No time to read? Listen to the audio version.

Wanderlust Review
By Darrin Jones / February 24

Ingredients: If you liked the plot of For Richer or Poorer, the slap-stick “comedy” of Duplex, and the juvenile humor of Without a Paddle, you will like this movie. And if you do like this movie, I’d love to know how.

Well as you might’ve guessed from the ingredients list, I wasn’t too enthralled by Wanderlust. I know it’s ‘hip’ and ‘trendy’ to bash on a stupid comedy but I love stupid comedies, I really do, I even laughed a few times at Wanderlust but it is just not good.  Okay, let’s get the plot out of the way. George (as played by Paul Rudd) is supporting his career-hopping wife Linda (Jennifer Aniston) when George suddenly loses his job and they lose their studio apartment. When forced to live and work for George’s unrealistically obnoxious brother, Rick (Ken Marino), they decide to throw caution to the wind and become part of a free-spirited rural commune. While Linda immediately finds her place in the community, George is forced to watch everything from an outsiders perspective and misses out on all the “fun” that everyone else seems to be experiencing. Can George finally learn to let go of his city wants and “drink the kool-aid” or will everything become to much for him to take, causing him to lash out at those around him and force him out of the commune and away from his wife?

Come on folks, this is a Paul Rudd comedy here, it’s not even a real question what’s going to happen. Yes, Wanderlust, like many other Paul Rudd-comedies out there, follows the exact same formula. Step one, Paul Rudd has a problem. Step two, the actress playing his wife or girlfriend takes a backseat to Rudd snidely commenting his way through his lines. Step three, he pushes their relationship to the breaking-point. And finally, step four, Rudd realizes what’s really important and the two live happily ever after. But setting aside how familiar Wanderlust feels, I could’ve liked it if it was just the usual Paul Rudd affair, or at least I could’ve respected it. But instead there’s just so many completely unfunny scenes dragging the movie down. The jokes are few and far between being spaced out by just awkwardness. There’s too much back and forth banter that lasts waaay to long, too much emphasis on uncomfortable slapstick, and just too much overall wackiness.

Wanderlust suffers from a comedic style that I like to call the “Let’s pick on that guy” method. You’ve seen this plenty of times; the protagonist is in an unfamiliar, uncomfortable environment and everyone seems to be piling on problems causing him to mug hilariously at the camera, maybe working in some “wah-wah-wah-waaah” music. But of course comedy is subjective and what is funny some may not be to others. Here, let’s take a quick test to see if you’ll laugh at this movie.

  • Do you find the idea of Paul Rudd trying to take a poo while people watch, hysterical?
  • Do you think a woman squatting down and plopping a newborn from between her legs is a laugh riot?
  • Do you think seeing of a full-frontal male nudist for an hour and a half is comedy gold?
Then this is your movie. For everyone else, well there’s always the next Paul Rudd film. 


  1. This is a shame really, because I truly love both of these actors in their own right. Rudd is usually, for the most part predictable, but funny none-the-less in most stuff he's in. Aniston is a consummate professional, and quite honestly, there's very few movies I don't enjoy her in - but for the record:

    Thank you Movie In A Blender for saving me an hour and a half of drug-drunk party humor and nudist slapstick. You may have just saved my sanity and my life as I know it. Review definitely helped! Thanks!

  2. Too bad. I agree that I usually like Rudd :(