Jack and Jill Reviews

  • Jack and Jill
    • Genre : Romance, Comedy
    • Release Date : November 11, 2011
    • MPAA Rating : PG
    • Duration : 121
    • Production Budget : -
    • Studio : Columbia Pictures
    • Official Site : http://www.jackandjill-movie.com/
    • Reviews Rate
      Not quite bad, but it's not recommended either.

    • Readers Rate
      3 of 5
Movie Info Trailers Reviews News and Articles Pictures and Stills Wallpapers

Movie Reviews

  • witless and sloppily constructed, getting by on fart gags, homeless jokes, Latino stereotypes and that old favorite, explosive chimichanga diarrhea
    by David Rooney [Hollywood Reporter ]
  • those wacky comedy plots
    Review rate : D by Tom Long [Detroit News ]
  • this one's an "Adam Sandler comedy" through and through: His presence alone is considered humorous
    2 of 5 by Elizabeth Weitzman [New York Daily News ]
  • the whole drag routine just isn’t all that funny
    2.5 of 4 by Tom Russo [Boston Globe ]
  • the computer-generated trickery that allows Sandler to unleash the sibling horrors is remarkably sloppy
    0.5 of 4 by Linda Barnard [Toronto Star ]
  • Sandler has become a good actor of late, but here he gives over most of his talents to Jill, who is so screechy
    Review rate : C+ by Peter Rainer [Christian Science Monitor ]
  • never really funny to begin with are only the most obvious of its problems
    by Andrew Barker [Variety ]
  • it’s a dull drag-show routine headed nowhere
    by Nick Schager [Village Voice ]
  • funny-weird, not funny-ha-ha
    1.5 of 4 by Scott Bowles [USA Today ]
  • certainly the worst I have ever seen
    by Mary F. Pols [TIME Magazine ]
  • burn this. All copies must be destroyed. No good
    by Lou Lumenick [New York Post ]
  • a total bust, a stupefyingly unfunny and shamelessly lazy farce packed with cringe-worthy jokes
    by Peter Travers [Rolling Stone ]
  • a cheerless holiday comedy
    1 of 4 by Jennie Punter [Globe and Mail ]
  • 2 of 5 Reviewed by Glenn Kenny [MSN Movies ]
  • 1.5 of 5 Reviewed by Michael O'Sullivan [Washington Post ]

Reader's Reviews