Paramount Pictures | Release Date: March 10, 2006
5.6
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 65 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
25
Mixed:
24
Negative:
16
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characteres (5000 max)
3
cameronmorewoodNov 8, 2012
In order for romantic cheese to appeal to me, it either has to be funny, or least feature a likable enough actress to where I care whether they find happiness or not. It's not funny, and Sarah Jessica Parker looks like a horse.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
oblique15Oct 12, 2013
It`s an ok movie, with a unique twist, but it failed to Launch anything to grab my attention for to long.I think it`s worth watching, but it`s just an avr. Romance/comedy flick.I will say more original than most.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
2
HermioneP.Mar 12, 2006
This misguided attempt at romantic comedy pulls every trick out of an old hat from meet-cute, deception, slapstick, and "wity repartee," to animal cruelty, bondage, torture, mooning, hazing, and the worst offense, referencing actually good This misguided attempt at romantic comedy pulls every trick out of an old hat from meet-cute, deception, slapstick, and "wity repartee," to animal cruelty, bondage, torture, mooning, hazing, and the worst offense, referencing actually good films of the past-- all in lieu of giving us a good story that we can emotionally connect to. The only feeling evoked from me was despair. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
SandraMar 13, 2006
The movie critics are at fault for overanalyzing this movie. It is not meant to compete for a Best Movie Oscar or be a breakthrough movie! It is simply to entertain and it does that extremely well for all of its 96 minutes! I read all the The movie critics are at fault for overanalyzing this movie. It is not meant to compete for a Best Movie Oscar or be a breakthrough movie! It is simply to entertain and it does that extremely well for all of its 96 minutes! I read all the glum critiques and decided to go anyway expecting to be disappointed. I was pleasantly surprised. All the characters work together to give this movie a definite thumbs up! Yes, you usually know how romantic comedies will end, but this one makes me want to go back and see it again. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
PabloR.Mar 11, 2006
Hilarious...this is actually very funny. Even though i dont like that stupid ho from SEX AND THE CITY she is kinda funny in this movie, with all her facial expressions and Mathew brings it out pretty good for this movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JimboH.Mar 17, 2006
A cute date movie that will probably have the girl giggling and the guy going "I saw these kinds of jokes in the last romantic comedy." I'm agreeing with ebert, having animals bite someone is well, not funny anymore and its become very A cute date movie that will probably have the girl giggling and the guy going "I saw these kinds of jokes in the last romantic comedy." I'm agreeing with ebert, having animals bite someone is well, not funny anymore and its become very cliche to see in a romantic comedy. I'm going to disagree with Kyle Smith and say this isn't by a guy comedy at all. In the theater I was at I only heard women laughing and the guy/girl ratio was 1:1. Overall I think the most accurate review of the movie is James Berardinelli's. I didn't feel the emotion between the main characters either. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
EricT.Mar 19, 2006
At first I said this move must have been written by mokeys. Then I determined it must have been monkeys who were only familiar with the Mandarin language. In the end I think the monkeys crapped on a piece of paper and it was deemed a script. At first I said this move must have been written by mokeys. Then I determined it must have been monkeys who were only familiar with the Mandarin language. In the end I think the monkeys crapped on a piece of paper and it was deemed a script. Deschanel was the movies only redeeming quality. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
Rev.RikardApr 3, 2006
I agree with Kyle Smith of the NY Post: this is not a "chick flick." It has far more in common with "40 Year Old Virgin" than a J Lo movie. It does deserve one positive comment: the subject matter is culturally relevant since more young I agree with Kyle Smith of the NY Post: this is not a "chick flick." It has far more in common with "40 Year Old Virgin" than a J Lo movie. It does deserve one positive comment: the subject matter is culturally relevant since more young adults are living at home. However, like many romantic comedies, it is predictable and shallow. This film could have explored so much! [***SPOILERS***] Kathy Bates' character was dealing with the thought of living alone with her husband for the first time (a real issue that causes a lot of divorce!), Bradshaw's pent up desires set free only after the child leaves (God I wish it had been any other desire than to be a nudist; he needs a personal trainer just for his rear!), and the son's warped sense of "privilege" (he feels no remorse or shame is making his mother work like his pesonal maid). Yet, this movie just lightly touches these serious societal issues while trying to make us laugh with the same kind of humor in most modern comedies about romance. Addressing these more "serious" issues would not have necessarily have made humor impossible. We laugh most robustly about such issues because it is the way we "declaw" them, taking away their power to make us miserable. Examining these issues through comedy can give new perspective. Consequently, this movie blew a great opportunity to be a memorable comedy and a contribution to the current social dialogue about family life. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
LouisB.Apr 4, 2006
Terry Bradshaw and Zooey Deschanel are worth the price of admission. Matthew and Sarah Jessica have good chemistry. Movie is better than the reviews say it is and a lot of fun.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
LisaF.May 3, 2006
Truly the feel good movie you want to go see. Laugh out loud or just chuckle, you can't help but enjoy yourself here (even if it is just because you are thankful you never had this happen to you!) [***SPOILERS***] Sarah Jessica Parker Truly the feel good movie you want to go see. Laugh out loud or just chuckle, you can't help but enjoy yourself here (even if it is just because you are thankful you never had this happen to you!) [***SPOILERS***] Sarah Jessica Parker comes across as genuine and relateable, and you feel happy for her when she realizes she has finally found The One, even though you are sad because you know what has to happen next -- The Reveal. Matthew McConaughey is delightful and fun. Kind of the boy next store, big brother we all wanted. He lends a spontenaity and charm to the character that helps draw us into his world and root for his success. While I love Kathy Bates and Terry Bradshaw, and am happy to see them "show" the older couple as loving and sexual partners after all those years, I could have gone the rest of my life without seeing Terry's butt! Take a friend or a girlfriend and check out Failure To Launch. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
MarekB.Jun 28, 2006
Interesting film, good and enjoyably worth a look. Just not the best film ever.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
MatthewM.Jun 30, 2006
By no means am I a movie critic, but this movie has bad acting, bad comedy and bad chemistry.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
[Anonymous]Mar 13, 2006
Enjoyable and fun! Great date night movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
AnonymousMar 18, 2006
What do people see in this movie. I feel that I lost two hours of my life (though, sitting through tis movie, it felt much longer). Matthew McConaughey can't act and for most of this movie, he doesn't look that good either. Parker What do people see in this movie. I feel that I lost two hours of my life (though, sitting through tis movie, it felt much longer). Matthew McConaughey can't act and for most of this movie, he doesn't look that good either. Parker is fair at best, though the camera is not her friend in many shots. Any reviewer that recommended this movie, in any way, should have to personally pay back the people that they convinced to see this movie. This movie and some of its reviews makes a case for tihe idea that some reviewers can be bought. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
JamesB.Mar 26, 2006
Enjoyable romantic & buddy movie. McConaughey was maybe a little miscast, but it's made up for with Parker, Bradshaw, and certainly Kathy Bates. This is a "no surprises" film with an excellent cast and a decent script. If you're in Enjoyable romantic & buddy movie. McConaughey was maybe a little miscast, but it's made up for with Parker, Bradshaw, and certainly Kathy Bates. This is a "no surprises" film with an excellent cast and a decent script. If you're in the mood for somehting light, you shouldn't be disappointed. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
MarkB.Mar 28, 2006
The obvious instant rebuttal to this romantic comedy's just-asking-for-it title would be, "It never gets off the ground", but that's neither the case nor the problem. It really does life off quite pleasingly, and stays airborne for The obvious instant rebuttal to this romantic comedy's just-asking-for-it title would be, "It never gets off the ground", but that's neither the case nor the problem. It really does life off quite pleasingly, and stays airborne for a period of time before imploding in a variety of ways and crashing. You certainly can't fault the casting director: Matthew McConaughey, who along with Kate Hudson elevated a similarly unsavory premise a few years ago into the surprisingly watchable How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days, is one of the most easygoing, likable leading men onscreen today, while Sarah Jessica Parker is normally so appealing and engaging that she pulled a nifty bit of subterfuge this past Christmas, making a character in The Family Stone that the author clearly didn't like and didn't want us to either into the most sympathetic figure in the picture. Kathy Bates and Terry Bradshaw maintain an extremely pleasant, old-shoe rapport as slacker Tripp's (McConaughey's) longsuffering parents: you really do believe that these folks have been married for decades, and an extra pat on the back to the casting director for picking asctors with accents to complement McConaughey's. As for Zooey Deschanael as Parker's cynical but lonely roommate, she's so hilariously and charmingly deadpan, and brings so much originality and heart into the mix that I regretted the indie film featuring this actress as this character that's never going to be made. (Her bit with the gun store clerk is the unquestioned highlight of this movie.) It's obvious that Failure to Launch's "hook"-- the meeting of Parker, playing a woman who's hired by the parents of thirtysomethings who still haven't moved out of the house to use romance and sex to lure their male offspring into leaving the nest, and McConaughey, as one of those emotionally stunted overgrown adolescents who uses the fact that he's still living at home as enablement to his commitmentphobia, scaring away women who get too close by literally bringing them to meet Mom and Dad--is flawed both logically (wouldn't at least a couple of McConaughey's women have insisted on going to his place earlier in the relationship?) and ethically (in essence, isn't Parker's character a whore, the men she attracts her unwitting johns, and their parents her pimps?) But the performers and some good dialogue make this an acceptable Tradeoff Movie--guys willingly take their spouses or significant others to it one weekend as a tradeoff for said ladies accompanying them to V For Vendetta or an auto show the next--up to a point. The first cracks in the fissure occur with a really dumb, misguided series of sight gags in which McConaughey is repeatedly attacked by various flying, swimming and scampering creatures; the problems continue when writers Tom Astle and Matt Ember insist on shoehorning in some unconvincing Serious Explanations for McConaughey's and Parker's aberrant behavior that are so perfunctory that they were better off not being included in the first place. But the edifice collapses completely and irreparably when, in the interest of moving the plot, the movie shows us more details of Parker plying her trade than we needed to see. I never thought I'd be using the words "Sarah Jessica Parker" and "loathsome" in the same sentence, but midway through we see her hustling one of her other victims--a Star Wars geek who's so sad and pathetic, and just breaks your heart when he asks Parker not to leave him (he does this not once but twice!)--that we see just how utterly despicable and indefensible Parker's chosen profession is, and that the parents hiring her for it should be brought to justice for some sort of adult/ child abuse. The movie gets more and more contrived and desperate from here on, reaching the point of no return with what Joe Bob Briggs might've called the Gratuitous Nekkid Terry Bradshaw Footage (three, count 'em three, shots of his naked ass that only serve to prove that he shouldn't spend much time waiting by the phone for those jeans-endorsement people to call). The Washington Post's Stephen Hunter is truly one of the most perceptive film critics in the country (besides being an excellent writer of thriller novels) but his favorable comparison of this thing with the films of Billy Wilder--perhaps because of a few well-timed lines and the fact that the principals here, like those in Double Indemnity, Sunset Blvd. and The Apartment eventually come to realize some of the consequences of their actions--only serves to indicate just how far we've slid from Wilder's heyday and how sorely he's missed. Collapse
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
MatthewR.Mar 9, 2006
Deschanel wih those Betty Davis eyes steals the picture. Sarah Jessica continues to be as excrutiatingly annoying as she was in that stupid shoe fest called Sex and the City. Is Terry Bradshaw the new Robert DeNiro?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
NicolaD.Jul 5, 2006
Its a fun comedy. It's not earthshattering, but its amusing. For the life of me I don't know why anyone would spend the time writing a 700+ word review on such a light weight movie!! Its entertainment it doesn't need to be Its a fun comedy. It's not earthshattering, but its amusing. For the life of me I don't know why anyone would spend the time writing a 700+ word review on such a light weight movie!! Its entertainment it doesn't need to be over-analysed. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
PeterJ.Nov 5, 2006
Sarah Jessica Parker is awful in this movie. There was no chemistry at all between her and Matthew. Despite that, Terry Bradshaw gave me a few laughs. The movie was so far out there, that I couldn't just stop watching it, which is why Sarah Jessica Parker is awful in this movie. There was no chemistry at all between her and Matthew. Despite that, Terry Bradshaw gave me a few laughs. The movie was so far out there, that I couldn't just stop watching it, which is why it gets a 6. It probably deserves worse. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
SusanM.Mar 13, 2006
Very funny movie, and as a flag-waving animal advocate, I can say that nothing in this movie approaches animal cruelty. Matthew is awesome, so funny and soooo gorgeous! And SJP is great also, like her or not she's a really good actress.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
BMar 19, 2006
This movie is a solid 7 out of 10 with little room for debate. It's the movie equivalent of warm water. Not particularly hot, not close to cold. It does it's job as a date movie, putting you in a generally warm state of mind, but This movie is a solid 7 out of 10 with little room for debate. It's the movie equivalent of warm water. Not particularly hot, not close to cold. It does it's job as a date movie, putting you in a generally warm state of mind, but not distracting you with a complicated plot or anything like that. I wasn't on a date when I saw it, but I thought it was pretty decent. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JHJul 23, 2006
Not the best romantic comedy I've seen, but not the worst either. It was, for the most part, entertaining. Worth renting.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
jp992751Jan 18, 2011
Not terrible but definitely not one I would watch again. McConaughey lost points in my mind after this one. It had some funny moments but far too few.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews