When in Rome (2010) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
84 Reviews
Sort by:
kosmasp8 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.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
When In Rome... Get Out
MorganGrodecki30 January 2010
Warning: 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.
33 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
When in Rome, just stay away from this movie
Kristine6 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
With the economy the way it is I have figured out the exact way to make a few million dollars, it's really easy: I'll make a romantic comedy! All I need to do is have an annoying hard working bitter female who has given up on love, somehow finds it with bland purse accessory man, their romance falls in some way for 10 minutes but they find that they really do love each other and all ends well. Bam, I have at least 5 million dollars, only problem being that this way is too easy and other directors have beaten me to it. In this case we have When In Rome, a wonderfully pretentious and predictable romantic comedy that tries way too hard in the slap stick comedy department. Kristen Bell is still somewhat hot off the more humorous romantic comedy Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Hollywood is testing to see if she's leading lady material. Let me tell you something, if this is the first choice she's going to make to prove that she can bank in a big hit movie, she failed big time. The movie bombed hoping that this will lead to Hollywood giving up on the stupid predictable plots, non existent chemistry between two young hot actors who are getting by on looks and the most bland jokes in the world, When In Rome was just a bad movie.

A successful and single art curator Beth is at a point in her life where love seems like a luxury she just can't afford. Years of waiting for the perfect romance has made Beth bitter. One day, she flies to Rome to attend her younger sister Joan's impulsive wedding. She meets Nick, who rescues her in a couple of difficult situations but is just as much of a clumsy clod as she is. They hit it off well and reach a point where both parties take an interest in the other. Just as Beth convinces herself to believe in love again, she sees Nick kissing another woman, who turns out to be the groom's 'crazy cousin'. Slightly drunk, she picks up coins from the "fountain of love". She later learns from Joan that legend says, if you take coins from the fountain, the owner of the coin will fall in love with you. She has to return the coins to the fountain to break the spell.

There are times where I really do want to be like my other girlfriends and think that these movies are so cute and sweet, it's a curse seeing so many movies at times because I guess I'm the stick in the mud when it comes to girl night and a movie. But I guess it's also a blessing because I'd rather see these movies for what they really are and honestly I hate to say it, but these romantic comedies are sick ways for Hollywood to make more money without putting any effort in. Kristen Bell doesn't work well as a lead actress and had no chemistry with the other actors. Her character wasn't likable at all and was so predictable, why do all these female characters have to be bitter? Come on, Kristen Bell having a hard time finding love? Not completely unrealistic but highly unbelievable still. She has a hard tough boss, the cute likable sister who was lucky enough to find love and the typical friends who have to encourage her to find love still. I know what you are thinking as you are reading my comment "Why if you hate romantic comedies so much, do you continue to watch them?", my answer is that I always have a little hope for film when I start watching it, but when I see it going in the same direction as the last time, when it's just another copy and paste story, that's when I give up. I just feel the need to warn the world of this sick plot to get innocent people's money, but I guess it's their choice and no I will not recommend this film if my life depended on it and it's forced uncomfortable humor.

7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Water would be more nutritious
zhombu22 January 2010
Warning: 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.

81 out of 116 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not Oscar-winning, but funny
StarDragyn30 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.
60 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
When In Rome - Remember To Keep A Story
prodbabies29 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.
56 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Painfully Bad
Jeff Howard30 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.
98 out of 153 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Oh my God...
Screen_Queen30 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.
55 out of 84 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
"When in Rome" lowers romantic comedy standard
napierslogs15 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.
19 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Interesting Twist for a Romcom
bob-rutzel-128 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.
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
When in Boredom
MovieProductions19 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.
22 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Pretty Funny!!!
Pumpkin_Man17 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was better than I expected, and was quite funny. Kristen Bell stars as a single art curator named Beth, who can't seem to find her true love. While attending her sister's wedding in Rome, she meets Nicholas Beamon, who is very sweet and very clumsy. When she sees him kissing another woman, who happens to be the groom's cousin; she gets drunk and steals coins from the fountain of love. (According to legend, if you take coins from the fountain, the owner of the coin will fall in love with whoever took the coin) When she gets back to New York, Lance a magician, Gale, Antonio, and Al follow her around and confess their love to her. In order for this to stop, she must return the coins to their owners, and see if Nicholas was the one who truly loved her. I highly recommend WHEN IN ROME!!!
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
"When in Rome", throw this to the lions
ssaftler31 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The only positive I can think of regarding this movie is that I didn't have to pay full price for this "schtick dreck". Even our friend who claims to like ALL movies agreed this was, at best, a rental movie.

For a romantic comedy, the best parts were actually when they were trying to be neither romantic nor comedic. Unfortunately, that encompassed one or two scenes in the film. The jokes were forced, most of the "twists" were telegraphed well in advance, and, except for DeVito and Duhamel, the male "leads" were total losers. Then again, maybe the point was that only total losers would toss coins into the fountain looking for love.

I give it a 1.5 out of 10. It was a 2, but a funny twist at the end was worth a half a point. Then came the insipid scene as the credits began to roll, which took back a full point.

If anyone asks you to see this, follow the suggestion of Graham Chapman as King Arthur in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", 'RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!!!'
13 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Bad Film
Greatornot18 February 2010
Aside from Jon Heder, Danny Devito and Angelica Huston, the acting performances were horrible. Basically a film starring Kristin Bell as Elizabeth Martin looking for love and stealing some coins in a fountain at her sisters wedding in Rome. Something spellbinding happens to the folks of the coins that she took. You folks can figure it out. Typical klutzy protagonist, muddling through life, yet hard to identify or rout for her to be happy. The slapstick in this film , was unoriginal.This was a clean film,so more folks can see this. Actually, that is probably a bad thing. My vote is still with Pedro and certainly not for this awful movie.
30 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Worst movie of 2010
MatthewLong2330 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This is so bad. If i were involved with this movie I would be ashamed of myself. Nothing about it is funny or cute and it seems to take forever to finish. It has a good cast in it but they are all wasted. It tells the story of a woman who's dedicated to her job as a curator and is trying to impress her boss with an art exhibit she is planning. When her sister gets married in Rome, she becomes drunk and takes out 5 coins out of a fountain that people throw in to find love. As a result of taking those coins, all of those men fall in love with her and all happen to live in New York city. Throughout the movie the people who think there in love with her try to woo her with unfunny results. Even the twist about the guy she likes wasn't clever and could definitely see it coming. Do not waste your time with this movie. It is hands down the worst movie of the year and don't' see anything taking that title away from it and it's on January
20 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
When in Rome- have a long dinner and drink lots of wine, but don't go to this movie.
S K30 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Although both leads Kristen Bell and Josh Duhamel were adorable and had great chemistry, the script was obviously unrealistic. Sadly, with most romcoms, I expect this, but the script was equally atrocious as it was unrealistic. Who approves this junk and green-lights it for filming? All they needed was a script consultant and it could have been 200% better. Please don't read on if you want to see and enjoy this movie, these are spoilers.

First, why do all the female leads in NYC based romcoms have the same job? Are they always an event planner of some sort? And since when do young adults ever have apartments like that? Blows my mind.

A few examples of easy changes a consultant would have made that could have saved the movie. Make her job at the museum a curator's assistant that is getting her first big break with this exhibition, not a young curator. Next the movie could have started with a short highlights real of all the guys who have broken up with the Beth character. Additionally there should be a scene explaining Nick's clumsiness, and it could illustrate that he becomes less clumsy when he is around her (since we have no clue why he is madly in love with the Beth character). Near the end, when she finds out she can give the coins back to the guys to break the spell, why does she feel bad about it? She hasn't connected with them at all, this should have played out differently, she should have been excited to hand the coins over, then after giving them back, THEN she could feel bad because she sees that having their coins made each of their lives better (but she wouldn't know this till after giving the coins back). Also, why does the dorky coworker take the coins? It doesn't help the plot and it's stupid. She could have left them, and the Beth character would still need to get to the museum in order to give Nick's coin back. And lastly, at the end, when she runs out of the wedding and he finds her in the fountain, they should run back into the church and yell just kidding! Get married and have the party. The movie should end at the dancing and when she throws the bouquet, the dorky coworker should catch it and then end up kissing the wookie-loving friend. Duh.

God, this is so easy. Please someone, pay me instead, cause your script sucks. PS I was so disappointed that I joined IMDb.com in order to leave this review. Enjoy.
14 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A great film.
staceyisu2 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I've wanted to see this film since I watched the preview, and it did not disappoint. I laughed so hard throughout. I loved the characters. Kristin Bell as a young woman who wants love, but has given up on it and focused on her career instead. Then along comes this awesome guy who seems too good to be true, and probably is. The four men were hilarious and I adored the best friend of Nick. It was nice to relax and watch a film that focuses on the problems and difficulties of love unrequited. Plus, even Rome was beautiful and made me actually want to visit. If you're in the mood for a laugh and some sighs, I recommend this film.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Give it a break!
anchor-912 January 2014
Honestly this is what Rom Coms are about. Romance comedy and a thread that connects the story. It met all those expectations and more. Good A list actors hitting main and cameo parts. Romance=Rome=NYC. Comedy= the entire cast. Sit back and enjoy. Enjoy the magic and the premise that there is free will when it comes to love. Kristen Bell is as entertaining as ever. Josh Duhamal does a good job as a leading man. Dax Shephard a great character actor as always. Maybe a bit too much spark with Kristen Bell. Anjelica Huston and Danny DeVito round out the cast. Why rate it less than a B+?? Can't see why some people are rating this low on the Rom Com scale.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Cute RomCom worth watching
marysz-124 September 2013
I don't know what people are looking for. This is a cute, silly RomCom! Geesh! It's not a freaking documentary! If you want a cute, fun escape that's silly and entertaining then watch this movie. There are funny parts. Josh Duhamel's (or however you spell it) sidekicks are funny and there is scenery in Rome. Kristen Bell is likable and cute. The other supporting cast is good (Angelica Houston, Danny DeVito, etc). Not everyone wants to watch depressing movies that are clearly only made to be considered for an Oscar. Sometimes you just want to watch something fun. Oh, and by the way, I'm a girl. So maybe I am more forgiving then some of these guys that would rather watch a Steven Segal movie.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Go with it...
D Paterson-Watts13 August 2012
There's a lot of negative reviews on here about this, I'm just really glad I watched the film before reading them!! Sometimes a film asks you to suspend your disbelief. The very premise of this film is so preposterous as to not be out of place in an animated Disney film, so I find it incredible that more people didn't watch the film with that in mind. It has an excellent supporting cast, all of which hit the mark, fans of Napolean Dynamite will be delighted, and the leads are really good, Bell in particular.

Sure it's not ground breaking (rom-coms almost never are, by their nature we usually have an idea of what's coming), but it's full of fun and it's been made well, with enough substance and humour to keep you going til the end - unlike some rom-coms with much higher ratings. I would recommend checking it out if you like to lose yourself in fantasy and you're a fan of the genre
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A trifle with a twist
ctomvelu18 April 2012
Harmless romantic comedy with a twist: A down-on-her-romantic luck American (Bell) steals some coins out of the Fountain of Love in Rome, and the men who threw those items into that fountain all fall in love with her, and pursue the bewildered girl. She's in Rome for her kid sister's wedding where she meets and quickly falls for the charming Josh Duhamel, who looks great even if he isn't given a chance to do any real acting here. When she catches him smooching with another woman, she figures she's back where she started, romance-wise, and returns to New York. Duhamel pursues her, of course, as do the four smitten men (DiVito, Shepard, Arnett and Heder). She now has to figure out how o reverse the spell. Some funny moments, nice location photography (as far as I could tell) and the elfin Ms. Bell make it worth a watch by the gals. And there's a nice tip of the hat to THE WIZARD OF OZ near the end. A trifle at best. Don Johnson has a small role as her dad. Anjelica Houston has an even smaller role as Bell's boss.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Lack of Subtlety, But Could Be Worse
wildcats7631 July 2011
Wow, the reviews of this one are pretty harsh. I want to congratulate the film makers for not using profanity, sex, or violence. That in itself is refreshing and inspiring. It honors Romantic Comedies of the fifties and early sixties, which entertained without corrupting our souls.

I agree with the many reviewers who said the comedy and antics in this one were forced and didn't work, to a large extent. However, a scene in a unique restaurant was reasonably original, and one in a crowded car was somewhat cute.

Both leads were attractive and performed adequately. I don't think the roles were much of a stretch for either one, but that's o.k. They are who they are, like Doris Day and Rock Hudson were who they were. I'm sure both of these actors will do some more drama in the future.

What the film lacked was subtlety. It was so frenzied, and tried so hard to be cute, that I felt a bit edgy in my seat. I wanted to say, "Just relax and let me find out more about who these people are." Even a few more quiet scenes with heartfelt dialogue would have sufficed.

But I guess the makers were committed to a formulaic approach. The price they'll pay for that is that the movie will quickly fade from your memory. That is not necessarily such a bad thing, as it did entertain, kept clean, and left one feeling some sense of hope about love.

I prefer that to pictures that add to my cynicism.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
cute romantic comedy
MLDinTN26 October 2010
It's been a while since a good romantic comedy has been released and I think this one was pretty good. It had some funny scenes like Beth trying to break the vase at her sister's wedding, the magic scenes with Jon Heder, and Dax Shepherd as the full of himself male model. I also liked the premise of the story with Beth being in Rome and picking up some coins from a fountain of love. By doing so, she releases a spell that the guys who threw the coins in the fountain, will fall in love with her. So, she goes back to New York, and starts being followed by some weirdos professing their love. However she met one guy at the wedding, Nick, that she really likes. The big mystery is was one of the coins she took one Nick tossed. Circumstances lead Beth to think one of the coins is his, so she believes he really doesn't love her out of free will. But true love prevails in the end.

FINAL VERDICT: A sweet short film. I recommend it.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Mediocre, but passable
Zen-Master-Toris6 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
"When In Rome" is another story about girl meets boy. Beth is a pessimistic workaholic, who meets Nick on a trip to Rome, but unfortunately doesn't know whether he loves her for her or because of her late night stealing of coins out of the 'Fountain of Love'.

All though this movie took the easy route with the slapstick comedy and the simple narrative, what more can one expect from a romantic comedy of todays generation. People need to realise that Rom-Com's weren't created to give the viewer a life changing experience, they are there for a light hearted pick-me-up. And thats what "When In Rome" is. So if you just want a nice movie, thats not too hard to keep track of, and is family friendly with a few well known faces, then "When In Rome" is a suitable choice.

If you want something deep and meaningful, go to the drama section!
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A definitely worth watch, very smooth..
leodhananjay21 October 2010
I'm writing this just after watching the movie. I'm not sure what people nowadays expect from a movie, and this i'm stating after i find that this movie scored just a 5.4 rating in IMDb. Come on, what are the benchmarks? The top-most benchmark should have been the entertainment part. The movie should be so compelling, so absolutely interesting that it doesn't let you get out of your favorite cozy seat. I have seen a lot, and i mean it.. a lot of movies, some in languages i do not understand with no sub-titles but then i could read the faces, the expressions and feel the soul it laid out in front of you to be experienced. This, i would rate as a great feel-good movie. I've written a very few reviews, but this was a situation i had, definitely had to put up my views. Maybe the actors were not fancy, maybe there were no special effects, maybe there were no whimsical erotic shots, but the movie was special, the actors were plain, played plain, no attempts to play special, over-react, over-act, nothing in excess, nothing less. And those mildly comic scenes come as bonus, tickling you subtle when you already are so involved with the movie flow. One of such ticklers is the scene when Beth tries explaining to these 4 guys that the reason they're so in love with her is a supernatural spell they're under and is not natural. The lightning strikes in the background, taking everyone's attention and in an instant this street-magician guy Lance (played by Jon Hedger) tries explaining "he did not do it..", totally comic. I would strongly recommend the movie to all. Rating 9 or 8.5 at least.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews