"A romantic comedy of such staggering ineptness that it actually makes one wish the filmmaker would redirect his attention back to the superhero genre he sullied." - Nick Schager

Beth Harper, a work-a-holic, falls in love with the man of her dreams. But she must choose between her job and the love of her life! And in a dramatic twist she abandons her job, disses her boss, and throws herself at the man of her dreams. *Whoops the was a spoiler: But it's not like you haven't seen better versions of this film with Sandra Bullock, Cameron Diaz, Kate Hudson, Jennifer Lopez, just about any other romance comedy!

Why was this even made?

Kristen Bell is adorable and a fairly good actress. She made me think this would at least be mediocre or just plain forgettable. It wasn't.

Pretty wretched, even if you accept the film's ridiculous premise. I don't see why anyone would ever fall in love with a psychotic chick like that... (but then, Duhamel DID marry Fergie in real life, so I guess anything's possible). There were one or two laughs, all from that Flight of the Condors stalker chick.

Romantic comedy about an ambitious young New Yorker, perpetually unlucky in love, who is pursued by a motley crew of suitors after she swipes a handful of coins from a fountain of love in Rome. Certain scenes in 'When in Rome' signify nothing less than the death of screen slapstick... The movie lacks invention and true magic in the worst way.

Cheesy... and not even funny cheesy...

The humor is bad, like cancelled-sitcom-bad relying exclusively on people acting implausibly wacky. Kristen Bell is completely unlikable as a character that is alternately drunk, caffeinated and frigid so its hard to figure out if the fault lies in the script or the monotone acting. There is zero romantic chemistry, charm or warmth, just lots of unwanted suitor wackiness that would wear on the patience of a coma patient.

Properly constructed romantic comedy. Average fun, bit silly but pleasant and watchable.

Cheesy one.

The only thing funny or entertaining about this abomination is imagining the pure juvenile ineptitude with which it was constructed, never has there been a more idiotic script, a more pungent collection of brazenly stupid jokes and soul-crushingly moronic acting. It's not even worth seeing on a date, maybe as an alternative to burning in hell for all eternity, but even then it's an hour and a half of unadulterated agony.

I actually rather enjoyed the silliness of this film. It doesn't take itself seriously (and really, why should it with such a ridiculous premise?), and has some geniuine feel-good moments. That being said, a bit more thought could have improved the quality of this film, as it's very predictable. However, it's still a lot of fun. One thing I would not have missed was the Napoleon Dynomite references.

Frightfully unfunny romantic-comic fantasy. If nothing else, with creamy-dreamy cinematography by John Bailey, this serves as a test of whether or not the chiselled and clenched Bell can carry a movie by herself, albeit only a balsa-light one. Reckless would it be, off the results, to repeat the experiment taking away the helping hand of the casually confident Duhamel or adding a bobby pin of extra weight.

In the case of When in Rome, oh to do what the Romans used to do: Toss the bloody thing to the lions.

If you wanna know more go here: http://zoopy.com/q/3mfc

A pair of young, attractive leads can't overcome When in Rome's reliance on unfunny gags and threadbare rom-com clichés.

Terrible. Every scene feels like it was written by a different writer, and the result is nonsensical and shambolic. How does this pap get greenlit?

It is very obvious that it is not trying to be serious at all. Unfortunately, this does not make it funny, but it does help make the story more tolerable.

Although the intentional silliness can bring on a smirk a couple times, When In Rome just isn't very good.

Crap