User Score
5.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 61 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 35 out of 61
  2. Negative: 11 out of 61
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jun 17, 2012
    2
    This movie was horrible!!question: why have all the backup actors got soooo much more personality and screen presence than the lead?...ANSWER:
  2. Apr 11, 2012
    2
    I didn't dislike this movie, but I didn't particularly like it either. To be fair, however, I was hoping for something funnier, like Bridesmaids. If you are looking for that, I suggest skipping this movie.
  3. Mar 17, 2012
    4
    An epic failure of a movie that spends too much time on two moderately appealing characters and never expands on 4 other equally-as-interesting characters. Formulaic for about 95% of the movie, I spent most of my time wondering why it seemed so conceptually similar to When Harry Met Sally, yet was centered around babies. Then, with 10 crucial minutes left to wrap up a story that, ifAn epic failure of a movie that spends too much time on two moderately appealing characters and never expands on 4 other equally-as-interesting characters. Formulaic for about 95% of the movie, I spent most of my time wondering why it seemed so conceptually similar to When Harry Met Sally, yet was centered around babies. Then, with 10 crucial minutes left to wrap up a story that, if continuing with the formula, had a very predictable ending, yet if it strayed from the formula, it was going to happen very quickly and would ultimately ruin the movie. Somehow, this movie did both. This was a long hour and forty minutes. And the depth just wasn't there. On one hand, it seemed like Jon Hamm life partner, Jennifer Westfeldt, was constructing a sweet film about friends who fall in love, but then on the other, she reduced it to a very shallow and empty story. Such a waste of an incredible cast. Expand
  4. Mar 22, 2012
    2
    The more I think about this movie the more I dislike it. I didn't like any of the characters and they didn't like each other. To suggest that every couple that gets married and has a child is miserable is just ludicrous. The lead male was completely one dimensional, unlikable and unfeeling, the lead female was just as one dimensional and neither was interesting in any way. Save yourselfThe more I think about this movie the more I dislike it. I didn't like any of the characters and they didn't like each other. To suggest that every couple that gets married and has a child is miserable is just ludicrous. The lead male was completely one dimensional, unlikable and unfeeling, the lead female was just as one dimensional and neither was interesting in any way. Save yourself the time and money, don't bother. Expand
  5. Mar 20, 2012
    3
    The movie starts out promising but falls flat. There is not a scene in the movie that is not predictable. There are also some anti-religious statements thrown in that do not further the plot but just serve as a way for the writer (and star) to push their own liberal views.
  6. Aug 18, 2012
    1
    One of the few movies I've seen that actually gave me the creeps when it wasn't intending to. A gross cynical and very unrealistic so-called romcom. Give it a pass.
  7. Mar 14, 2012
    3
    The film loses its rhythm when it explores their romances. Jason (Adam Scott) and Julie (Jennifer Westfeldt) have quirky, earnest conversations about sex, life, and death--they talk about choosing between different ways of dying; getting eaten by an alligator vs. a shark, for example. They play off one another like a comedy duo, and this is where the film's chemistry and laughs reside.The film loses its rhythm when it explores their romances. Jason (Adam Scott) and Julie (Jennifer Westfeldt) have quirky, earnest conversations about sex, life, and death--they talk about choosing between different ways of dying; getting eaten by an alligator vs. a shark, for example. They play off one another like a comedy duo, and this is where the film's chemistry and laughs reside. But once the films shifts direction towards the budding romances of their rival love interests Mary Jane (Megan Fox) and Kurt (Edward Burns), the film fizzles. MJ and Kurt are introduced late in the film, and are types rather than individuals, which generates little tension for us in dual love triangles. While Fox feels more natural in her scenes here than she does in her previous work, she doesn't have enough to do, especially compared with the subtext Westfeldt give herself in her own scenes, where she pretends she's happy that the Jason character has found someone. Furthermore, Friends with Kids has more characters than it can handle (a maid character is introduced and then dropped from the narrative). There's a squabble between an extraneous couple at the film's climax, yet they had so little screen time heretofore that it comes out of the blue. Who are these people and why should we care if they're fighting? Westfeldt doesn't understand that just because the characters know each other doesn't mean that we do Collapse
  8. Mar 11, 2012
    0
    This was terrible, watched it with the family and was extremely disappointed. The main actress showed us what bad acting is.. please trust me when i say.. DO NOT WATCH THIS...
  9. Jan 22, 2013
    4
    I didnt find the movie boring, it kept intrest at a steady pace. But, once everything was over, the whole movie was just pointless. It had a good idea, but it just didnt go anywhere with it. Sort of a mixed feeling.
  10. Jul 27, 2013
    4
    Friends with Kids, though touching at moments, flat lined for the majority of the film. It took nearly an hour for the characters to actually meet any type of conflict. Things simmer, but nothing ever emerges from the early probable conflicts. In general the stakes were very low for the entirety of the first "act." It is obvious what is going to happen, and writer/producer/director/actorFriends with Kids, though touching at moments, flat lined for the majority of the film. It took nearly an hour for the characters to actually meet any type of conflict. Things simmer, but nothing ever emerges from the early probable conflicts. In general the stakes were very low for the entirety of the first "act." It is obvious what is going to happen, and writer/producer/director/actor Jennifer Westfeldt keeps you waiting for the inevitable to happen way to long. The two main characters are generally uninteresting, and the other four equally interesting characters are never explored or fully developed. The directing was good in parts, but like many directors have demonstrated before, it is hard to direct yourself. Westfeldt is the obvious weak spot amongst the all-star ensemble. I wanted to feel more for the characters, but I didn't. I had extremely high hopes for this film, but when Megan Fox isn't the poorest actress on camera the film is going downhill fast. Expand
Metascore
55

Mixed or average reviews - based on 36 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 15 out of 36
  2. Negative: 1 out of 36
  1. Reviewed by: Helen O'Hara
    Jun 25, 2012
    60
    It benefits from a supernaturally engaging cast, but this treads too closely to the rom-com model to feel as smart or moving as Westfeldt's previous best.
  2. Reviewed by: Jonathan Crocker
    Jun 21, 2012
    60
    Smart dialogue, a gifted ensemble and good intentions from Jennifer Westfeldt, but her grown-up romcom can't quite escape feeling like a sitcom on the big screen.
  3. Reviewed by: Dana Stevens
    Mar 10, 2012
    50
    In spite of my general distaste for Friends With Kids, let me cast my vote on the side of those who liked the ending. I wish more of the film had had that scene's fresh mixture of casual banter and breathless intimacy, instead of sounding like half-remembered dialogue from a movie we've all seen too many times before.