Wanderlust (2012) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
144 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Tries too hard
JaniceNicole20 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.
60 out of 90 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Not good. Don't see it.
Neil Welch9 March 2012
Warning: 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.
43 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Confused at the negative reviews.....
Ines Witherspoon30 January 2013
Warning: 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!
17 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
POINTLESS SATIRE (spoiler alert, if anyone cares)
andiam-122 March 2012
Warning: 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.
33 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Random, vulgar, and uncomfortable.
jrragan6 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.
104 out of 175 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
I don't understand the hate..
james-395-55109013 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.
19 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Hilarious is you remember the late 1960's
Susan Stewart5 March 2013
If you remember the late 1960's this movie is really funny. I laughed all the way through and this is unusual for me. To find a really funny, intelligent comedy is rare and very welcome.

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.
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Wanderlust No Spoilers
Wayne Anderson28 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.
70 out of 118 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
I laughed, I cried, I got angry, but mostly I laughed!
A. newbroom14 August 2012
Warning: 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.
20 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
I truly enjoyed this
Ary Monteiro4 August 2013
I can see why this is getting so much hate, it's definitely a tad vulgar and will offend the most sensitive, but hell i'd be lying if i don't say i laughed quite consistently.

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.
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Flawed but funny, edgy comedy
guyau-399-6837217 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.
16 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Saad Khan11 June 2012
Wanderlust – TRASH IT (D) It won't be wrong to say that Wanderlust is Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd's worst movie till date. There is no story and even they don't utilize the R-Rating in their best benefits. For Jennifer, if she is not comfortable with the R-rated scenes she should not have done this movie. I think they did cut the Justin Theroux and Jennifer Aniston sex scene since they've started dating in real life. Anyways it wouldn't have made any difference but still at least it would have made sense to the story. Paul Rudd, Jennifer Aniston, Justin Thereoux, Malin Akerman all are victim of bad script and screenplay. There is nothing funny about cult or nudists as such. Simply trash this garbage. No wonder its one of the biggest duds of 2012.
48 out of 99 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
jhartman1-23 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.
21 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
10 Minutes of Funny - ** Definitely Not For Children **
TheTruthDoor6 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This movie has about 10 minutes of actual laughter, the rest is just mediocre adult dialog and situations. In typical feminist controlled Hollywood fashion, you get to see guys naked, but you don't get to see any attractive females nude, including Jennifer Aniston. The only females that are nude are in a group of old nudists running in slow motion close to the end of the film, I promise you don't want to see this part.

I question the very positive reviews posted here, I am starting to think that Hollywood studios have paid employees that post positive reviews of turkey movies on IMDb, and other sites. This is definitely NOT a great movie.

Please note that this is not a movie for children. You get shown a man in FULL nudity, both front and back, in the first 10 minutes of the film and other adult situations and visuals throughout.

QUICK SUMMARY: Wait until this movie comes out on DVD, and watch it when the kids have gone to bed.
21 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
jnova2022 February 2012
This was one of the funniest movies I've seen in a long time! Cute storyline & very entertaining! Not appropriate for under 17 (nudity & language). Jennifer Aniston is awesome in this role, she's very funny and fun to watch. Paul Rudd is hysterical in this role! Paul Rudd & Jennifer Aniston are great together in this movie. The storyline is unique - there's nothing out there like this. All of the actors in this movie are funny. They all mesh well together and do an awesome job of really making you feel like you are there with them in the movie! There's nudity and language, but if you're not too squeamish ore sensitive, it is just hilarious!
27 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Let's Join A Commune!
treeskier80227 February 2012
Oh man, was this a fun movie. I didn't have high expectations when I decided to check out Wanderlust. I didn't know all that much about the movie. It turned out to be the type of comedy I really enjoy--one that is a new, fresh idea.

Rudd and Aniston are New Yorkers who must leave the city to pursue less expensive living arrangements. The move to Atlanta to live with Rudd's obnoxious brother, but on the way, get side tracked at a commune.

The commune seems like a fun change for Rudd, but Aniston is unsure. As it turns out, Aniston likes the commune more than Rudd.

There is so much crazy humor in this movie that I don't know where to begin. There is a scene where Rudd is talking to himself in a mirror that brought my girlfriend and I to tears. The entire theater was rolling in laughter...and to me THAT is always a lot of fun.

If you like comedies and don't mind crude humor, do yourself a favor and go see this movie in the theaters. This comedy is a must see at the theater. I think because of the nature of the humor, it is best viewed when you can laugh along with a big crowd.

I rate this 9 of 10 stars. Absolutely hilarious!
27 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
An abundance of crude ruses overpowers the eccentricities of the characters.
GoneWithTheTwins23 February 2012
These days, a Judd Apatow production merely signifies a series of vulgar jokes paired with copious amounts of nudity (more male than female). Wanderlust could have been more. Sadly, the film veers off onto an unpredictable and foolish path that finds its characters' motives and settlements clashing with the marginally likable setup. The fish-out-of-water premise is a solid one and Wanderlust is not without laughs; but an abundance of crude ruses overpowers the eccentricities of the characters while hit-or-miss humor fills pointless sequences that fail to move the plot forward. The energy of Wanderlust's promising beginning fizzles quickly and the production ends up mimicking its confused and restless protagonists for the majority of the runtime.

Just as New York couple George (Paul Rudd) and Linda (Jennifer Aniston) finally commit to purchasing an apartment, sudden unemployment forces them to give up their new dream and head to Atlanta to stay with George's brother. Stopping at a wayside bed and breakfast, the couple discovers Elysium, a free-spirited commune where peace, love and happiness abound – as does a host of bizarre nudists and hippies, led by the brusque but eloquent Seth (Justin Theroux). Seduced by their carefree lifestyle, Linda elects to stay, but George isn't as easily dazzled and soon becomes vexed by the group's unorthodox and outlandish customs.

There's a lot missing from Wanderlust. It feels like 30 minutes or more have been noticeably expunged from key areas that would have established characters and running jokes (made more apparent from the theatrical trailer, which shows several scenes that never make it into the final cut). The conclusion isn't based on anything previously hinted at, the antagonist is appropriated without warning just to provide villainy, and abrupt decisions are made by unprovoked characters, resulting in a gaping lack of realism. The initial proposition is a one-note gag that sets up potential but is never given a chance to blossom. Every time locations or characters are introduced, many are ignored, forgotten, or left devoid of humorous implications. Even the most obvious involvement, such as George's brother manning a Porta-Potty company, never gets an opportunity to present the simplest, go-to gross-out skit that inevitably rears its head when dealing with carriageable sanitation units.

Thick, palpable sarcasm permeates all of Paul Rudd's lines while Aniston is utilized primarily for physical comedy. The opening scene is well done, with creative editing, weird expressions and montage, but after about fifteen minutes or so, the humor begins to dwindle rapidly. With expected stereotypes and generic sidekicks that include an obnoxious brother, a foul-mouthed kid, a crazy old man, a longhaired mantra-spewing hippie guru, and a young blonde female with evanescent inhibitions, nothing particularly unique is submitted. Nonsense takes over when verbal comedy ceases, and uncomfortable or disgustingly awkward situations shoulder those moments when absurdity stops working. It's troublesome when end credit bloopers are funnier than anything in the film. Based on early screenings and gossip, the only thing Wanderlust is likely to be remembered for is Jennifer Aniston's nude scene, which was filmed but then removed from the theatrical version.

  • The Massie Twins (GoneWithTheTwins.com)
22 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Is anyone here tired of Jennifer Anniston yet?
flakfan25 February 2012
Tired of Jennifer this and Jennifer that. Her crap stinks like everyone else's does. If Jennifer was to do a nude scene like Monica Bellucci, Heather Graham or Charlotte Rampling does, then it might be worth seeing. Not gonna happen.

And Alan Alda, I mean ALANNNNNNNNNNNNN AWLDA with a pronounced nasal banality lilt, is enough to ruin any film. Who said he is talented and funny? He is a schmuck. Boring, snobbish, condescending aloofness, talks through his Yankee nose and just all around disgusting to hear and see on the screen.

Paul Rudd, he's funny. Too bad he's in this movie with Jennifer and Alannnnnnnnnnnn AWLDA.
19 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Surprisingly Disappointing
headstocki16 June 2012

Being as I am more than fond of both Judd Apatow (Producer) and Paul Rudd (Lead Actor/Co. Producer) I was extremely eager to watch Wanderlust but came out of it disappointed and honestly quite shocked by the fact that Apatow had produced something so mediocre!

That being said I did laugh in this film on quite a few occasions actually, in particular the mirror scene which was to say the least hilarious. In my opinion it was these rare moments of overstated humour and light satire which made the film bearable. Another strong point is the running time; thankfully this film doesn't drag on too much to the point where it becomes tedious.

Rudd is consistently brilliant in nearly every release he has been in and Wanderlust is certainly no exception, but the person that stole the show for me personally was Joe Lo Truglio as Wayne the nudist novelist. I feel that in previous films Truglio has shined, never having a large part but still managing to have a huge impact on the overall humour of a film, notable examples are Kuzzick in Role Models (also alongside Rudd and director David Wain) and my personal favourite Lonnie in I Love You, Man (again, alongside Rudd). I feel that Truglio has this same effect in Wanderlust and that he played one of the more likable and overall interesting characters amongst a cast that is generally dull.

Jennifer Aniston tries. Everything she does in this film comes off as a bit too eccentric, for example the weird acid trip she has just felt awkward and kind of unnecessary. The only thing that the does to a truly good standard is playing the 'un-employed go-getter living in the midst of a bustling Manhattan' but to be fair this sort of role has got to be second nature for her. Frankly the more in-your-face kind of comedy is a little out of Aniston's comfort zone and this does show a bit in Wanderlust.

A lot of other reviews are advising you not to watch it but I disagree based on the fact that you could definitely do a lot worse. You should especially watch this if you enjoyed Wain's Wet Hot American Summer being as both films share a light form of satire. Wanderlust does not match Wet Hot American Summer in terms of overall comedy but I feel that the two are still comparable. Sure, nothing in Wanderlust is worth writing home about (apart from maybe the mirror scene which truly is, hilarious) and it is fairly forgettable but if you are ever in the mood for something light-hearted not to be taken too seriously kind of film then you can't go wrong with Wanderlust.
13 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Farming is simple
frauhicks-128 February 2012
The premise of the movie, that two city folks stumble upon a hippie commune when they want to stay at a bed and breakfast (like people short on cash would even stop at a bed and breakfast rather than a Motel 8 or sleep in the car) and that the residents are stoned all the time yet are able to live off the land so adeptly that life is easy breezy all the time is really stupid. If that was where the laughs came from, maybe the movie would make a little sense. But the laughs are actually vulgar, tiresome, and heehaw the male lead thinks whoopee how great and the female is not sure and then of course the tables are turned. Who would have seen that coming? Don't waste your time.
15 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
An actually funny comedy, refreshing LOL
Ron Mike Gehret (toanman)22 February 2012
I have not seen a good comedy for so long, but my friend and I were cracking up even after we left the theater. The story line was creative, the pace kept me interested ( I am easily bored), not a bunch of hot models but beautiful characters. Jennifer is awesome, and you can tell they had fun making this movie. There were twists and turn that totally surprised me. I pay attention to the audience as well, every where, spontaneous laughter, the nudity shocking but not offensive. Alan Alda had an important role, funny yet endearing. this reminded me so much of home, and my crazy family. So many scenes could have been filmed in the mountains of Eastern Washington, I am now homesick. I am already telling friend they have to see Wanderlust.
21 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Stupidest movie I watched in the last decade!
Samer b30 March 2012
Basically, if you fancy stupidity and disgusting comedy then this might be something you like. it's the stupidest most worthless movie I've seen in a decade.

I wanted to leave 20 minutes in but I had to stay because it was a birthday present.

The stupidity, disgusting images and regret for the 2 hours waste of my life haunted me for days.

Intelligent and creative humor is absent except for a 1 minute scene in the whole movie.

Not worth it.
14 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
The funniest movie since Bridesmaids.
Christian_Dimartino25 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
You may not know a lot about writer/director/actor David Wain, or even know who he is, but I will tell you that he is an underrated talent. He doesn't do much, but he used to have a short-lived sitcom called Stella, which I thought was hilarious, and he also directed Role Models and A Wet Hot American Summer. his latest film, Wanderlust, was in and out of theatres very quickly, which is a shame, because it's the funniest movie since Bridesmaids.

Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston play a New york couple who basically lose everything. So on their way to visit Rudd's brother, they end up staying at a camp called Elysium, which is a strange hippie inn that believes in free love, and basically doing nothing and being worry free. Once the couple decides to stay there, they both are put in a position that could tear them apart.

The film has a weird cast of characters that include Alan Alda as the owner of Elysium, Justin Theroux as the bizarre leader, Malin Ackerman as his girlfriend, sort of, and Ken Marino, who co-wrote the script, as Rudd's bizarre brother, but I would hate to give any more away, because everyone is just too funny here.

There is probably a joke every thirty seconds, whether funny, hilarious, or just plain disgusting, and everyone who is given the joke nails it. I was really hoping that its premise wouldn't grow tired, but thank goodness it doesn't. There is no hit-or-miss jokes here, all simply funny.

There are also plenty of unforgettable moments to, such as when Rudd's character is trying to get jazzed up for sex... the actors know it's funny, and it's amazing they can pull straight faces.There is no single great performance here, everyone is hilarious, and it's not fair that The Hangover Part II can make millions and millions of dollars over something that is genuinely funny. This is one of the best movies of the year so far.

8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Uncomfortable to watch, Ridiculous and WEIRD!!!!
Paul Anthony2 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Usually love comedies and don't mind some bad language etc but way too much crude language, nudity and crap jokes. Thought it looked OK at the very start but never got going at all. Not keen on Paul Rudd at the best of times but bad acting from him, Jennifer Aniston was not as good as usual.

Delt really uncomfortable to watch with my wife and made us cringe with bad plots and attempts at being funny! I just wanted to switch it off after 20 minutes but gave it the benefit of the doubt,It got worse as it went on Im afraid.

Overacting to the Max and just very crass.

Weirdest movie I've seen in sometime. not sure what they were thinking!
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews