- Studio: Universal Pictures
- Release Date: Jun 1, 2007
User Score
6.7
out of 10
Generally favorable reviews- based on 450 Ratings
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 302 out of 450
-
Mixed: 39 out of 450
-
Negative: 109 out of 450
Review this movie
-
-
Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.
-
-
Submit
-
Check Spelling
- User score
- Most active
- By date
- Most helpful
- Most Clicked
-
DiscoS.Dec 3, 20070
-
-
jasonH.Nov 10, 20070It's a bad film, with flat characters, unbelievable situations, and a little too much faint Jew praise
-
-
JonathanJMay 7, 20090It starts with a montage and only gets worse. The only real joke is people are actually paying to see this crap.
-
-
CharlesM.Jun 4, 20074Eh.. That's how this struck me. Meh. Not very funny, not especially well acted. Not much to say really, unlike the rabid defenders/detractors. Just kinda OK with shadings towards the stinky side. Seth Rogen certainly cannot carry a leading role, and Paul Rudd was poorly utilized.
-
-
JimmyK.Aug 13, 20082This movie is a complete rip-off of a book that came out 6 months before. Plagiarism at its best!
-
-
EDOOct 15, 20070Horrible movie.Worst I've ever seen. I can't believe anyone would think this is funny.
-
-
fichotOct 15, 20070One of the worst comedies of all times. Way too long. No LOL's, just a few shy laughs. Extra-boring.
-
-
JoelXOct 26, 20071A couple of laughs - at most. The male character is so boorish and irresponsible it is hard to believe any self-respecting woman would go to bed with him no matter how drunk she was. There were plenty of opportrunities for humor, but not with these characters or this script.
-
-
badmovieOct 28, 20070This movie isn't superbad, but it's super bad.
-
-
DotF.Oct 6, 20071There are a couple of genuine laughs but mostly it's a boring 2-hour celebration of drugs, profanity, selfishness and stupidity. I really felt ripped off. I'm mystified by all the praise this overrated movie receives.
-
-
KimL.Oct 8, 20072What?? This movie was awful. Stupid, not funny, not touching, you don't feel anything except apathy at any of the (shallow) stupid characters. How did this move get such a high rating from critics and viewers alike?
-
-
DebbieJun 13, 20070
-
-
SusanH.Jun 2, 20071The worst - I couldn't find anything redeeming about it. It wasn't funny at at all and I found it extremly disgusting.
-
-
CoryP.Jun 2, 20072As of my review, this movie was rated a 8.9 ? Nothing was original about this movie. Why does our society continue to gravitate towards disgusting humor such as this ? This really could have been a good movie with a great plot. Too sad.
-
-
MarcA.Jun 20, 20073
-
-
TonyC.Jun 24, 20073This movie was just not funny and other audience members by their lack of reaction appeared to agree with me. The plot was dependent on a series of unlikely choices by the female lead - being attracted to this stoner, continuing with the pregnancy, wanting to build a relationship, living with her sister and husband, etc. the writing and casting also let the movie down badly
-
-
CarolH.Jun 29, 20070
-
-
GeoffP.Jun 3, 20072This movie isn't nearly as clever or funny as most people seem to think it is: the plot is thin and predictable, the jokes are almost always crude and carnal, and the characters are annoying. In one scene, the slobby protaganist worries that his penis is poking the baby while he's having sex with his pregnant girlfriend. Disgusting.
-
-
bean!Jun 30, 20070It's freaking me out people think this film is funny. It's not. The acting is poor, the script is terrible, the characters pat and undeveloped, and the few jokes that were laughable were repeated so often as to become annoying. Not only that, but since when does a woman have to get married if she's pregnant? The movie's premise is just so... disgusting. Very, very bad.
-
-
JohnD.Jun 5, 20073I don't know what the big deal it about this film. I went to it this afternoon and I can probably count on one hand the laughs I heard. It was cute, but too long and melodramatic. The second half was painful to sit through... by the one hour point you are waiting for the movie to end.... quickly.
-
-
KingJ.Jun 9, 20071I went to this because I enjoyed the "40 year old virgin" so much. This is nothing like that on any level. Relentlessly vulgar and cheap. If you are over twenty five, I would recommend staying as far away as possible. Rent 'Ball of Fire' with Barbara Stanwyck and Gary Cooper instead.
-
-
CraigSJul 22, 200712 slight giggles is all I got. juvenile humour. unrealistic characters and story. I could have walked out after 10 minutes and saved an hour of my life
-
-
DonKJul 23, 20071
-
-
ChrisOJul 24, 20072Filthy language and druggy ambiance ruin what could have been a cute movie. For the early teenage crowd only -- oops! R-rated so an adult will have to accompany them. Sorry.
-
-
JennySJul 28, 20072
-
-
ScooterLJul 5, 20074I tend to like these kinds of movies more than the critics. Not here. Seemed like the whole thing was recycled, with some bonus cheesy sh-- thrown in. Disappointing.
-
-
CarolynW.Jul 8, 20072Male junior high humor with few redeeming qualities. Totally unbelievable story line, with characters that weren't even likeable. Sorry I wasted the $7.50.
-
-
LarryJul 9, 20072I agree with Carolyn W--"Male junior high humor with few redeeming qualities. Totally unbelievable story line, with characters that weren't even likable." What a waste of time and money.
-
-
BradleyBAug 26, 20071
-
-
MikeYSep 26, 20073don't get it...it's like the "Beck" or "White Stripes" phenomenon...where your supposed to like them and say how brilliant they are, and everybody follows suit - like sheep...but in reality it's just not good at all.
-
-
80Knocked Up feels very NOW. The banter is bruisingly funny, the characters BRILLIANTLY childish, the portrait of our culture's narrowing gap between children and their elders hysterical--in all senses.
-
88Knocked Up could be one of the summer of 2007's sleeper hits. It certainly deserves the distinction.
-
80On the surface, Apatow's films are about sex--obsessively, exclusively, and exhaustively. (This one lasts more than two hours.) But that is a clever feint, for their true subject is age.