User ReviewsAdd a Review
When I go and see a film which the critics say is awful, I always go in hoping that, for me, I will find them wrong. The critics said this was awful. I say they were right.
If I go and see a Spider-Man movie, it is important that the movie sells me the idea that a radioactive spider bite can give someone the ability to stick to a wall. If I go and see a Die Hard movie, it is important that the movie sells me the notion that John Maclane can out-think and out-gun hordes of bad guys. The first and worst (but by no means only) flaw in this film is that, with the arguable exceptions of George and Linda, the movie parades before us a cast of characters each of which is no more than a container for a specific "amusing" schtick: none of them convinces us that they are a real person at all. They might as well be wearing labels - "Funny obnoxious brother", "funny spaced out sister in law", "funny nudist man who doesn't listen to you", "funny weird hippy lady", "funny pregnant lady" etc. Because the characters are contrived and unbelievable, what might have otherwise worked as far as story is concerned fails to do so. The fact that what is supposed to be funny actually isn't doesn't help either.
I hated hated hated the bad language. It was crass and gratuitously unpleasant. It was one of the factors, but not the only one, why I hated the scene where Paul Rudd was stuck in front of a mirror gurning "hilarious" obscenities in a squirmingly embarrassing sequence where he is trying to work himself up for a sexual encounter. Simply awful.
There was moderate nudity: not from the young people with attractive bodies (which Hollywood seems scared of), but from older performers. I don't have anything against this, but I would rather such a sequence included younger people.
Jennifer Aniston gave yet another lazy performance.
This was a bad film. Avoid it.
Not that a movie like this requires great acting skills, but the roles played by Rudd, Aniston and Watkins are at least believable. But the credibility stops there. Most of the other characters are over-acted, and poorly-developed.
And one of my biggest pet peeves: scenes from the trailer were NOT in the film. THIS DRIVES ME MAD! It's like a restaurant advertising a lunch special that they don't have in stock.
Bottom line: save your movie, and save your time.
The real problem with this film is that it is essentially a satire directed at the hippie movement. There might have been a point to this thirty years ago, but now??? I don't know if there even are any hippie communes left, but they are hardly significant enough in our culture to rate a full-length satire. And are we surprised that the most outspoken proponent of free love and spirituality turns out to be a hypocritical jerk? And how about the attack on the heartless developers? Are we supposed to take that seriously? This theme was developed more effectively, tongue-in-cheek, in "The Muppets" where at least we knew it was intended as a cliché.
I usually like Paul Rudd, but I found his attempt to come off as macho to get into bed with a gorgeous blonde totally unconvincing and unfunny. He is such a cool guy that I could not believe he would not know how to approach a woman for sex.
For me the one bright spot in the film was Alan Alda's portrayal of an aging hippie, possibly in the early stages of Alzheimers. He was the one character who came across as genuine. In fact, in a better film he might have gotten some Oscar buzz for best supporting actor.
Overall, a pointless film.
Secondly,regarding the characters and all the oh-so-serious reviewers commenting on the silliness and irreverence of the plot and the character development, this is the sort of film that doesn't need to develop the characters or have a deep plot, it wouldn't work as well if it did actually. It's a light-hearted, fun movie. And it works. In my opinion it actually works beautifully, the whole film has a great vibe to it and certainly had me thinking that I might enjoy a brief dalliance on a commune! It's witty, amusing, warm and titillating at times, not for what it does show but for what it suggests about the lifestyle the couple find themselves in.
Take this film at face value and suspend your disbelief, take off your critic hat and just enjoy!
However it didn't. Far from it, I actually found myself laughing the entire movie. Not a single actor, line or scene disappointed me. Yes there was some awkward moments and characters, but hell, what's a comedy without that? It didn't censor itself but rather embraced it's originality; and that's why I think I enjoyed it so much. So to anybody reading these reviews that are saying it's not funny, don't listen to them, give it a chance and I doubt you'll be disappointed. I sure as hell wasn't.
And to any male readers discouraged by the fact that there is a male nudist in the movie, you can breathe easy- it's a prosthetic.
All in all I'll give this movie a 9 because it's funny, original, kind of weird, and yet totally awesome.
Full disclosure: I am a huge David Wain fan, I loved Stella, I watch Wainy Days, etc.
This movie is about two city types who have a run of bad luck, end up at hippie commune. Funny stuff ensues.
Not an original concept by any means but comedic none the less. Purely hilarious cast sans Paul Rudd, I'm not a huge fan but I understand why people do.
To the guy saying "its unrealistic": Hi, I'm movies. Have you ever seen me before? Bottom Line: If you liked The State, Stella, Michael & Michael Have Issues, Children's Hospital, or the like. You will more than likely enjoy this movie.
7 out of 10.
The tale of a new york couple that struggles with money and failure and finds themselves in a small hippie commune it's simple but heartfelt, Paul and Jennifer are quite good in this and move from serious to awkward with ease, being in my late 30's i could relate with their dilemma since i'm living through a similar f****d up system and the desire to leave everything behind.
It's a comedy for adults so i didn't mind the more uncomfortable bits, there's a lot of nudity (sorry, no Paul or Jen, only ugly folks), I can't recommend it without reservations but I've had a good time.
There are some intense and somewhat "uncomfortable" moments but, to me, they were believable and gave the film some depth. I loved the way the characters dropped their facades in the final scenes - now that's a real "truth-telling circle".
The juxtaposition of different cultures and personalities was written brilliantly. I expect that sociologists will have a blast with this film.
I rented this, despite the low rating, because of Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd whom I consider to be wonderful comedic actors. It's great to see them together again.