IMDb > Jeff, Who Lives at Home (2011) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Jeff, Who Lives at Home
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
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 109 reviews in total 

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Beautifully heart-warming

8/10
Author: headstocki from United Kingdom
26 June 2012

JEFF, WHO LIVES AT HOME - 7.5/10.

I can honestly admit that prior to watching this film I was expecting a half-hearted attempt at a wannabe-indie-comedy; this is only because there had not been much buzz around it here in the UK so I foolishly assumed that it was one to miss. I could not have been more wrong. This film has more heart than any film I have seen in a while and it truly is beautiful.

The main reason I did decide to watch this film was the seemingly impressive cast, namely the two lead actors that are Jason Segel and Ed Helms, both of whom have delivered extraordinary performances in the past. First of all who better to play a slacking yet lovable pothead than Jason Segel and he does it with such grace on this particular occasion that when it comes to the second half of the film you almost forget entirely the fact that his character, Jeff, was essentially down and out from the film's inception. Then you have Ed Helms' character Pat who you are forced to dislike within mere minutes of being introduced. From the outset Pat is impulsive and inconsiderate which immediately provides an exquisite conflict between the two dominating personalities in Jeff, Who Lives at Home.

Essentially there are three different plots running at the same time here, the first being the most prominent which is Jeff and Pat's mission to uncover the secrets of Pat's wife, Linda (played by Judy Greer) and her affair. Surprisingly I actually felt that this storyline was the weakest in terms of meaningfulness despite being the most entertaining but I think that this is mainly due to the fact that it got the most attention from the writers as it is the fundamental basis for the other two plots. There really isn't much to comment on here apart from the fact that this is the storyline that generates the most laughs; mainly from seeing Ed Helms run around with a strained expression on his face as he tries to track down his wife (or Porsche, whichever seems more appealing at the time) while Jeff trails behind still half-stoned.

The second plot is the alarmingly touching sub-storyline of Jeff and Pat's mother Sharon (played extremely well by Susan Sarandon) and her 'secret admirer'. This took me by absolute surprise because it is just so far from what we would have expected to happen in a scenario like this. The easy way out would have been to provide Sharon with a strapping middle-aged role model to act as a father figure for Jeff and Pat however it becomes evident that the Duplass (Jay and Mark - Directors/Writers) brothers don't like taking the easy way out and I can't praise them enough for that. The turn that this particular plot takes is so fantastic that spoiling it for you would be a sin in my eyes – you'll just have to go and see it for yourselves.

Finally we have Jeff's ongoing personal struggle to try and discover his destiny in life. This is introduced to us as soon as the film starts where Jeff ponders the film Signs (M. Night Shyamalan's multi-million dollar blockbuster starring Mel Gibson) whilst poised in a majestic fashion on the toilet whilst trying to figure out what his future might have in store for him and how he can use signs to help him find it. This plot is just sort of dragged through the whole film while the first two take the spotlight however it is in the final 10 minutes or so where you are once again swept off your feet. At risk of saying too much I will stop now as I really can't do it justice with words.

All three of these plots are equally engaging and perfectly written. The reason I believe these are perfectly written is because when all of these plots come together at the end of the film it makes your heart warm! It is absolutely astounding the effect that the Duplass brothers manage to induce onto their viewers with this movie! It is certainly not as dark natured as Cyrus (2010 release from the Duplass brothers, stars Jonah Hill and John C. Reilly) but in my opinion it is a lot more developed in terms of script and character development, it is also a hell of a lot more engaging.

Jeff, Who Lives at Home is marketed as a comedy. While it certainly does contain some comedic value I would say that this film is essentially a drama, and a very good one. If you were, like me, expecting a comedy please do not be put off because I guarantee that you won't be let down by this movie as it is in my virtually impossible to dislike. I may go as far to call this the most likable movie of 2011.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

worst two hours of my life

1/10
Author: sryan1383 from chicago
17 February 2013

***spoiler***

This is seriously the worst movie that I've ever seen. If someone offered me $100 to watch this whole thing again, I am not joking at all when I say that I would turn it down. This is not a comedy and it is not even remotely funny.

Nothing happens the whole entire movie... I literally watched the whole time waiting for some sort of story to come out of this, but nothing! Oh then at the end he gets stuck in a traffic jam and his entire family and everybody that he knows just happens to be there at the exact traffic jam at the exact same time. Then people are drowning in the water and he jumps in the water to save them. Are you kidding me? Did a fourth grader write this?

A few questions: 1. For the people that gave this good reviews, what kind of drugs were you on when you watched this? 2. Who in their right mind read the script and said "oh yeah, this is it, this is the one!"? 3. Why is this listed as a comedy?

If I can stop one person from watching this movie, I consider this post to be a success. I literally signed up for an account just to write this.

Was the above review useful to you?

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

7/10
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

2/10
Author: Tom_Soprano
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.

2/10.

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

1/10
Author: Peter Hertz from Hungary
8 August 2012

It was a cheap, mean-less art movie. It was so bad that I registered on IMDb.com 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

8/10
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:

Ugh

1/10
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:

Comedy???

5/10
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

5/10
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?


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