Why do critics always hate romantic comedies? Is it because their own lives are humorless and without love? Kristen Bell is adorable and her enjoyable personality made it worth seeing the whole movie.

I thought this was a great movie. it was feel good, funny, just what it is supposed to be. it's not meant to be deep or unpredictable. loved it - great escape movie. don't listen to the critics.

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

I liked it. It was a good romantic-comedy and a great date movie.

romantic comedies usually don't come through, but this film was so very, very terrible. What in the heck are hilarious people like Kristen Bell, Danny DeVito, Angelica Huston, Will Arnett (one of my favorite comedians: terrible in this film) and Dax Sheperd doing in this god awful piece of garbage?

I saw this movie on a cruise ship one day when I was bored. I couldn't believe how lazy the writing was - it was more like a bad TV sitcom than a full production movie. Predictability is normal in a romantic comedy but a good one has good chemistry between the leads and is funny. This one is NOT funny - nearly all attempts at humor failed. The audience I saw it with were quiet the entire time.… Expand

Perfect chick flick for a night out with the ladies!!! Loved the craziness and has a different story line then others of it's kind. Truly unique!!

It isn't 1953 anymore, the year William Wyler's "Roman Holiday" hit the silver screen, when women, many of them without careers, could fly to Italy for romance and adventure. Beth(Kristen Bell), a working woman, a single woman, doesn't have the luxury of taking a two-week vacation. She's busy, in demand, but her boss reluctantly gives this curator for the Guggenheim Museum two days to attend her sister's wedding, much to the detriment of "When in Rome". At first, the film's sudden shift back to American soil jars, since the title evokes memories of Gregory Peck and Audrey Hepburn on a scooter, then disappoints, as the fallout from Beth's theivery at the Fountain of Love, one suspects, had a better chance of working in a romantic locale such as Rome. As it stands, the story labors under the pretense of serendipity, in which Beth's potential suitors had known that their match-made-in-heaven was waiting for them in New York. Not counting Nick(Josh Dushamel), the moviegoer has to suffer through not one, or two, but three "meet-cutes". Too bad Beth wasn't unemployed so she could ward off her spellbound admirers in a setting where their persistence for romance seems less like stalking. "When in Rome" contains scenes that remind the moviegoer of decidedly urbane movies such as "The Silence of the Lambs"(actually the bit in the restaurant is quite funny) and "Dressed to Kill", cinematic evocations that are counterproductive to the light comic tone of Italian farce which the filmmaker doesn't quite pull off.… Expand

This movie is poorly put together and just kind of weird. Worst of all, the jokes are not funny. There is not really even a good plot or character development. My wife and I paid $1 to see this from Redbox and I still feel ripped off. See a good movie instead of this boring piece of crap.

Not worth the time. It's true that probably the only good romantic comedy i've seen in the past couple of years was 500 Days of Summer, and this genre keeps setting the bar lower and lower, but still, you expect more than this dull, humorless movie. The so-called jokes (i don't consider falling or being hit by something a joke) are not funny, the lines are naive and the story is uninteresting.

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.

There is no doubt When In Rome is a decent film to just spend the time and have a few laughs, but it doesn't bring anything truly new to the table. Kristen Bell has potential as an actress, I just don't think she fits in comedy. Same thing for Josh, he is more like the action hero kind of guy, but props to him because I thought he was going to do bad in this film, but he did good.

One of the few movies that start badly and then just go uphill and keep improving. good for a couple of laughs and just overall extremely fun to watch. i normally hate kristen bell, but even she couldn't drag down this great film. loved it.

For a film with a cast so rife with comedic talent, this is painfully unfunny. Bell's charm is the only redeeming factor here, but it is not even remotely enough to make this watchable.

someone should ban this type of films because it only hurts the intellect of the people, these films are an aberration to the true stories of love, this movies is just .... bad

When In Rome is a cheesy, cliched and poorly acted film that mainly relies on predictable and annoying romantic-comedy cliches than originality.

FUN, FUN, FUNNY i liked this movie a lot i have seen better films but it had a few laughs i wish they made more romantic comedies that aren't rude like this one