• Starring: Josh Duhamel, Kristen Bell
  • Summary: An ambitious young New Yorker, disillusioned with romance, takes a whirlwind trip to Rome where she defiantly plucks magic coins from a "foolish" fountain of love, inexplicably igniting the passion of an odd group of suitors: a sausage magnate, a street magician, an adoring painter and a self-admiring model. But when a charming reporter pursues her with equal zest, how will she know if his love is the real thing? (Touchstone Pictures) Expand
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 24
  2. Negative: 17 out of 24
  1. 63
    It is neither deep nor intelligent, but it's not intended to be either. The saving grace of the otherwise generic product is that Bell's vivacity and Duhamel's rakish charm allow the viewer to root for them.
  2. Entertaining, full of laughs and, as far as chick flicks go, is a sweet, romantic trip worth taking for audiences so inclined.
  3. Certain scenes in When in Rome signify nothing less than the death of screen slapstick, but I'm hoping it's one of those fake-out movie deaths where it's not really dead, not forever.

See all 24 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 19
  2. Negative: 8 out of 19
  1. RickA
    8
    You know this is what movie making was like back in the day when morality was considered an important part in the making of a film. I for one have an appreciation for good clean fun and this was fun and humorous with out profanity or nudity, wow, what a surprise. I do not care much for the degradation of humanity by morally destructive movie making and that is why I find this a refreshing change. It appears that the critics that viewed this movie care only for movies that are morally disgusting or violent n their entertainment, maybe they would have liked it better if it had a lot of profane language and a lot of full frontal nudity or incest, Do not get me wrong this is no Gone With The Wind academy award winning love story, but it was cute and fun to watch purely for the entertainment value. Expand
    • 1 of 1 users said yes
  2. Kristen Bell's first big role and it's not bad just not that good. What's wrong is that the film is just continuously repeats on itself. And by the end, it's so repetitive, it really gets under your skin. And yes, I like Kristen Bell and at times, she was funny but her supporting performers really killed it. And it was predictable, not surprised Josh Duhamel look embarrassed at times. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  3. Kristen Bell definitely does not save this cliche driven romantic comedy ( if it should even be called that. It should be a horror movie). She gives such a bad performance she almost steeps as low in acting quality as the supporting actors. When in Rome isn't funny or romantic. Please stay away. I give this movie 9%. Expand
    • 2 of 2 users said yes

See all 19 User Reviews

Trailers

Related Articles

  1. Ranked: 20 Worst Chick Flicks of the Past 20 Years

    Ranked: 20 Worst Chick Flicks of the Past 20 Years Image
    Published: August 11, 2010
    It's classic summer counterprogramming: When a major action film comes out (like this week's "The Expendables"), counter it with something that appeals to women (like this week's "Eat Pray Love"). We look back at some of the worst examples of the "chick flick" genre since 1990.

Recommended Products

  1. The Bounty Hunter Image
  2. She's Out of My League Image
  3. Leap Year Image