|English subtitles Wanderlust||one year ago|
|Arabic subtitles Wanderlust||4 years ago|
|English subtitles Wanderlust||4 years ago|
|Norwegian subtitles Wanderlust||4 years ago|
|Chinese subtitles Wanderlust||4 years ago|
|Chinese subtitles Wanderlust||4 years ago|
|Brazilian Portuguese subtitles Wanderlust||4 years ago|
|Serbian subtitles Wanderlust||4 years ago|
|Spanish subtitles Wanderlust||4 years ago|
|Dutch subtitles Wanderlust||4 years ago|
POINTLESS SATIRE (spoiler alert, if anyone cares)
3/10 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.4 years ago
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 cliche.
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.
Tries too hard
5/10 "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.4 years ago
Random, vulgar, and uncomfortable.
4/10 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.4 years ago
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.
Not good. Don't see it.
4/10 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.4 years ago
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.
Wanderlust No Spoilers
9/10 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.4 years ago
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.