Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

FountainPen Oh Yes!! This little beauty makes us for many crappy films, yes indeed. Jennifer Aniston was wonderful, proved she can act (for the doubters), maintained her super sex-appeal throughout, fitted in perfectly with all the other characters in the flick. No one was a disappointment. Paul Rudd was ideally cast opposite her, and had many chances to shine. all of which he took advantage of. Alan Alda was priceless ~ whatta cool part he played!! The author guy with the minimal loin cloth was marvellously understated, a real gem in this whiz of a piece of entertainment. I feel like seeing this again right away, probably missed a few bits of business. A terrific movie to watch in a group or on your own. It had lots of twists & turns, took me by surprise often. This flick is a rare treat, not ofetn I rate anything over a 6. SEE IT !! Highly-recommended to everyone, other than party-poopers.

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

tieman64 A naturally cute Paul Rudd and an artificially enhanced Jennifer Aniston star in "Wanderlust", a weak comedy by David Wain. The film finds Aniston and Rudd playing a pair of New Yorkers who attempt to escape the economic realities of contemporary United States by living on a commune. This commune is populated by an assortment of "quirky characters"."Wanderlust" is dull, generic and lazily written. Rudd is given the film's only funny moments, and the film's "happy ending" cops-out by endorsing the very ethos that pushed our heroes into ruin. A likable Alan Alda co-stars. See instead "Minister Lonely", "Le Chinoise" and Paul Mazursky's "Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice".6//10 – Worth one viewing.

David Holt (rawiri42) 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.