Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Maidexpl Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

blrnani The humour seems to be aimed at the pre-teen market, while the frequent flashing of male and female 'naughty bits' is evidently an attempt to drag in curious adolescents who don't have access to proper porn. The comedic context was adequately established, with a (youngish) middle-aged couple pushed out of NY by the burden of an economic malaise that always falls on the most vulnerable and reluctant to submit to the insufferable arrogance of his nouveau-riche brother. They return to the commune they'd spent a night at on the journey down. The leads were played by probably the USA's most likeable couple, JA and PR. And they are supported by a cast that includes Alan Alda and JA's husband to be, Justin Theroux. So what could possibly go wrong? Well, as audiences are increasingly discovering, it's all in the script and this one, apart from isolated moments, does not come close to doing the film justice. Indeed PR's rehearsal in the mirror to get himself in the mood for infidelity is possibly the most pathetic movie scene I have ever witnessed, so far short is it of either being sexy or funny. Do they really think US audiences are stupid?

dierregi I despise pretty much everything with the Apatow stamp on, so I watched this movie only because it was a lazy Saturday evening, nothing much to do and no idea Apatow had any part in it. It started almost OK, with likable couple Aniston- Rudd going broke in New York.Forced to move to Atlanta and share the house of the Rudd's character obnoxious brother, our couple stumble into a hippie community, with more or less hilarious developments. Should be a pretty innocuous comedy, but it is ruined by the following:both Rudd and Aniston are way too old to play a "young couple". In 2012 they were both 43 but in the movie they are playing at least 10 years younger. Indecision and confusion may be appealing in youth, but are sort of pathetic in characters over 40.the brother character. I totally hated him and his performance, although it seemed to have been appreciated by many. Perhaps that sort of humour does not translate in other cultures, perhaps "obnoxious" is just not funny in my bookthe crass vulgarity of modern society. This is not an Apatow fault "per se", but he is certainly very good when it comes to show the worst of the American middle-upper class. In fact, he is so good that he carries things too far - just watch the uncomfortable scene of Paul Rudd shouting obscenities at the mirror. It drags on for what seems forever, it is excessive, it stupid, but most of all, it is not funny at all.This pretty much summaries every Apatow endeavor: filled with crass obscenities, vulgar, repetitive, unfunny and a sad reminder of modern American society.P.S. Apatow is the producer

seagem 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.

latinohabanero 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.