|Page 5 of 14:||             |
|Index||133 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Back in the 70's this would have been classified as soft porn -
flaccid, bouncing body parts make you want to look away, dialogue so
laden with sexual content only those registering as mental pre-teen are
going to snicker and enjoy this kind of fare. Keep moving folks,
nothing to see here: isn't that what they say at the scene of an
accident? Well, this movie certainly is one in so many ways.
It was fun to see Alan Alda and Linda Lavin in their supporting roles - if you are going back to the '70's who better than these two stalwarts of the period - problem is they have limited time on the screen and don't really have a chance to show their chops.
Paul Rudd is very talented but mostly in the length of a SNL television skit. Painful to watch the scene where he is psyching himself up in the bathroom to stray into infidelity - talking to himself to build his courage. Way too long and most of the scene should have been edited out.
Jennifer Aniston is very likable and is much better in Horrible Bosses and We're the Millers which isn't saying a lot but gives perspective that she is wasted here. I could have gone a long time without seeing her simulate using a leaf on herself while she squats in the commune front yard.
The supporting cast especially the women did a good job in each of their roles. Justin Theroux as Seth did not help his film career. An age peer of Alan Alda would have been much better than Theroux. Someone against type who could be over the top as the commune leader. I would loved to have seen Al Pacino in the role or even Tom Selleck (another TV throwback to go along with Alda and Lavin) as the out of touch emotional cannonball/still horny-for-strange women-leader of the pack. Now that could have made this watchable. Plus a better script. Plus better editing. Plus abandon the stream of consciousness trash mouth scenes. You get the idea.
I saw this on DVD and couldn't bear to watch the extras. My first thought was to throw this in the trash. This one is Not recommended.
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 movie had both strong points and weak points. The strength lay
mainly in the comedy aspect - there were definitely funny jokes (maybe
not laughing-out-loud funny, but then again, that's not my favorite
form of comedy). It has a pretty unique tone, though this was
intercepted by the weaker points. As far as strength goes, acting was
Weak points lay mostly in the clichés - regarding everything from plot to character types to dialogue. There were a lot of them and sometimes that really detracted from the enjoyment of this movie. There was just too much and not done well enough. It could have been a unique take on a tired genre, but it sticks to being safe and that detracts from the experience.
Still: 5/10 - I'll probably never watch it again but I don't regret spending my time on it (coming from someone who isn't really into rom-coms to begin with).
If you're looking for an adequate comedy that doesn't push any
envelopes too far, that is warm and friendly but still contains plenty
of adult content, then Wanderlust is just right for you. It's about two
uptight New Yorkers who, on the way to relocation in Georgia, spend a
night at a bed and breakfast that doubles as a commune - and find out
they like it. A lot. The movie features playful performances by
Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd and is harmless fun.
The movie is written and directed by David Wain, he of Wet Hot American Summer, Children's Hospital, and The State fame, so you should know what you're getting - some gross-out stuff, some over-the-top stuff, and some stuff that doesn't quite work. Assisting him in his mayhem are former State-mates Ken Marino, Kerri Kenney, Joe Lo Truglio, Michael Ian Black, and Michael Showalter. Justin Theroux plays the ad hoc leader of the pack, a mellow man who believes it's still 1985 (apparently); Alan Alda is along as the last remaining founding member; Jordan Peele and Malin Akerman have small parts as well. On screen, that is.
The basic gist is this: George (Rudd) has just lost his job when the CEO is arrested for something or other, just as Linda (Aniston) fails to sell a documentary to HBO about penguins. They've just bought an apartment in the Upper West side of Manhattan. Now they have no income. Tails between legs, they drive from New York down to the hinterlands of Atlanta to stay with George's brother Rick (Marino). Along the way - thankfully, in montage form - they bicker and make up, bicker and make up.
Finally, Linda says she just has to stop; they've driven enough. The nearest place to spend the night is Elysium, and yes, it's as hippie- like as its name implies. There's a nudist who's writing a book. They don't clap, they snap their fingers. Guitar is played. Games like "truth telling" are played. Weird roots are eaten. There are no doors inside the house, not even for the bathrooms. It's a quintessential commune, as far as I know.
I think the motivation of a character is the key to a movie, and here motivation is what (no pun intended) drives the plot. First they leave, then they come back. How could they not? Oh, here's something else - the denizens of the group practice free love. I assume the communes of the sixties were exactly like this one. That's what literature's told me.
Anyway, let's look at our characters. Both George and Linda vacillate, as you might expect them to, and not at the same time, as you'd also expect. What do they want out of life, anyway? They're not young. Sometimes staying with the oddballs sounds like fun and sensible; other times, returning to Life makes a heck of a better argument. Meanwhile, Theroux's Seth has the hots for Linda, and Akerman's Eva has the same for George. Awkward. Kenney is a laugh riot as a dotty matriarch who's about as offbeat and, frankly, crazed as her character on Reno 911!. Alda is grizzled and constantly seems to be reciting the names of the other, long-lost cofounders of the place. It's trippy.
To use a horrible cliché, Wanderlust is what it is - and nothing more. It doesn't pretend to be either an all-out slapstick or intelligent comedy. It's lighthearted, lacking in any serious mean streak (there's some obnoxious teasing on the part of brother Rick). It's an amiable, if slightly aimless, film. There are no twists to be wary of, no plot intricacies to keep track of. It's straightforward humor. You either go with it or don't, which is why it just misses the mark; the better comedies carry you along with them, either through rapid witty lines or pratfalls galore.
It was really hard to decide whether to include or not to include this
new age comedy in the movies worth watching, but in the end Paul Rudd's
performance along with some aspects of the story prevailed. Wanderlust
is one of those hipster comedies that tries so hard not to be it, but
eventually it just accepts the truth and goes along with it. The thing
that makes this movie work is the Paul Rudd's character, a calm,
rational average guy who thinks like the rest of us but also has a wild
side and some dreams (I guess wet) that he would like to see happen in
real life, and this is the reason why you should see the movie (well, I
guess Jennifer is easy on the eye too). If you ever wondered what would
happen if you joined a hippie community along with your girlfriend/wife
this is what would probably happen. There are a few good jokes and
awkward situations that make it look like a comedy, but I think that
Wonderlust would be much better off as some tense up drama, but I guess
there are enough movies about crazy hippie cults.
George and Linda Gergenblatt are living in the city, busy with their day-to-day boring survival. They both are working (or at least trying in Linda's case), but they're not rich and can barely make the payments. After their latest purchase of a crappy apartment they're left without money and are forced to go live with George's brother and his wife (not a very good solution). On their way there they stumble upon a community of free-loving hippies living in the woods a different lifestyle without boundaries and obligations. Linda is immediately attracted to this new thing, while George remains skeptical, but as tension rise in his brothers house they decide to give a hippie commune a go, and this will prove to be an experience of a lifetime.
Check out my review site Rabbit-Reviews.com for movies that are worth watching, Rabbit out...
*** 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.
|Page 5 of 14:||             |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|