Viajar é Preciso

"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.

There are a lot of scenes in this movie that I laughed out loud at. Paul Rudd is incredible at creating very uncomfortably funny moments with his awkwardness. Key and Peele are also in this movie and both have some pretty funny roles. I don't understand the bad ratings for this because I found it to be a fun film to watch. They have some reoccurring jokes that hit just enough to not be overdone as well. Everyone did a good job acting as well.

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.

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.

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.