IMDb > Jeff, Who Lives at Home (2011) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Jeff, Who Lives at Home
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
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
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Jeff, Who Lives at Home More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 6 of 11: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 107 reviews in total 

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

What's with the camera work?

Author: kevin-1272 from United States
6 July 2012

Look, it's a good script with good editing and wonderful acting. In fact, the acting is the best part of this film. Everyone in the cast is tremendous. But but but...the reason I even checked in on this film is because of the camera work. I read the reviews to see if anyone mentioned it. I only found one guy who had. The reality is that the camera work almost sinks this film. For some reason, someone decided to arbitrarily zoom on almost every shot - in and out! Randomly, without any logical point related to story. Now generally you keep you hands off the zoom in film because it is unbelievably distracting. Pulls the audience right out of the film every time. In this film, the camera will zoom in, then zoom in again, and then zoom back out without any justification. No reason for it. It's like some kid got into the studio and grabbed hold of the zoom. I can't figure out why they did it. But it really damaged what otherwise would have been a much more solid film. I don't know whose idea all the zooming was - the cinematographer Jas Shelton's? The Duplass directors? If it was the cinematographer's idea, the directors should have pulled him back and made him stop it. If it was the directors idea, then they should have noticed during the first dailies that it doesn't work and reshot. Really unfortunate decision. It doesn't ruin the film, mainly because it's a solid story and the acting is so good, but believe me, when you watch the film, it will drive you crazy.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

A Sweet, Unexpected Character Piece

Author: kys2 from Australia
8 June 2012

"People break down into two groups. When they experience something lucky, group number one sees it as more than luck, more than coincidence. They see it as a sign."

Jeff is a daydreaming slacker who lives in his mother's basement, smoking weed and contemplating M. Night Shyamalan. He spends his days waiting for destiny to come calling and when his phone rings for a man named Kevin, he's sure it has come.

"Group number two sees it as just pure luck. Just a happy turn of chance."

Pat, Jeff's brother, works hard and tries hard and does everything he's supposed to. Like most of us, he believes in coincidence and willfully ignores fate, even when it's sleeping with his wife.

Pat and Jeff's mother, Sharon, is a lonely office worker, tired of her basement-dwelling son and unappreciated by her other. When a secret admirer takes an interest in her, she's half sure it's a joke and wholly hoping it's not.

Jeff, Who Lives At Home was nothing like I expected it to be. There weren't many laugh out loud parts and no cheap jokes, but it was charming and beautifully acted. Don't watch expecting your average stoner humour, because what you'll get is a sweet film about fate and taking risks when life has left you with nothing else.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

waste of time

Author: Tominator147
29 July 2013

I was looking for a relatively short comedy film to watch and found this one, the rating looked OK and the cast looked familiar so I thought it would be OK. I was very wrong.

First of all it is listed as a 'comedy' - I don't think I laughed once. The plot is weak and never fully explained who the hell Kevin is, its just stupid with really longed out scenes of absolutely nothing happening. It could be looked at as a drama but as I said the plot is just so weak you feel no attachment to the characters what so ever.

I would definitely recommend to avoid this one at all costs.


Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

That movie was a waste of time and money to make and watch

Author: Peter Hertz from Hungary
8 August 2012

It was a cheap, mean-less art movie. It was so bad that I registered on and made my first vote and my first review. I didn't like that kind a movie, it was about free love with anybody but also kept the meaning of the family. It starts with a negative life feeling with a boring kid who has a boring family. Anybody in this movie has a pointless life. Plus is has a really slow procession to show the life could be good. There isn't humor in this movie, it tries to, but can't touch your lung to laugh but he classification said it's a comedy. There isn't any action really, it's all predictable easily. I don't know who directed the movie 'cause I din't saw any other movies of his repertoire, but I confirm it was waste of time and money to spent to watch and make.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Showing, and not telling

Author: YuppieChunga from Norway
8 June 2012

The movie starts out somewhat complex and absurd, but ends up telling a story of the simplicity of life and fate.

Although the story, and the way it's told, may seem wildly absurd. That's because it is, but sometimes that's the way life is. It may be classified as a comedy, but the plot is deeper than that. It deeply reaches into how simply we can relate to each other as humans, and how that simplicity speaks volumes compared to our usual petty small talk and cynical mockingly dialogue we drape ourselves in.

The idea of fate is of course abstract and intangible, but we're shown how it may work, and how the smaller things leads to the bigger ones. Fate is behind a veil of seemingly unimportant, ridiculous events and coincidences that only a dope-head would be able to recognize. Go figure. But it shows that unsought spirituality and meaning in meaningless places play a pivotal part in our lives.

The most important thing about the movie is that it's showing us, but not telling us.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:


Author: ron-fernandez-pittsburgh from United States
12 July 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Save your 83 minutes of life on this one. Terrible filmaking. Story could have been OK with good camera work and cinematography and better dialouge. Don't know what the producers/directors were out to accomplish on this one. Student film making? Too, too many implausibilites to make this even a tiny bit realistic. The two leads, JASON and ED were unbearable!!! The language was not called for in a film like this. The sub-plot with SUSAN SARANDON was uncalled for, although she did a wonderful job as she always does. The fact that she could make her character work is indeed Oscar awarding itself. Nice to see RAE DAWN CHONG again. Again, don't waste your time on this piece of NOTHING.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 12 people found the following review useful:


Author: greekmuse
10 June 2012

Here I was getting ready to spend an evening laughing my ass off. What do I get instead? A drama with absolutely nothing funny about it. A gross misrepresentation of the stated genre.

And while on the subject, when was the last time someone made a good comedy without all the superfluous drama? The only recent ones I can recall are 21 Jump Street and The Dictator. The world really does need more of these types of films.

In any case, as a non-comedy, this movie is actually not bad at all and I would otherwise had given it a 7/10. The acting and direction are quite good but the story is just a bit too sappy IMO.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Boring and Ultimately Feels Meaningless

Author: brando647 from Spring Hill, FL
9 September 2012

The problem with the Duplass brothers' 2012 movie can be summed up in one word: boring. It is just so unapologetically boring. Combine that with the fact that I just didn't care about any of the characters, and this movie doesn't come close to being as enjoyable as their movie CYRUS. That film was quirky and fun; this one tries to be, but falls way short. I can't blame it on the cast because I can see they tried. I just couldn't force myself to care about the story; it just wanders on and expects us to believe in coincidence so much that we don't care that the whole movie is just these two characters bumbling their way from set piece to set piece. The Jeff from the movie's title is played by Jason Segal, a thirty-year-old stoner who continues to live in his mother's basement watching the movie SIGNS over and over again. He is a firm believer that M. Night Shyamalan was on to something and that everything happens for a reason. In fact, he believes it so strongly that he can't even make basic decisions without some random event influencing his decision. His brother Pat (Ed Helms) is in a deteriorating marriage and his mother Sharon (Susan Sarandon) suffers a menial office job while pressing her stoned-out son to find the motivation to move on with his life. A wrong number phone call spurs Jeff into action, sending him on a journey to find the supposed meaning.

I guess the characters in the movie were somewhat relatable. They just weren't very likable. Jeff is an idiot. I know we're supposed to be charmed by his naivety and never-ending faith in the universe's ability to lead him in the right direction, but he came off to me as just a grown man-child who's smoked a little too much and can't take responsibility for his own life. Pat is a selfish wannabe hotshot, awkward with his employees and neglectful of his own wife. And then there's Sharon, Jeff's disillusion mother and her soul-crushing job. I understand how she can be so disappointed in her son and I expect that we'll see him change her mind in one way or another over the course of the movie, but I don't understand why she needed her own entire subplot about how disappointed she is with her life and how an anonymous office admirer is spicing it up. I was having a hard enough time caring about anything going on in the Jeff/Pat plot without constantly cutting away to see Sharon flirting via instant message in an unrelated love story. Honestly though, the lamest aspect of the whole film is the concept as a whole: a stoner obsessed with a flawed Shyamalan movie wanders from place to place, miraculously finding himself at the right place at the right time. It's all about Kevin. Got to find Kevin. Wait, now it's time to help Pat save his crumbling marriage.

I'll give the cast credit. They're all very talented people and they're all trying to do something here. I guess they saw how well CYRUS came out and they wanted to be a part of a quirky indie film too. Jason Segal is great, and Ed Helms appears genuinely clueless about how he's damaging his marriage. Susan Sarandon does an excellent job, even if her character was more prevalent that she needed to be. Each of them are great actors in their own right, but the material is just lame. The whole thing is just too "quirky". It felt as if they were shooting to make the most stereotypical indie film they could, loaded with kitsch and snap zooms. It was a bizarre combination of forced and meaningless. For whatever reason, the hand-held shaky-cam technique and constant zooms weren't so blatant in CYRUS but JEFF, WHO LIVES AT HOME shoves your face into the non-action. I'm not ready to give up on the Duplass brothers yet. I haven't seen their earlier films but right now they seem hit or miss, and I'm sure they'll have some more quality work in the future. This movie isn't beyond salvage, but it's boring. And for a medium meant to entertain, it can be just as bad.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Donny, who liked to Bowl

Author: tieman64 from United Kingdom
15 September 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Indeterminism and predestination battle for supremacy in "Jeff, Who Lives at Home", a slacker comedy about Jeff, a middle aged man (Jason Segel) who lives at home with his elderly mother. Various quirky characters deride Jeff for ascribing meaning to what they perceive to be random events, but Jeff persists in his philosophical outlook, leading to several climactic events which may or may not validate Jeff's religion.

What's Jeff's religion? Though it's not mentioned in the film, the guy probably worships at the alter of Jeffery "the Dude" Lebowski, God of the slackers, messiah to all those who choose to "just abide". The film co-stars the always likable Susan Sarandon.

7.9/10 – Worth one viewing.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Jeff who finds meaning.

Author: supermango from Wichita, Kansas
12 September 2013

I am still in awe about how this movie was able to capture the journey many young adults go through. This movie is simply amazing. Even when I think back about the movie, the sum is so much greater than its parts. In that, I mean, that the movie is so very meaningful and it seems like it has no sense of purpose... until the end. The movie is wonderfully crafted and pulls a "gotcha" over the viewer's eyes (for those that will get it). The main character essentially gives the movie away within the first minute. In my world, this movie would've won Best Picture.

It is really not that funny, nor exciting, but very pleasing. I could totally relate to this movie and it's great to see that others have gone through the same thing. A part of me hopes that the majority of the people that watch this movie, do not understand it - Like Jeff's brother in the movie, because that is reality.

I give this movie a 10/10 and there is really something wonderful here.

Was the above review useful to you?

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

Add another review

Related Links

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