In this wildly funny hit comedy, Paul Rudd (Knocked Up) gets engaged to the girl of his dreams but has not a single guy friend to be his Best Man until he meets the ultimate dude, Jason Segal (Forgetting Sarah Marshall). Rudd and Segal’s “bro-mance” takes male-bonding to hilarious new heights that keep you laughing until the unforgettable last frame.
At once sweet, genuinely funny, and painfully awkward, I Love You, Man is that type of film that used to feel like a rare event, but these days is a lot more common thanks to Judd Apatow’s new hit factory. His stock ensemble of actors, writers, and directors have managed to hone in on the perfect formula of raunchy and sweet. Apatow wasn’t involved in this production, but his mark is all over it just the same. Paul Rudd has to be the most infinitely likeable man in Hollywood; he manages to capture the ideal blend of sincerity and awkwardness but never comes off as annoying. As Sidney, Jason Segal departs from the neurotic and insecure roles that have nearly made him a household name in Freaks and Geeks and Forgetting Sarah Marshall. He channels instead the endearingly arrogant and emotionally stunted man-boy who is both life of the party and sad clown. The story is pretty simple–making friends tends to get more and more challenging as we get older and more settled into our lives. That’s never been truer than for Peter Klaven, a so-called “Girlfriend Guy” who’s never really had a best guy friend. As Peter begins to plan the rest of his life with the girl of his dreams (Parks and Recreation‘s Rashida Jones), the pressure to find a best man and not feel like a friendless freak becomes more intense. Enter Sidney, a Venice Beach-dwelling, super-laid-back, Rush-loving, vaguely employed (but clearly successful) financial planner with no desire to commit, a room in his house dedicated to all things masculine and an intense desire to have a good time as often as possible. Soul mates, right? As directed by John Hamburg (Along Came Polly, Stella), I Love You, Man is consistently funny and totally relatable. With strong supporting performances from Jones, Andy Samberg, Jon Favreau, Jamie Pressely, and even Lou Ferrigno (!), I Love You, Man is a little less raunch and a lot more sweet than some of this crew’s other hits, with quite a few laugh-out-loud moments. –Kira Canny
Stills from I Love You, Man (Click for larger image)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Buy “I Love You, Man” For Only $9.55
March 4, 2006
#1
A raunch fest for the under 35 crowd. Infantile sexuality apparently still gets a of laughs. What I couldn’t understand was why the theater was filled with elderly Russian-Jewish immigrant couples. I also couldn’t understand why I allowed a younger relative of mine to convince me to go with him to see this film.
March 5, 2006
#2
Seriously these guys make like a hundred movies a year since there debut in KNOCKED UP in 2007.Its seriously getting really annoying especially since i work at the movie thetare its so sad there constantly makeing films man they need the money that bad. The movie was alright worth to see BUT DO NOT SPEND TOO MUCH on the dvd wait till it comes on tv and pay like under 5 dollars for it.
March 5, 2006
#3
Ok, even the premise of this movie brings up an immediate question in my mind: If you don’t have any male friends, why don’t your father and brother make the list for best man/groomsman?
This movie had enormous potential. Paul Rudd is a complex and talented actor. This movie has some very funny moments. However, (and, I should have suspected this to be the case in ANY R-rated COMEDY) these funny moments, and the movies vast bulk of POTENTIAL, were steeped and mired in an all-pervasive vulgarity, licentious behavior and rude, crude and obnoxious “jokes.” For those who care about such things, God’s name is also abused too many times to count.
These things are INEXCUSEABLE in a COMEDY that would have been funnier WITHOUT all this impure trash, tripe and sacrilegious additions which have been “hung on” to this movie and seem to be without any merit other than to “smut up” the movie. Apparently Hollywood thinks this type of tripe necessary. Hollywood doesn’t learn very quickly.
One would THINK the dollar signs from “The Passion of the Christ” would be enough to get their attention, and signal that quite a majority of folks prefer more wholesome entertainment. One may think that, but one would be wrong. Hollywood doesn’t seem to be ABLE to learn that lesson, no matter how much money movies like that make.
If they remade this movie and even toned it down to normal everyday* behavior and language, this COULD BE quite a good movie. Until then, I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.
*(I know they cry realism to defend this type of execrable refuse, but I do not know anyone who acts and talks in this way, and certainly not to this degree–and as a physician, I am acquainted with quite a range of human behaviors!)
March 5, 2006
#4
My husband and I rented this film a few nights ago and turned it off after about a half hour. The language is not just crude – it’s the sort of vulgarity that makes one cringe. We couldn’t imagine who the targeted audience for this film was. Fifteen year-old boys? It is strange that Hollywood keeps making films about middle-aged men who are still having chug-along contests and behaving like 12 year-olds. It is very boring. It is getting more and more difficult to find a well-written comedy.
March 5, 2006
#5
After watching the preview for this movie on several different occasions, my wife and I were excited to finally sit down to watch this. WOW, were we in for a shock!
The language and subject material was vulgar, to put it nicely, and just when you thought a funny part was coming, it was offset by something even more disgusting!
We gave it 15 minutes, and then turned it off!
Great storyline idea, but the preview showed only the best parts. In the end, though, it was too foul to redeem itself.
Don’t waste your time! It wasn’t even worth our $1 rental price!