Wanderlust

2012

Action / Comedy / Romance

71
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Rotten 59%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Spilled 40%
IMDb Rating 5.6 10 67608

Synopsis


Uploaded By: OTTO
Downloaded 73,910 times
June 08, 2012 at 01:54 AM

Director

Cast

Jennifer Aniston as Linda Gergenblatt
Paul Rudd as George Gergenblatt
720p.BLU
650.83 MB
1280*720
English
R
23.976 fps
1hr 38 min
P/S 3 / 25

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by Neil Welch 4 / 10

Not good. Don't see it.

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.

Reviewed by andiam-1 3 / 10

POINTLESS SATIRE (spoiler alert, if anyone cares)

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.

Reviewed by Ines Witherspoon 9 / 10

Confused at the negative reviews.....

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!

Read more IMDb reviews

0 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment