no set-pieces whatsover, just a long string of static scenes that have no edge. You don't even get many shots of beautiful Hawaii. It's just really weak film-making.

The one plus-point is Mila Kunis, who is a cut above everybody else, and Paul Rudd does his best to improvise some life into his weak role. But there's still no laughs to be had here. Avoid this trash.

Was the above review useful to you?

30 out of 50 people found the following review useful:

Forgetting this movie!

1/10
Author: Pavla_M from Croatia
9 January 2009

I gave this movie a chance only because it had very good reviews. After seeing the trailer I thought - what an unfunny movie full of clichés. But I decided to give it a shot because trailers often don't portray the movie very well. What a waste of time... The movie is worst than the trailer and after spending 2 hours watching it, I couldn't recall one single line that made me laugh. The funniest parts of the movie were the CSI parodies, but that also is pretty passé. I couldn't relate to any of the characters nor hope that they will be together, because I found them utterly stupid. The plot is extremely predictable and inconclusive. Unintelligent comedy for people who are either still in high school or feel that way mentally.

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 30 people found the following review useful:

Literally The Emperors New Clothes

1/10
Author: ttherman-2 from United States
23 March 2009

I don't get it. I'm SO tired of people telling me these "Apatow" movies are funny, then I rent them and they are TOTALLY lame. All of them. This is a prime example. This one is LITERALLY, "The Emperors New Clothes." Someone has no clothes= laugh riot. And I have nothing against raunchy humor, but this is just not funny. I appreciate that they tried to have characters, but where are the jokes? It plays like a meandering weak sitcom with occasional nude people and unfunny cursing substituting for laughs. And two hours long????? You've got to be kidding me. Brevity is often best with comedy, but not in the Apatow cannon. "Knocked-Up," another disappointing snooze (that some critic compared"Annie Hall"-- Huh ????) is two hours and fifteen minutes!!!!!! I long for the days when Woody Allen's average length for a comedy was 86 minutes. Stop telling me this junk is funny! You want a funny, raunchy comedy? Rent, "Animal House."

Was the above review useful to you?

28 out of 49 people found the following review useful:

absolute to sh!

1/10
Author: John Davies from Barry - Wales, UK
8 January 2009

I endured this film just to satisfy my curiosity. It has to be one of the worst films I have ever sat through. I am amazed that this film currently has a 7.5 star rating. The acting is awful, script is non existent and the characters are so predictable and hollow. For a funny film I cannot remember even snickering once and fail to see how it could be defined as a comedy. Do yourself a favour and stay well away from this dross and check out some more worthy alternatives that would give you far greater pleasure. Check out films like the holiday or 27 dresses, these movies would offer a far more satisfying cinema experience. I sincerely hope more educated film goers vote negatively for this film, in the manner it genuinely deserves there bye giving it a more realistic rating that other film buffs could base their judgement upon. Come on folks let's be fair to everyone concerned and give those involved with this film a true reflection on what it is they have produced - an extremely mediocre picture that deserves to be forgotten very quickly.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Awful

1/10
Author: american beauty from Canada
2 January 2009

I'll just start by saying the only reason I'm spending ANY time reviewing this movie is to help avoid poor innocent souls of making the same mistake I did... watching this movie. Or half if it, anyway. It's the first movie I fast forwarded.

Honestly, this movie's plot barely moves. Nothing interesting happens, and nothing that's supposed to be funny actually is. The acting completely sucks. COMPLETELY. All they're missing in here is Miley Cyrus and they could call it a party. It probably doesn't help that I'm not fond of neither Kristen Bell NOR Mila Kunis.

I just think this is a movie with cheap humour and a shitty writing. I'm glad some people enjoyed it, I did not.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

I am very disappointed

4/10
Author: pizza_sky
4 February 2009

This movie wasted 2 hours of my time and just make me wanna scream: "LAME". Nicholas Stoller write the movie "Yes Man", but direct "this" maybe he should stick with writing.

I am so disappointed because I heard all the great review. I was expecting something like knocked up. They say this is from the maker of "Knocked up"? why can't I see the resemblance? but this just felt like a shallow, overdone-theme kind of movie for me. I am so disappointed. Actually it's not bad if you consider it as your-average-chick-movie, but that character of the "band guy" just get on my nerves

Maybe I was just not paying enough attention to the movie, but yeah they have some funny lines and scene, but i don't felt the originality. And the ending make the movie a little bit better. At least the ending is not some boring cliché one.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

Boring and mila kunis is super annoying.

1/10
Author: swtwendy1 from United States
15 September 2010

I thought this movie was really boring and monotoned. It was not funny at all. Mila Kunis was absolutely horrible at her acting. She was really annoying. Her voice was enough to drive someone nuts. I thought this movie had no plot what-so-ever. All there was that happened was lots of sobbing, lots of stalking, and idiocy. Garbage. It tried too hard to be funny. It was a complete waste of time. I thought that it made no sense at all. The ending was sloppy and random. it seem like they tried to rush the ending just to get it over with. I had no idea why and how he even got to send a letter to the girl! The beginning was super dull and showed no relationship value between peter or Sarah Marshall. The acting was super phony. I think that the only reason why it would have good reviews is because of all the excessive sexing and apparently Mila Kunis' tits.. which is not even a real picture of her.. its photo-shopped. so think before you even bother to watch this stupid movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

Maybe One or Two Laughs

4/10
Author: FakeIDs
31 August 2008

To be honest, I didn't think Forgetting Sarah Marshall was much better or worse than The Heartbreak Kid. I think I laughed during the pediatrician scene and one other part that I can't remember. The characters are just a collection of stereotypes...and they are not even up-to-date stereotypes! Surfers that have smoked themselves into a stupor are way eighties, dudes. I think Paul Rudd, whom I like, knew his character was just another variation of Spicoli and phones it in a little.

A weepy Emo rocker or even an angry white rapper would've been more contemporary than a sex-obsessed British rock star. You would have to go back decades to find a musical artist that even remotely resembles him. They even miss chances to poke fun at real-life personalities. Sarah Marshall could have been one of those boozy ingénues that flash their privates as they get out of limos.

Supporting characters are unnecessarily inserted into the story and eventually forgotten, but they don't even provide an excuse for a clever joke. There is a Christian couple on their honeymoon that are completely pointless and they lead to some of the worst gags in the movie. All you are left with is something that is going to potentially insult a large group of people and you didn't even get a single laugh out of it. Jonah Hill and his infatuation with the rock star goes nowhere and is not particularly funny. The other characters have become all-too-familiar in a romantic comedy. The too-good-to-be-true romantic interest. The henpecked husband and friend of the hero. Et cetera.

There was a stand-up comedian on the talk show circuit a few years back who would make a joke about how people will get tattoos of symbols in foreign languages that have no meaning, like the Japanese kanji for "water." They shoehorn the joke into the film by having it spoken by an airhead who is suddenly translating tattoos in other languages. Maybe Carlos Mencia contributed to the movie?

When Judd Apatow produced a good comedy show, "Freaks & Geeks," it was largely ignored by the public and was quickly canceled after one season. When he started appealing to the lowest common denominator, the same people were suddenly his biggest fans and praised him. You start to see why "That 70's Show" lasted 8 seasons and why "Two and a Half Men" is entering its sixth. Meanwhile, "Arrested Development" barely makes it to 3.

Almost every opportunity and set-up the movie has to do something clever, they take the easy and predictable route. I was actually surprised by how many of the jokes were just plain cheesy. The only thing you can say in defense of such a shallow movie is that it is comparatively better than Disaster Movie or Good Luck Chuck, but that should not impress anyone. You would almost have to be trying to make a worse comedy than those. It is like when people orgasm because gas prices fall a little, but they are still paying more than they should. People are becoming conditioned to bad comedy.

And, yes, there is a token ethnic guy.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Really waste of time

1/10
Author: WatchIsWasteOfTime from Stuttgart
19 January 2014

For starters, sorry for my English but I am not a native – but suffering by watching this movie made me to write a review. I have never seen such a boring film/story in my entire live. Don't want to blame the producers/director of the film – they made their money I assume, but it was really awful, even the attempts to slapstick were horrible. All characters are empty jars, it is all quite predictable. Well, thats not unusual in a romantic comedy, but here it is just way too much. In the beginning there is shown the genitals of the main character 3 times - or maybe a dummy of them, and you are asking yourself: why the h... is that necessary? Is that supposed to be funny? The story dabbles on and on, he is left by her, he is a real lame duck, anyhow he manages to get a lot of quite beautiful women in his bed trying to forget his ex with sex - what never works out and what in the meantime is common knowledge to every hillbilly. Nothing will help, so he is going on vacation at a resort in Hawaii - and nice coincidence - accidentally his ex-girlfriend is in the same resort with her really dummy of a rock star-boyfriend and on and on ... horrible. Rather not necessary to say that he stays all the time a real sissy. Strongly recommended - not.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

I'll Soon be Forgetting Forgetting Sarah Marshall

Author: JoeytheBrit from www.moviemoviesite.com
23 July 2010

It's no surprise that this film pretty much divides opinion between the young and not-so-young (according to the user ratings) and, to a lesser extent, between women and men. You'd expect it to be a chick flick rom-com (if you forgot that Judd Apatow was involved) but, with its irreverent gross-out comedy and stock of hot females, it's no wonder that it appeals to young men.

Jason Segel stars as Peter, a musician who finds himself dumped by his TV star girlfriend. On the advice of his slightly nerdy friend, Peter decides to fly to Hawaii to forget her, but guess what? She's only there! At the same hotel! Who'd have thought it? Unfortunately, she's there with the man she dumped Peter for, a hairy rock star played by the witless Russell Brand. This being a product of La-La land, it's absolutely impossible for either party to consider changing hotels, so the hapless Peter runs into his ex and her new man everywhere he goes. Luckily for him there's a luscious receptionist on hand to help soothe his pain…

The film's amiable enough, but it struggles to find many laughs in such a clichéd situation. Many scenes and situations seem to have been created for no apparent reason: a sub-plot involving a dorky pair of newlyweds goes nowhere and is abruptly dropped, leaving you to wonder why it was included in the first place; Pete's ex's TV programme is dropped while she's on holiday but, after a brief conversation, is also forgotten. Apparently the story is based on the writer's own break up from an actress, so maybe there's some kind of catharsis going on here, but that doesn't excuse a plot that is more merely a collection of incidents than a properly constructed narrative.

Jason Segel makes a likable leading man, although, like most of us, he looks immeasurably better in his clothes than out of them. He just about manages to get the audience on his side, even though his character would no doubt be something of a nightmare to live with and he would be lucky to maintain a meaningful relationship with a woman for five months let alone five years. Kristen Bell as his errant girlfriend looks yummy, but her character is poorly written. Is she a heartless cow, confused, or simply at the end of her tether? Whatever she is, the script treats her with something approaching contempt much of the time. Mila Kunis, as Segel's true love outshines Bell in every department (can she really be the voice of Meg in Family Guy?), but again her character lacks consistency. Russell Brand manages to be marginally less annoying then he normally is, which is probably the biggest compliment he'll ever receive from me.

This isn't a great film by any measure, but its popularity will probably prove enduring enough to ensure it's shown every other day on some second-tier satellite channel.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 2 of 32:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history