IMDb > Wanderlust (2012) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
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
Wanderlust More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 14:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 139 reviews in total 

100 out of 166 people found the following review useful:

Random, vulgar, and uncomfortable.

Author: jrragan
6 March 2012

Yes, there were a couple good laughs to be had during this movie. But for the most part, it was just weird. Even some of the funny scenes went on too long and got to be awkward. The "story" (if you can call it that) was predictable. The jokes were not, because they were so outlandish that they came across as gimmicky.

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

56 out of 83 people found the following review useful:

Tries too hard

Author: JaniceNicole from United States
20 March 2012

"Wanderlust" is about a young New York couple who are suddenly left with no income and need to find a place to live. On the way to Atlanta, they come across a love commune and end up staying for a while. This movie is filled with failed attempts at humor, don't get me wrong, some parts are genuinely funny, but most of it seems like they tried too hard to get a laugh. The main redeeming quality of "Wanderlust" is Paul Rudd's performance. His character counter-acted the rest of the cast's mediocre comedy. Overall I think it is an interesting story line with a lot of potential that simply fell a little flat. I would definitely suggest waiting for this one to come out DVD and saving the ten dollars.

Was the above review useful to you?

40 out of 58 people found the following review useful:

Not good. Don't see it.

Author: Neil Welch from United Kingdom
9 March 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

George and Linda (Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston) buy an apartment in New York and immediately find themselves out of work. After a brief sojourn with George's brother Rich who offers George a job, they end up at a commune where the free-spirited life begins to have differing effects on the two of them.

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

64 out of 109 people found the following review useful:

Wanderlust No Spoilers

Author: Wayne Anderson from Canada
28 June 2012

I had to write a review for this movie because I read some reviews on this site before I watched it and was really debating on whether I should even see it, but my girlfriend insisted. I thought from other people's reviews that this movie was going to SUCK.

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

30 out of 45 people found the following review useful:

POINTLESS SATIRE (spoiler alert, if anyone cares)

Author: andiam-1 from United States
22 March 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I had high hopes for this film at the beginning. The scene where the Jennifer Anniston character pitches her save-the-penguins film to HBO satirizes both her and the network. And the montage of the auto trip, showing the various changes of mood they go through over several hours, is both realistic and hilarious. But I didn't laugh much after that.

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

I laughed, I cried, I got angry, but mostly I laughed!

Author: A. newbroom from United States
14 August 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Jennifer's boobs are pixilated.(that's the spoiler) (ha ha..spell check wants me to use dilapidated, instead of pixilated)...but it's no big deal...this is a great couples movie and may cause some to question their life's objectives and their relationships. Nicely paced, crisp dialogue, believable circumstances and plausible events with sex, drugs, and rock and roll....just like you and me but much better looking and way more funny! bonus: I didn't fall asleep. that makes this a ringing endorsement. I've passed this up at my rental kiosk because of low review numbers..and finally just took a chance and I'm glad I did. So I'm going to rate it high and try to get more people smiling and chortling and guffawing, and snuggling and laughing and thinking and enjoying a thought provoking movie about choices and values, the pursuit of happiness, and the measure of success.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Confused at the negative reviews.....

Author: Ines Witherspoon from United Kingdom
30 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have watched this film twice now and off the back of the second viewing thought I would see what others thought of it. I was surprised and increasingly confused as I read one negative review after another. My confusion grew to frustration as I read comments like "the only nudity is old, unattractive people" and "the characters aren't believable". I feel these people have completely missed the point! First of all, if you want to see attractive people naked then may I politely suggest that romantic comedy is the wrong genre for you, I believe you'd get what you want in the 'adult' category - it's certainly bizarre and irrelevant to give this film a negative review because you don't get to see Jennifer Aniston in the buff!

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!

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

I don't understand the hate..

Author: james-395-551090 from United States
13 June 2012

My room mates watched this flick, told me it was worth a watch but nothing special.

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

Flawed but funny, edgy comedy

Author: Guy Stevens from Australia
17 June 2012

Not the usual rom-com formula you'd expect from the leads, which might explain the poor reviews here. This starts with great promise as a satire of American society - epitomized by the wonderfully crass, materialistic brother - with some great laugh-out loud moments as the American dream goes wrong for Judd and Aniston. The humour is often off-beat and at times anarchic, such as when the horse appears in the couple's doorless room at the commune. Ultimately though, it just wants to poke fun at everyone and loses the plot, ending up as the formulaic rom-com it promised not to be. You really get the feeling this is an intelligent script put through the studio wringer. Judd's mirror scene is a weird low point, proving that improvisational riffing is often just a self-indulgent waste of screen time. If full-frontal male nudity (one of the commune's main characters is a perpetual nudist) and off-beat attempts at satire offend, you won't like this, but there are good laughs to outweigh the flaws.

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 33 people found the following review useful:


Author: jhartman1-2 from United States
3 September 2012

This film was painful to watch!

Even the adorable Jennifer Aniston could not make this movie watchable.

There was nothing but a couple giggles due to a crazy scene or word but it was torture!

Other than the multiple shots of penises and floppy breasts by unknown actors and actresses there was nothing of note.

Boring from start to finish, the film just kept dragging and dragging on.

I expected something of worth but never got it. The few outtakes at the end of the film were the only thing worth watching so don't forget to watch those.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 14:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

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