One of the worst movies I've ever seen

Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

I came on here before watching The Late Bloomer and came across mostly negative comments but went ahead and thought id watch the film as i thought it has comedy potential. I am glad i watched it as i did laugh a couple of times and thought the actors were very well played. the plot was interesting as its not something ordinary. In my opinion this is a funny, quirky film.

There was a lot of potential for this romantic comedy, but it was squashed by a ridiculous set-up, less than stellar jokes, and little to no payoff. Yes, this was based on the true story of rookie hockey player and television personality Kevin Baker, but much of the original story was changed, and the end result is clumsy and half- baked. Instead of really thinking through the emotional and physical extremes of this situation, the writers went for a more juvenile approach and simply threw in all their grossest jokes, hoping that something would stick. What we get is a boring, trite, ungodly mess that could have been a raunchier and more heartfelt film.The premise of the film finds sex therapist Dr. Peter Newmans trying to understand why people follow their sexual urges when they could get so much more out of life. At the same time he is in love with his neighbor (Snow), who is portrayed as a bland love interest with one characteristic: she likes to cook. His friends are played by Kumail Nanjiani and Beck Bennett, who prove to be the only semi-funny thing about this film, yet are underutilized and characterized as cavemen narcissists. When Peter is hit in the testicles during a pick-up basketball game he is rushed to the hospital, where it is revealed that he has a tumor pushing on his pituitary gland and he hasn't gone through puberty. The rest of the film shows him going through puberty in three weeks, at the age of thirty. While this is an interesting premise it's strange that they make him a sex therapist, when he hasn't had any sex (he isn't able to get an erection) and he hasn't gone through the steps of puberty at all. This choice makes the rest of the film feel unwieldy and downright convoluted.This is the first fictional effort of comedian Kevin Pollack, best known for his treasure trove of celebrity impressions. There are five writers on this film (including "George Lucas in Love" director Joe Nussbaum) and honestly it feels like it. There is so much testosterone in this film that there isn't much room for dealing with actual emotions, or the complexities of being a teenager in a man's body. Instead of dealing with these issues the film tries its best to be as juvenile and sex minded as possible, including talking extensively about erections, masturbating, acne, and other teenaged qualms. When the film is serious, it's often at other characters' expense.Honestly I think the movie might have been saved if its lead didn't decide that the way to fix his hormonal issues was to sleep with every woman he finds on Tinder. There's something disgustingly hideous about showing a virginal person suddenly engaging in mass amounts of sex. Though he is a sex therapist (again, why?) it makes little sense that he would immediately throw himself into sex, and with so many different people. It makes the ending that much more ridiculous. And speaking of that ending, why did it need to happen at all? Why was the romantic interest his friend, who he had to win over? Did this film really need a cookie cutter script with a clichéd ending? This was a film about a crazy real life experience that the main character had, and to play it safe seems ridiculous, especially since so much of the original story was changed anyway.

The Late Bloomer made me laugh out loud on more than one occasion. Maybe that's because I'm spectacularly childish being as all the humour was of the awkward sexual kind. I don't care, I loved it! I'm surprised by the negative reviews... Maybe I just have a penchant for pre-pubescent 30 year old's because I actually found myself having a crush on Johnny Simmons which made his angsty teenage strops particularly amusing to me. Loved his parents characters, loved his two sidekicks. Didn't find his love interest particularly appealing. But this is a comedy and to me it totally served it's purpose and kept me entertained and amused throughout.

I found it rather hard to watch...The problem with people who are not able to enjoy certain movies is the lack of ability to suspend disbelief. I've always thought that I was well-endowed with this ability. I could easily put myself in a movie and view it in the way the people behind it wanted it to be seen. I could enjoy the stupidest premise but, this movie was very difficult for me to watch. Maybe it's the acting or the directing. The film appeared to look too serious for its (for the lack of a better word) stupid premise. The drama factor just didn't mix well. Maybe, in my case, it is because the lead just failed to capture my sympathy. I think silly premises, sex-based jokes, like those found in this movie is better off paired with over-the-top farce than some kind of a "teen" drama.