|Page 4 of 14:||             |
|Index||140 reviews in total|
Paul R and Jennifer A play a couple who think they'll make it big in
the big city. When things go sour and they have to give up their
"luxurious" apartment, they end up in a commune and have their
This is a typical "fish-out-of-water" comedy, where Paul and Jennifer must try to change their previous capitalist ways to live in a "sharing" community. It's not without smiles, but the big laughs are few and far between. Oh, there IS character development. Both Paul and Jennifers characters grow from their experiences and Pauls sister-in-law makes an (un?)espected decision.
There are better ways to spend an evening, but if you just want to relax on the couch and not think too much - there you go.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Wanderlust (2012): Dir: David Wain / Cast: Paul Rudd, Jennifer Aniston, Justin Theroux, Malin Akerman, Lauren Ambrose: Director David Wain seems willing to dabble in forbidden vulgarity, as seen in the wretched Role Models. Now he has dived into a project of equal depravity but the difference is the concept is much more curious. It regards the forbidden fruit within a hippie community that a financially struggling city couple happens upon one evening after several hours of driving. Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston are jobless yet find certain freedom with these people. They are nudists who live off the land and do not believe in closed doors. They also do not believe in the sacredness of marriage because they encourage sexual freedom. This troubles Rudd whose interest in the place is tainted after he learns that his wife had sex with the doped out leader. After the initial concept passes, the film becomes bent on shocking viewers with constant nudity including a slow motion shot of several overweight and elderly folks running towards the camera. It is strange that when Aniston pulls her top off, viewers are greeted with a fuzzy censor. It is rather insulting that she is censored yet any scene that is off putting is exploited. Rudd and Aniston survive the pornographic charade but Justin Theroux as the hippie leader is way too obvious in his intentions. Malin Akerman steals scenes as a sexually loose female who offers herself to Rudd without hesitation. Other characters are about as plain as the clothing they strip off. Strangely enough these communities do exist and are a great subject for comedy despite its willingness to tease our lust. Score: 6 ½ / 10
This is a movie i've wanted to see for a while, and the perks of being
a student is that you always have time to watch movies. Wanderlust
features George (Paul Rudd) and Linda (Jennifer Aniston) who are hit
with sudden unemployment. This couple looks for life elsewhere, when
they stumble across Elysium, an alternative rural commune where free
love rules, yeah. After being invited to live with the community they
begin to experience their lifestyle, which leads to some funny
Wanderlust has received a lot of hate for not being that good, and yeah its not the best movie in the world but it doesn't mean its the worst. Wanderlust is a strange movie, its funny at points, largely finding humour in awkward experiences and the scene with Paul Rudd and the mirror is probably its most recognisable scene, as it is hilarious. As far as being a great movie, id say its a pretty average film, you'll get some laughs, but in comparison to some of Paul Rudd's other movies its not as good, not forgetting the large amount of inappropriateness.
The cast of this movie is packed full of hilarious actors and i think the reason we don't find it as good as we expect to be so because there are so many funny actors in it. For anyone watching this, its average but some funny parts and definitely not one to watch with the parents.
Check out my other reviews on http://russellviews.blogspot.co.uk
Wanderlust is certainly not a great movie that will go into the annals
of Hollywood movie-making for eternity. But then, how many are?
Maybe I'm getting Alzheimer's but an interesting thing happened for me with Wanderlust. My neighbour rented it and, before returning it, knowing my liking for comedies, asked if I would like to borrow it so I naturally accepted. After watching it from beginning to end (and laughing occasionally), as I always do, I entered it into a database I have set up on my computer of all the movies I have seen along with a personal rating out of 100. However, when I told the database to sort it into alphabetical order, I noticed that I already had Wanderlust listed - with (would you believe) the same score! According to the existing record, I had watched the movie just under two years ago and yet, this time around, absolutely nothing reminded me that I had seen it before. My suggestion about Alzheimer's was, by the way, in jest because I have watched other movies subsequent times and, after just a few moments, realised that I had already seen them and even remembered the next lines. So what does this say about Wanderlust? No doubt, some psychologist would have all sorts of theories about that and, to be honest, I would love to know what they are. Unfortunately, the chances of me ever finding out are remote, to say the least.
Lots of reviewers seem compelled to include a synopsis of the movies they review even though IMDb already does that very adequately. I will not waste readers' time by doing that. However, I will repeat a comment I have made more than once on IMDb that they should add another genre - that being farce - because Wanderlust is just that. The reason I say this is because, for those who check out IMDb before watching movies, when seeing a movie listed as both a comedy and a farce, they would be better mentally prepared for what is to come. (After all, why do they check in the first place?)
Never having even visited a hippie commune, I am totally unqualified to say how true or otherwise the portrayal of one in Wanderlust is but, if it IS true to life, then I sure as hell don't want to go there! sure, it's hilarious to watch someone else sitting on the toilet trying to have a crap with all and sundry surrounding him and offering advice but I wouldn't want to BE him! But then I wouldn't want to ever live in a puny little box like that George (Paul Rudd) and Linda (Jennifer Aniston) had in New York either. I guess the whole point of the movie is a comparison between the two - which is somewhat polarised. But then it IS a comedy and I DID watch it twice and enjoyed it both times so take that how you will.
Paul Rudd is a financial executive who has been fired just a few weeks
after he purchased micro loft in New York. Jennifer Aniston plays his
wife who wants to make a documentary on the sex lives of penguins.
They head out down south to work for Rudd's obnoxious brother but cannot stand being with him and end up in a hippie commune called Elysium whose figurehead is Alan Alda.
As the tile implies in the commune which has a lot of nudity both male and female, no doors and talk of free love the couple decide to find themselves, away from the rat race. Justin Theroux has designs on Aniston and may also have designs on money offered by developers who want Elysium.
Rudd has the hotels for Malin Akerman and also wants to get back on his financial feet leading to a clash between him and Aniston.
The film is not laugh out funny but is edgy enough, some nice characters in the commune although some are eccentric and Theroux is obviously a shifty one. Some of the plot is rather predictable and it is unashamedly aimed at an adult audience.
Its also good to see Alda playing a nice guy for a change after a run of oily unlikeable characters.
Wanderlust is a funny, silly movie that features good acting. But I
must warn general viewers that this is not a film for everybody. In
fact, if you're an Aniston or Rudd fan, you'll be let down. This film
is for a niche audience and I think ex-hippies would mostly appreciate
this. However, I liked this film and found to be pretty funny. However,
some jokes fall flat and they makes things somewhat awkward.
David Wain's film is about a couple from New York, George and Linda who are both suddenly unemployed. They leave the city and head to Georgia. There, they encounter a community of hippie-like people and slowly but surely, they begin to learn the ways of their life.
The acting is pretty good. This is a film that both Rudd and Aniston are usually not doing, but they really did a good job. The film has great supporting cast too. Malin Akerman, Justin Theroux, and Alan Alda all really had funny parts.
Overall, this is a decent comedy that has some great jokes, but others were....not so good. But, the direction from David Wain is more mature than this previous film, Role Models. That actually may of hindered the film a little bit since I really loved that childish film. I had a good time getting to know the hippie people in the film. I rate this film 8/10.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I mean, 90% of the time you will think "did they really think this
stuff can be funny? Or even interesting? Is it really possible to get
THIS low?". Folks, if the story sucks, how can the movie be good? This
dough is the ultimate cloned-stereotype festival. Not funny at all,
incredibly boring when not disturbing here and there. In spite of her
age, looks like Jennifer Aniston would do anything to get undressed.
After all she didn't spend all that money on cosmetic surgery to keep
the silicone into her shirt, so any script requiring her to drop her
clothes is a yes, regardless how crappy it is. OK, she has never been
as gorgeous as Angelina Jolie, but she used to be somewhat averagely
pretty. Now her face is made of rubber making her look like Gary Busey,
yet another Hollywood transvestite, hurray...
As about the movie, it's cheesier than cheddar. It seems the ideas for funny gags and interesting story simple didn't come out, so they just tried to clone Borat hardly being nearly as funny, when not spreading wrong, twisted values: life sucks unless it's hi voltage, people who don't like reality shows and fast foods all are brainless weirdos talking to trees, you have to stay with your wife regardless whom she sleeps with. If you can't make em laugh at least strike em hard. Undelivered, too boring to strike anybody. And no, all wrong. Life is good in big cities as well provided you aren't an imbecile, I detest crappy TV shows and junk food and I am not a weirdo, if anybody's wife sleeps with another man they are going to kick her out goodbye. Empty story without any sense, dull characters and not a single laugh. I ended up hoping some random lunatic would come up and kill everybody, just to have some actual facts I could mention in this review, but it simply didn't happen. Nothing interesting happens in this bad clone of the lowest spoof flicks with unfunny comedians.
I noticed some reviewers gave this a 10. Either part of the crew or complete morons. If you give this crap a 10/10, how much do you assign to a real comedy, say "A Fish Called Wanda" ? 650/10 ?
Stay away, nothing can be this terrible on TV anyway. If it really sucks, it's the same stuff.
I though the film was a bit cheese, I didn't buy it and it annoyed me
quite a bit - the nudity was quite bad, the plot quite weak and
honestly I would literally kill myself if I had to pay to watch this.
What's the point of making a romantic comedy if all it has is nudity (in which nobody has the right figure for the screen) and I know we mostly judge by shape and looks these days but it was all Eeeeeeewwwwww!
I originally though it was worth the watch since it got quite a lot of bad reviews and a few good ones but the ones that liked it were annoyed at those who didn't so I had to see what the fuss was all about and damn, it had bad reviews for a reason, if you want to get bored and waste your time then be my guest but you've been warned fellas.
There's not too much going on here. Idiosyncratic comedian David Wain directs and co-writes a trifle about two yuppies (Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston) forced to relocate to Georgia and end up on a commune run by a spiritualist with hidden intentions (Justin Theroux). There isn't a moment that isn't predictable with only a couple of modest laughs. Rudd is quickly turning into the Everyman of ca-ca jokes (not a good thing) while Aniston still would rather take roles that highlight her beauty rather than the more demanding ones (such as "The Good Girl") that she attempted shortly after her film career began in earnest. Director Wain offers no indication that his style of humor (wacky, awkward moments) has the heft that is needed to distinguish it from anyone else; it's unfortunately evident he belongs here in the stable of Judd Apatow's bland filmmakers.
At the end of this movie there are a few bloopers, in which basically
the actors burst into laugh when saying some lines of their respective
characters. Watching this, I thought to myself - this movie was
obviously funny only to the people on the set, while it was being made.
Maybe I would have laughed too if I was there with them. It's either
that or none of the actors have any sense of humor. Which I don't
believe is the case, because some of these actors are generally good, I
guess they just fell victims to a devastatingly bad script.
In other words, this movie sucks big time. I mean, I didn't expect much, since it's a romantic comedy, and such movies are practically supposed to be uninventive and predictable. But this one is almost unbearable to watch. There is no plot whatsoever, the characters are mostly idiotic (not funny kind, just plainly idiotic); I think personally the only positive thing about this movie would be Jennifer Aniston, but her performance wasn't quite admirable as well. I guess that's because the movie didn't require any performance to begin with. Just a bunch of aimless characters, with moronic lines that don't make any sense most of the time.
There is a mild improvement in general perspective of the movie while it gets closer to the end, when it gradually blends into "the romantic-comedy cliché" (I can't believe that I actually said that a cliché is an improvement, but in this case this is true). Unfortunately, it's not remotely enough to make it worth while.
Want my advice? Skip this one!
|Page 4 of 14:||             |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Official site|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|