IMDb > When in Rome (2010) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
When in Rome
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
When in Rome More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 9:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [Next]
Index 81 reviews in total 

75 out of 108 people found the following review useful:

Water would be more nutritious

1/10
Author: zhombu from Philadelphia
22 January 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Hollywood brings yet another pointless re-assemblage of stale ideas, preposterous events, plot loopholes, and ridiculous conveniences though which one could drive a galaxy, and I don't mean the Ford version. Nothing worth mentioning, really, but for one brief restaurant scene that was truly funny for its concept, though not its execution.

Girlfriend insisted so we went to the screening. Saw it for free and I was still annoyed. Will rue the lost ninety minutes on my deathbed. Being stuck in traffic with a full bladder would have been preferable. I suffered so you don't have to.

Avoid.

Was the above review useful to you?

92 out of 144 people found the following review useful:

Painfully Bad

2/10
Author: Rick Reynolds from Los Angeles
30 January 2010

This movie is painfully bad. What is truly sad about this, besides the fact that I wasted two full-priced movie tickets on it, is that both leads are charming and likable. Unfortunately, the script here is about as terrible as one can be.

Seriously. The FIRST SCENE features dialog that makes you squirm in pain. It is simply awkward, unnatural, and unfunny. It makes you think, "Should I get out and ask for refund?" The answer is yes. There a few decent moments during the 75 minutes that this movie actually runs, but it is difficult to appreciate them because there are so very many BAD moments. (75 minutes? Yes. Imagine what was left on the cutting room floor.) And not just bad moments, moments that fall flat on their face which are made worse because you know that they (the writers, director, producers) thought these were going to be great laughs. Of course, I could be wrong and the professionals mentioned above simply didn't care. They were getting a paycheck whether this movie was awful or not.

I would have given this movie 1 star, but I gave it two because both Kristen Bell and Josh Duhamel impressed me. It makes me sad to think that it is possible these young, promising actors are going to have this terrible movie on their resumes. It would be even worse if some studio doofus who didn't see this movie ends up saying, "That Kristen Bell, she can't carry a movie. 'When In Rome' proved that." Such a shame to waste talent like that.

Wait to see this wreck on cable, and when you see it on cable I bet you don't make it through the whole 1:15.

Was the above review useful to you?

57 out of 84 people found the following review useful:

Not Oscar-winning, but funny

6/10
Author: StarDragyn from USA
30 January 2010

Well, you may laugh, you may roll your eyes--you may do both simultaneously. Yes, it's a little cheesy; yes, the acting was not brilliant; yes, some of the gags seemed to repeat themselves. BUT, did I enjoy myself? Absolutely.

The humor mostly relies on a lot of physical comedy (people making blunders and bumping into things...), very little real "wit". I can't say even that the dialogue or the chemistry between the main actors was very good. But if you already know you're a sucker for romantic comedies (particularly heavily humor-laden ones, whether brilliant humor or otherwise), you will probably enjoy yourself. If you're the kind that is only rather surprised when you actually do find a romantic comedy you like, I really don't think you'll be finding it in this one.

No need to repeat the plot; the trailer says it all. And, really, with as simple a plot as it has, the trailer truly does pretty much say it ALL.

In short, it was relaxing and amusing (sometimes not the sort of amusing the director was going for, perhaps), and I enjoyed getting out of the house to go sit and catch a corny smile. Don't go if your demands or expectations are much higher.

Was the above review useful to you?

52 out of 76 people found the following review useful:

Oh my God...

Author: Screen_Queen from Australia
30 April 2010

I honestly cannot decide which is worse, this or The Bounty Hunter. They have both been the worst releases this year. If this is what romantic comedies are now, then I'm giving up on the genre entirely. After watching The Bounty Hunter, I thought things could not possibly get worse. But here I am.

Most bad movies have some reasonably highish points. This movie has positively none. There is no character development (and no, the ending with the guys does NOT count). The acting is just sub-par. The writing, I don't even want to talk about. It started this whole chain of disaster. The only reason I'm giving this a five and not a two is because I believe effort alone, no matter how bad the outcome, deserves merit. Kudos to them for that. But really, I'd rather do a 5000 word essay than go through this again. I actually felt dumbed down.

Was the above review useful to you?

33 out of 41 people found the following review useful:

When In Rome... Get Out

4/10
Author: MorganGrodecki from Canada
30 January 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

With the release of 2009's moderate hit "He's Just Not That Into You", audiences proved that with enough star power, even the most mediocre of films could make a smash at the box office. Following the trend, 2010's first romantic comedy 'When In Rome' hopes to achieve the same success with similar tactics. Sadly, if it's level of quality were indicative of how far it's legs will take it, the film may have been better off as a straight to DVD release.

The star powered film stars such front-line actors as Josh Duhamel, Kristen Bell and Danny DeVito, with an ensemble of B-listers that seems to never end. Focusing on Beth Harper, played monotonously by Bell, the movie is a meld of fantasy, comedy, and a lack of fresh ideas in Hollywood. The film begins the moment that Bell's lead character drunkenly delves for coins in the bottom of Italy's 'Fontana De Amoure', a poor choice which leads to five would-be-stalkers falling in love with her. The rest of the film is devoted to her trying to discover whether the one man she does love, Nick Beaman (Josh Duhamel), is truly her match, or merely the same as the rest of the crazed lunatics she's trying to avoid.

While the film maintains it's good intentions of romantic comedy lore, there are simply too many wincing moments that seem so terribly dated, quite often put on display with use of Duhamel's character and the poles that he repeatedly walks into, as example. In terms of overall acting, audiences may prove genuinely surprised by the lead male's performance, as the ex-Transformer star manages to successfully portray himself as the flawed charmer he is - all despite the massive chasm of chemistry that he shares (or doesn't) with Bell. In terms of the acting from the 'Veronica Mars' star, Bell's fifteen minutes of fame seem to be quickly drawing to a close, as she continues her simplistic, emotionless portrayal of a girl that is just ever so unique, or at least wishes she was.

In regards to the nearly non-existent script, there are a few genuine moments that play out as the Director most-probably intended them too - that is to say that they managed to get a laugh from the audience, a sad rarity throughout the flicks 91 minutes - a run-time that seems to drag on for at least half an hour too long. Without a doubt, slapstick is the ruling theory of comedy in this film, but if one manages to pay close enough attention, they may find themselves appreciating some of the more subtle jabs. Likewise, the observant viewer will undoubtedly take notice of the plethora of cameos speckled across the film - keep an eye out for the 'Napoleon Dynamite' nod, Pedro included.

With all this said, the film is by no means the worst thing to hit screens in recent memory - said trophy belongs to the more deserved 'Toothfairy' - but it definitely has it's niche audience. A definite date movie, movie buffs may want to take a pass on this for the time being, particularly with the multitude of Oscar-Bait movies making their way to to screen. For those truly unsure about the flick, take a safety - wait until it's release on DVD to give it a go; if you play by the rule of 'Kirsten Bell Looks Confused Again," it could even make a half-decent drinking game.

Was the above review useful to you?

51 out of 77 people found the following review useful:

When In Rome - Remember To Keep A Story

5/10
Author: prodbabies from United States
29 January 2010

Well if you saw the trailers you know the premise, girl in Rome decides to pick up coins from a fountain, which invokes the original owner when the coin was tossed to fall in love with her....

First, they missed the comedic opportunity to have ONE of those people be a girl, but whatever; I guess it is only men who toss coins in the fountain in hope of love.

What was on the screen was fine. The actors all gave comedic performances up to that of previous RomCom formula films. The problem with the film is what is NOT there. This film seems to suffer from being over edited and cut down to 91 minutes. We get a short set-up to TRY and empathize with the leads and we get no (and I mean ZERO) background on the other men competing for love other than their career choice, before watching them behave silly. At the end we get a very brief explanation of from where each love stricken pursuer life was prior to being hoodwinked, but its too late and provides no fulfillment.

The movie plays out many jokes and gags that have no pay off since there was nothing behind them. There are a few moments where a punch-line obviously had some meaning in the relationships of the characters, but seems unfunny as the meat and plot behind the joke is missing.

In the end, we get a shell of a movie, it has a nice frosting but the cake has been stripped!! It seemed like if they had left, some of what was obviously cut, in the film it could have been really good. But the final product we get lacks anything memorable.

Skip at the high priced theater, and wait for video.

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

"When in Rome" lowers romantic comedy standard

3/10
Author: napierslogs from Ontario, Canada
15 June 2010

"When in Rome" at first glance appears to be your standard romantic comedy, but it's actually worse than that.

I like romantic comedies which have a real-factor to it - that there's a chance that this could happen. But this film is completely ridiculous, and not in a funny way.

They appeared to be going for the laughs more than the romance. The "real" relationship wasn't built up at all so we didn't get to feel any of the love. On top of that, the comedy wasn't even done well. The timing was off, so even half-decent jokes weren't funny. It seemed that all the jokes were written in just to cover up sloppy writing. All of the so-called "twists" and "turns" were lame and seemed to be added at the last minute to overcome a bad plot idea.

I usually find romantic comedies to be harmless fun, but "When in Rome" actually angered me it was so poorly written. It gives the genre a bad name.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 28 people found the following review useful:

When in Boredom

4/10
Author: MovieProductions from United States
19 June 2010

*1/2 out of (****)

"When in Rome" actually looked pretty decent judging by its advertisements and the cast wasn't too shabby either. I thought I'd leave my brain at the door and enjoy the film for its silly, nonsensical ride. It turns out that When in Rome is every bit as typical, dry, and unfunny as every romantic comedy you've seen. Even when the film has its moments, which are very minimal, the energy that was once there, had been drained out. The problem isn't that the film is formulaic and predictable, because that's what we've come to expect. The problem is that this film has no energy and basically no backbone. But the main issue is its script. The jokes couldn't feel more forced, empty, and missing more punch lines. For a comedy, you'll laugh maybe twice, if that. Although, here's the million dollar question: What's redeeming about this movie? It's formulaic, it's tedious, it's predictable, it's nonsensical, it's hollow, and its energy has been drained.

Stop me if you've heard this before: Beth (Bell) is a workaholic, which basically corrupts her chances of finding that perfect man. Beth goes to Italy, Rome to see her sister get married to a man and there she meets the "one", which is Nick (Duhamel). She picks up coins from the fountain and there a group of men fall in love with Beth, but there's a problem. She only loves Nick and the men keep ruining the chance of her being with the one. But another issue arises. Does Nick really love her back, or is it just because she picked up his coin from the fountain, which makes people fall in love?

When in Rome's main issue is the dialogue. Not one piece of dialogue is note-worthy, memorable, or even watchable. The dialogue is completely inane and pretty much below average. The script, is also another issue. The script is dry, as predictable as it can be, and simply just awful. On a 1 to 10 scale, 1 being the lowest, 10 being the highest, the predictability level for this one, is easily a 10. I can see every scene coming from a mile away. Did I mention it's a chore to sit through? Well at least the performances are watchable.

Overall "When in Rome" is nothing special, and in fact feels so much like every other film out there, that's it's pointless to see it. It's by-the-numbers, predictable, and disposable. There are a lot of flaws and very few redeeming qualities. I expected a mediocre film, but I also expected a fun time, which I didn't get here. Wow, what ever happen to the good romantic comedies? "When in Boredom" is a rental at best.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Rom(e)-com

5/10
Author: kosmasp
8 October 2010

A very predictable Rom(e)-com, that some might not even feel qualifies for the "com" tag. But that would a bit too harsh. The movie tries hard and it sometimes succeeds (imo) in achieving just that (put a smile on your face).

Kristen Bell and some of the men almost save the day. But the chemistry between her and the lead isn't really the best. It's also not the best walk on a line between comedy and romance. But still that could be called nitpicking. And why would you want to do that, if you can just sit back and enjoy this as a boyfriend/girlfriend movie experience, instead of thinking too much about it?

I think I might have overlooked a few flaws, just because of the likability of Kristen and the charm of most of the cast.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Interesting Twist for a Romcom

5/10
Author: (bob-rutzel-1) from United States
28 June 2010

Beth (Bell) goes to Rome to attend her sister's wedding. Afterwards, she walks in the fountain outside the church and picks up some coins in the water. Legend says that when a coin is picked up, the person who threw the coin will fall in love with the one who picked it out of the water. She picks up 4-coins and a casino chip.

This actually isn't too bad, but there were some annoying things: the singing off camera as the movie opens and more singing as we travel from NY to Rome, some sight gags really didn't work and were too commonplace (we always see the same things and are really tired of them); and some run-a-round conversations that go nowhere and are not funny as intended. The writers should key in on Seinfeld dialogues and learn from them.

But, there are some very good lines in here among the players and that is where most of the comedy is. And, …………and, yes, some sight gags did work and were funny. How about that? Figure it's about 50-50 on the sight gags.

Kristen Bell (looks a lot like Julie Bowen at times) and Josh Duhamel were very good together. Sometimes these comedies don't go anywhere because we do not care for the main characters, but here we do. We like Beth and Nick (Duhamel). Nothing was overdone by the rest of the cast and they performed well.

Don Johnson, as Beth's father, came in from time to time and it was good to see him. He needs another show like Nash Bridges or some-such or some big time movie. Something……………

So the interesting twist is that the 4-men who threw their coins in the fountain are now in the U.S. and stalk Beth to win her love. And, here goofy and silly things happen, but keep in mind, that goofy and silly things are mandatory for a Hollywood comedy. It's like a law or something.

And, Beth believes Nick - also now in the US - is the one who threw the casino chip.

So all in all, not bad. Can you figure out how the spell of the legend can be broken? Thought so. Me too.

Violence: No. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: No.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 9:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [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