22 Jump Street Reviews

  • 22 Jump Street
    • Genre : Action, Comedy
    • Release Date :
    • MPAA Rating : R
    • Duration : 111 minute(s)
    • Production Budget : -
    • Studio : Columbia Pictures
    • Official Site : http://www.22jumpstreetmovie.com/
    • Reviews Rate
      Go! Watch this movie. You'll regret if not seeing it.

    • Readers Rate

Movie Reviews

  • ultimately, a celebration of the silly and the sweet, a combination that's welcome again and again
    3 of 4 by Bill Goodykoontz [Arizona Republic ]
  • the loosey-goosey magic of the first movie is gone, replaced by endless jokes about disappointing sequels. Point proven
    2 of 4 by Rafer Guzman [Newsday ]
  • Lord and Miller know how to sell a joke visually better than most contemporary comedy directors, and "22 Jump Street" is rife with delightful throwaway visual gags
    by Scott Foundas [Variety ]
  • like any savvy sophomore, this comedy sequel knows there's a trick to getting a passing grade
    3 of 5 by Joe Neumaier [New York Daily News ]
  • its huge laugh count, and for the best end credits sequence in recent memory, it registers as this year's live action comedy to beat
    4 of 5 by Simon Brew [Den of Geek ]
  • if you liked 21 Jumps Street, you'll like 22 Jump Street, because it's pretty much the same movie. So while the film is wickedly funny from start-to-finish, be warned that you'll feel a sense of deja vu throughout
    3.5 of 5 by Chris Tilly [IGN ]
  • for once, cranking out a play-it-safe sequel yields something satisfying
    by John DeFore [Hollywood Reporter ]
  • "22 Jump Street" might not be quite as good as "21 Jump Street," but it's remarkably close, to the point where subsequent viewings could see it elevated above its predecessor
    Review rate : B+ by Oliver Lyttelton [The Playlist ]
  • "22 Jump Street" is a hugely enjoyable shambles
    3.5 of 4 by Ty Burr [Boston Globe ]
  • 3.5 of 4 Reviewed by Colin Covert [Minneapolis Star Tribune ]
  • 3 of 4 Reviewed by Ann Hornaday [Washington Post ]
  • 3 of 4 Reviewed by Peter Howell [Toronto Star ]

Reader's Reviews

  random image