When in Rome

Metascore
25

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 24 Critics What's this?

User Score
4.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 62 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: ,
  • 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 aAn 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
Watch On
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. Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    50
    A little bit of charm is precisely what this movie has to offer. A small dose is better than none, but you can't help wishing there was more to go around.
  3. Regardless of where its stars want to take it, all roads here lead to blandness and inanity.
  4. Josh Duhamel plays the smitten sports reporter who helps her mount her big art show, "Pain"--a fitting title, given the agony induced by this godawful comedy.
  5. 25
    It winds up being predictably charmless and forgettable, even as a travelogue or iPod download.
  6. In the case of When in Rome, oh to do what the Romans used to do: Toss the bloody thing to the lions.
  7. How do movies this bad still get made?

See all 24 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 10 out of 23
  2. Negative: 11 out of 23
  1. SamS
    Feb 28, 2010
    10
    Why do critics always hate romantic comedies? Is it because their own lives are humorless and without love? Kristen Bell is adorable and her 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. Expand
  2. jennysurfer
    Jan 31, 2010
    10
    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. 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!! Expand
  3. Jan 27, 2012
    9
    I loved it! and I disagree with this movie's critics...in generall I will never understand most of the critics (especially the ones of RottenI loved it! and I disagree with this movie's critics...in generall I will never understand most of the critics (especially the ones of Rotten Tomatoes!) . For example, critics often give many starts to comedies that are gruesome, raw and abbuse of sexual imagery (e.g There's Is Something About Mary) while they disregard romantic comedies. 'When in Rome' is engaging, sweet, yet a cool movie. It never gets tacky or overly emotional/corney. Seeing this movie was like a refreshing breeze! . If you are trying to find realism in comedies, you are not always going to find it and you may get disappointed with this. The purpose of a comedy is making you laugh, and in order to do so, the resources that producers/directors/writers use are very diverse and those may include 'fairy tale' sort of fantasy! At the end,what is important is that you enjoy it . The plot of this movie is a bit 'Disney-like' so even your children-in you have them- may enjoy it. But remember, this movie is not there to teach you anything, nor is it there to be trascendental, for is just a comedy; thus, is just about having a good time. So watch it with an open mind and an open heart...and forget about critics (their opinions are, after all, subjective) and remember, just because it is romantic it doesn't mean is bad!!! Finally, if you see it positively come and share it here! The movie needs it! Expand
  4. ChadS
    Jan 31, 2010
    4
    It isn't 1953 anymore, the year William Wyler's "Roman Holiday" hit the silver screen, when women, many of them without careers, 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
  5. Aug 24, 2012
    3
    It wasn't totally awful and it doesn't disguise itself from what it is. The cliched rom-com doesn't really get made anymore and I can see why.It wasn't totally awful and it doesn't disguise itself from what it is. The cliched rom-com doesn't really get made anymore and I can see why. It doesn't work. With comedies like The Hangover and The 40 Year-Old Virgin dominating the landscape, romantic comedies don't hold a place in the market. Also, the story in general is beyond moronic. Expand
  6. Sep 23, 2010
    3
    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, andNot 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. Expand
  7. AaronC.
    Jan 30, 2010
    0
    romantic comedies usually don't come through, but this film was so very, very terrible. What in the heck are hilarious people like 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? Expand

See all 23 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.