User Score
5.0

Mixed or average reviews- based on 45 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 45
  2. Negative: 12 out of 45

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. Oct 9, 2013
    5
    Esta pelicula no me gusto tanto, tuvo buenas escenas pero igual no me gusto tanto.Esta pelicula tiene un buen tema para presentar pero no lo hizo muy bien, las historias de las parejas de la pelicula no estuvieron bien relacionadas entre ellas.Esta pelicula puede que valga la pena verla.
  2. Aug 31, 2013
    5
    It's a mediocre film but not so bad. It's a movie to have fun with your friends or your family. It's a movie to have a great time. Nothing more. Not so good, but not so bad.
  3. Jan 24, 2013
    5
    There is a good argument, and the film is very scattered. The scored with 5 points because you laugh.
  4. Dec 12, 2012
    1
    A hokey blend of stock rom-com clichés and pop culture references that panders to both parents and those who are anticipating children themselves, making it a useless pile-up of smiling celebrities to anyone else. The biggest complement I can give it is that it isn't the worst star-studded rom-com to come out in recent years (what I mean is that if Gary Marshall had directed this, it would be his best movie). The cutesy factor here is maddening; the movie is packed with so much sugar and attractive people that at one point one wonders if they should take an insulin shot. Not one actor is given room for creative insertion or improvisation and most are enclosed in lifeless storylines that play out with little original commentary on pregnancy. The only actor not left gasping for air the entire film seems to be Chris Rock, who seems comfortable enough running of scripted one liners with vigor. I couldn Expand
  5. Nov 29, 2012
    5
    While this movie had some really funny parts and a great cast, it just felt too long and dragged out. Honestly, it felt like a 3-hour movie. They should've just made a movie focused on the dads in the park. Now that would've been a keeper.
  6. Nov 25, 2012
    0
    Terrible acting;terrible movie.I predict that it'll be nominated to the Razzie Awards.When I went to see it in the theater I got bored.I hope it'll be the winner of the 33th edition of the Razzie Awards for Worst Picture.
  7. Sep 30, 2012
    5
    85 Percent awkward and unfunny moments, 15 percent OK bits featuring a few cute moments. Overall, 'What to Expect When You're Expecting' fails to do anything new whatsoever, resulting in yet another standard, boring rom-com. At least Anna Kendrick isn't bad. Also, the group of dads at the park are very unfunny, and could've been utilized loads better.
  8. Aug 30, 2012
    3
    Shockingly unoriginal, doesn't hit on any note. Plays like an equally-bad version of "Valentine's Day"/"New Year's Eve" giving stars cameos and no real meaty parts. Just press stop.
  9. Jul 13, 2012
    8
    The Critic's Are Crazy!
    This Is A Good Movie!
    JLO Does A Great Job!
  10. Jun 28, 2012
    3
    I expected a lot more from this movie! First of all, I think its not really a good movie for teenagers to watch! I expected it to be a lot more humorous but instead it's more a description about pregnant woman's hormones!
  11. Jun 16, 2012
    4
    Watching the trailer to this movie will get you most of the good parts. The movies most interesting characters were the fathers, and most of their best lines were in the trailer. Whoever made the trailer knew the score and made it seem like the fathers were a larger part of the movie--their total time on screen was probably only about ten minutes. The women in this movie were vapid liars--the kind that predominately populate chick films, especially the comedies. And for a movie that was trying to show all the different kinds of families and couples, it didn't show much of a range. Expand
  12. Jun 9, 2012
    2
    Don't waste your money on this movie. This movie isn't worth it. The scenes were boring, it was not very funny, there wasn't much action, not fun, not anything. The only thing this movie is good at is the story line, but doesn't lift my rating. This movie is NOT a go.
  13. Jun 3, 2012
    3
    THIS MOVIE IS A PILE OF JUNK.I Probably the most shallow and boring movie in decades. Pure sappy crap. I hated this movie, it was boring, with a very,very, very, very, very, very weak script. Lousy plot lines and just pure junk. You would think the cast would at least hold up the movie. Ha,ha,ha, not even close. Well maybe Miss Banks, but even then. Anyway donâ
  14. May 31, 2012
    6
    I actually enjoyed this film. It had good comedy and good actors. The only problem i saw was kind of a big one, their were literally a million stories going on at once in this film. Their wasn't even a main plot, it was just entirely consisted of maybe 5 or 6 subplots. The good cast made up for it and the comedy was pretty good as i stated before. A god balance between romanticism, drama, and comedy. Its a good enjoyable film. Don't see it if you don't enjoy romantic comedies, if you do, well then its a treat I'd give this a 6/10 Expand
  15. May 22, 2012
    0
    This movie was boring. The characters were ordinary and the scenes were bland. I didnt even finish my popcorn by the time I left. this movie was a piece of garbage.
  16. May 19, 2012
    10
    These critics are nuts!!! And this is why I NEVER EVER believe what they say! The movie was hilarious!!! Love Cameron Diaz and the cast! True entertainment!!!!! Thank you!!!
  17. May 18, 2012
    4
    Contrarily to this adapted rom-com's verbose title, one shouldn't 'expect' much; that is, unless literary desecration is in your hand of cards--if that is the game you're looking to play, then consider this mess a winner. Inspired by Heidi Murkoff's multimillion-selling-self-help-book for expectant mothers--holding the same name--'What to Expect', the film, will be much less prolific. Obviously alotting more work, and money, towards getting an ensemble cast--as opposed to garnering producers with emphasis on purpose and ingenuity--the filmmakers, here, create a product that is not the least bit unique; it's a generic label laden with followed genre-specific cliches, bawdy humor, and disjointed direction. So unevenly collected, that audiences feel as if they are watching several different sit-coms, mangled together into one episode; it's an amalgamation that becomes more tedious--keeping its storylines and characters straight--and less enjoyable to watch, as the characters are simply not all that interesting. By following five Atlanta-based couples, the film wants fervently to incorporate all its character's diverse fluff into one sitting, but such hopes are subverted to an emptily-flat experiment that pairs audiences with familiar faces acting out a weak script, while the experimenters stand back and pray that the audience doesn't notice just in fact how hollow it all really is. Nonetheless, the same experimenters (filmmakers) know that the subject matter can relate to everyone--we all have either been a kid, a parent, etc.--and manipulatively milk the subject matter for all it's worth. As far as the audience's concerned, director, Kirk Jones ("Nanny McPhee," and "Everybody's Fine") was never anticipating a success here, rather, with emphasis placed on superficially manufactured platitudes and close-ups of innocently adorable babies, he purported to cash-in on a huge demographic. Following the conventional screenplay formula for movies of the rom-com variety, there are endless storylines co-existing. There's the TV-fitness-guru instructor (Cameron Diaz), who's having a baby with her partner from a reality "Dancing with the Stars"-copy program (Matthew Morrison). In an exchange between the two, director Kirk Jones takes a few lines from Murkoff's book, where the couple discusses circumcision; germane to the book's content--maybe--but interpolated well into the film--not in the least. Next, is a struggling photographer (Jennifer Lopez) who desires to adopt a child from Ethiopia, due to a failure to conceive, with her husband (Rodrigo Santoro). Much of their involvement in the film stems from their doubts that the adoption agency will accept their bohemian lifestyle as apt, as well as Lopez's attempts to sell her pain from her child-rearing limitation; this, however, is made hard to buy as she lacks any real emotional connection with audiences, endowing only a trimmed figure, a petulant behavior, and a little girl's voice. Dennis Quaid also appears into the mix as the back-slapping, ultra-competitive, former NASCAR champ, now-dotage-dwelling sugar-daddy of much younger trophy-wife, Brooklyn Decker, who's character also happens to be expecting. But, perhaps the best to watch of the couples is Elizabeth Banks, an author and boutique owner, and her subservient husband (Ben Falcone) who is immediately assigned as the target of fun-poking and humiliation. His father happens to be Quaid's character, but his dislike of his father's personal life is made apparently known. Being a former weight-loss-show-contestant, his once obese-self still wears heavy on him, and is the source of some ridicule. Anna Kendrick and Chace Crawford make up the last couple, rival foodtruck chefs, albeit they are the least like the other four, and at times, appear to be starring in their own movie--something that could possibly work much better than this film here. They are twenty-something lovers, who occasionally exchange a few flirtatious right-hands in the process. Notwithstanding the women's role in the film--Bank's awkward, yet resonantly true rant about her third-trimester "hell" towards the end is the best part--this film is about the "Dudes." The husbands join up with Chris Rock to form a support group for fledglingly-expecting fathers, as they banter in the park about parenting bloopers and blessings. They offer some laughs, but mostly they appear pretentiously unfunny--pushing strollers in slow-motion and strutting like secret agents; not to mention the severity of some of the preceived jokes' content--leaving a child at daycare, for example, not considered humorous by all. Despite its few laughs, ensemble cast, and affecting hints towards pregnancy, 'What to Expect' is an over-packed piece of luggage that becomes too frustrating to haul around; an immersion too tediously futile and not nearly enough funny. Expect worse. Expand
  18. May 18, 2012
    7
    Ok, the movie is not perfect, have some mistakes, the performances don't are the better of the movie. But I'm love this type of movies and I enjoy much this movies. What to Expect When You're Expecting can't be perfect, but is funny.
Metascore
41

Mixed or average reviews - based on 30 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 30
  2. Negative: 7 out of 30
  1. Reviewed by: Mike McCahill
    May 26, 2012
    40
    Someday Hollywood will think of women as more than fallopian tubes in heels; until then, we're stuck with this kind of project.
  2. Reviewed by: Ellen E. Jones
    May 26, 2012
    40
    Its overview of the baby experience is obscured by a family-values lens – no single/same-sex parents - resulting in an awful ensemble comedy to complete that "Valentine's Day" / "New Year's Eve" box-set, complete with sexist clichés.
  3. Reviewed by: Mary Pols
    May 21, 2012
    30
    The awfulness of What to Expect When You're Expecting, an ugly brew of guide book, reality television and romantic comedy, is of course, entirely to be expected.