Being a teen I thought this movie would be hilarious but I was wrong.Like others have said I enjoyed the first movie but this has to be the worse sequel I have ever seen.... I guess I have to say that no other movies are as funny as Superbad but there are still funny movies but this is clearly not one of them Do not waste your time! I usually sit through movies and do not complain but there was nothing good in this movie at all. The acting was not horrible but the plot had nothing and there was no excitement! Ido not think I laughed during this film once.I would have turned it off but paying $5 to rent it I was finishing it!
17 Reviews
Simply a low-budget version of the first movie
Wuchakk22 March 2015
"Without a Paddle: Nature's Calling" (2009) is a comedy/adventure about three old friends who venture into the Northwest wilderness to find a girl whom one of them fell in love with when they were kids. She's now a hippie tree-hugger, but stands to inherit a fortune. Will they find her? Will they even get back alive?
This "sequel" was only made because the first movie, 2004's "Without a Paddle," was a minor hit at the box office, making three times its expense in the USA alone. As you can see from the above synopsis, "Nature's Calling" is merely a retread of the same plot with slight variations and different actors. It also cost $12.7 million less.
If you liked the first film you might appreciate this one, but it's anemic by comparison, not that the first one was that good. The protagonists are likable and the filmmaking is hip, including the soundtrack, but the shenanigans are only mildly amusing and the girls, again, aren't anything to get too excited about, although the brunette is the best of both worlds. The over-the-top scene with the squirrels is easily the best scene and is almost worth the price of admission. I suggest only watching this one if you're a fan of the first movie and want to see a lesser film with the same plot and tone.
An interesting difference is that this one was actually shot in the Great Northwest, in the wilderness East of Portland, rather than New Zealand.
The film runs 96 minutes.
GRADE: Borderline C- or C
This "sequel" was only made because the first movie, 2004's "Without a Paddle," was a minor hit at the box office, making three times its expense in the USA alone. As you can see from the above synopsis, "Nature's Calling" is merely a retread of the same plot with slight variations and different actors. It also cost $12.7 million less.
If you liked the first film you might appreciate this one, but it's anemic by comparison, not that the first one was that good. The protagonists are likable and the filmmaking is hip, including the soundtrack, but the shenanigans are only mildly amusing and the girls, again, aren't anything to get too excited about, although the brunette is the best of both worlds. The over-the-top scene with the squirrels is easily the best scene and is almost worth the price of admission. I suggest only watching this one if you're a fan of the first movie and want to see a lesser film with the same plot and tone.
An interesting difference is that this one was actually shot in the Great Northwest, in the wilderness East of Portland, rather than New Zealand.
The film runs 96 minutes.
GRADE: Borderline C- or C
By far not the worst movie ever
Rage-Kage17 June 2014
Nobody is gonna see this review since this is an older movie that everybody hated but here are my thoughts anyway. Without a Paddle Nature's Calling is an unnecessary sequel to 2004's Without a Paddle. This movie is kind of like a comedy version of a Sci- fi channel original. It's terrible, stupid, and pretty entertaining. Basically the plot of this movie is 3 guys go on an adventure to find hot blonde girl number 3 and ridiculous things follow including bad cgi squirrels and generic villains. If you don't have anything better to do at 2 in the morning this this movie is a solid entertaining option just don't expect an Oscar worthy film. Like I said this movie is like a comedy version of a sci-fi original so of course the acting is nothing special. The writing is... something I really don't know what else to say about it.
So overall Without a Paddle Nature's Calling is a terribly entertaining movie. I would give this movie a 5.5/10 but since IMDb won't let me do that
I'm giving Without a Paddle Nature's Calling a 7/10 because haters gonna hate.
Don't listen to all the complaints from people who apparently expected an amazing movie just get a few friends together with some beer and enjoy yourselves.
So overall Without a Paddle Nature's Calling is a terribly entertaining movie. I would give this movie a 5.5/10 but since IMDb won't let me do that
I'm giving Without a Paddle Nature's Calling a 7/10 because haters gonna hate.
Don't listen to all the complaints from people who apparently expected an amazing movie just get a few friends together with some beer and enjoy yourselves.
A Rating of One Because There's Nothing Lower
JakJam31 January 2009
Even a bad comedy can be good sometimes. Not this one though - not even close.
Terrible story, terrible cinematography, terrible continuity, terrible casting. This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
Oh - and please - was there not one Canadian any where near the shooting of this film to teach the director that Canadians do not talk as though they were portrayed in this movie. The use of the sound "eh" and the 'sayings' (like "Holy Halifax") were contrived and - well, okay, I'm going to use a bad word: stupid. It was so annoying and so ridiculous, it was hard to even get close to the end without eye rolling and chucking popcorn at the screen. Is it really so challenging to portray a Canadian? After all, we are America's closest and largest neighbour and have thousands of Canadians working in Hollywood alone. This wasn't funny, it was lazy writing and unacceptable.
I'll be sure to avoid anything with these actors and directors in the future.
Terrible story, terrible cinematography, terrible continuity, terrible casting. This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
Oh - and please - was there not one Canadian any where near the shooting of this film to teach the director that Canadians do not talk as though they were portrayed in this movie. The use of the sound "eh" and the 'sayings' (like "Holy Halifax") were contrived and - well, okay, I'm going to use a bad word: stupid. It was so annoying and so ridiculous, it was hard to even get close to the end without eye rolling and chucking popcorn at the screen. Is it really so challenging to portray a Canadian? After all, we are America's closest and largest neighbour and have thousands of Canadians working in Hollywood alone. This wasn't funny, it was lazy writing and unacceptable.
I'll be sure to avoid anything with these actors and directors in the future.
Boring and lifeless
vampyrecowboy11 January 2009
While the first movie wasn't all that entertaining - it was passable, this doesn't come close to it what-so ever.
Dialoge is poor, setting is not to full effect, story is lame, casting is all wrong, nothing in this is memorable.
The squirrel sequence is just retarded and it's subplots are just as stupid.
I saw this free and was glad that I didn't pay for it.
It saved me the cost of a rental, but regardless is was still lifeless and bring.
Not even the two eco-chicks were from the first movie - which I guess is a good thing...
Who thought of this story as something to produce is severely looking to get fired.
Soundtrack didn't offer anything either.
If you liked the first Without A Paddle, you should leave it at that and forget about this one, because you will enjoy this.
Nothing really works in this. It's just a mess of sub-stories that were mishmash-ed together to put together a sub par script that is not funny or entertaining.
There is a reason that this went straight to video...because it would not have lasted 2 weeks in a theater.
It's poorly developed - even the sound nature effects are over done.
The continuity is atrociously horrible as is the timing and looping.
Save your money, save your time...go to sleep instead.
Dialoge is poor, setting is not to full effect, story is lame, casting is all wrong, nothing in this is memorable.
The squirrel sequence is just retarded and it's subplots are just as stupid.
I saw this free and was glad that I didn't pay for it.
It saved me the cost of a rental, but regardless is was still lifeless and bring.
Not even the two eco-chicks were from the first movie - which I guess is a good thing...
Who thought of this story as something to produce is severely looking to get fired.
Soundtrack didn't offer anything either.
If you liked the first Without A Paddle, you should leave it at that and forget about this one, because you will enjoy this.
Nothing really works in this. It's just a mess of sub-stories that were mishmash-ed together to put together a sub par script that is not funny or entertaining.
There is a reason that this went straight to video...because it would not have lasted 2 weeks in a theater.
It's poorly developed - even the sound nature effects are over done.
The continuity is atrociously horrible as is the timing and looping.
Save your money, save your time...go to sleep instead.
Unwatchable garbage
jenroxyasox3 July 2009
My little sister accidentally rented this movie thinking it would be as funny as the original Without a Paddle film. However, its only use is as a Frisbee, and even then it doesn't fly straight. Avoid. The acting was abysmal, a total joke to be honest. The plot was non- existent, and the movie was simply made up of lame joke after lame, stinking joke. Oliver James used to be good, in 'What a Girl Wants,' he is a half decent actor and is rather hot too, but this film is simply a great disappointment if you were watching it only for him. And really, that seems like the only reason anyone would watch this movie, because honestly, you would be better off cleaning the bathroom or writing a ten-page essay as this would be both more entertaining, and a better use of your time. Sure, if you're bored out of your mind, it is vaguely possible you might gain some slight entertainment value from this film, but you would have to be an immensely sad, lame-humoured person for such an impossibility to occur.
because CGI rodents biting people in the crotch is the height of hilarity, right?
movieman_kev17 January 2009
The best part of having a girlfriend is, of course, the copious amounts of sex. On the flip-side, the worst part of having a steady girlfriend is having to sit through many MANY crappy movies, this brings me to the topic at hand "Without A Paddle 2" which has nothing at all to do with the first one (which ironically I also was conned into watching when it came out, different girl though, but I digress) This one revolves around a guy who meets a vegetarian animal-rights crusader while on the first day of high school, she gets expelled the second day before she can so his 'cool' homemade 'Meat is Murder' T-shirt (I guess the Che shirts were all sold out) Anyways years little his friend, who works in a nursing home, accepts the dying wish of an ancient old lady to find her grand-daughter, whom winds up being, yup you guessed it, little Mizz Feminist crusader. So he, his friend, and a snotty English guy with ulterior motives travel to her last known whereabouts deep in the rain-forests.
This film was atrocious, the joke aren't just easily telegraphed, they're also massively unfunny, the acting is sub-standard and I didn't give a toss about any of the characters involved in the least. Also Jerry Rice was a great football player, and as an actor he was a great football player. That was seriously painful to watch. The only good thing that came from this film is the sex I got for being forced to deal with this major eye sore of a 'movie'. It's all about reparations people.
My Grade: F
DVD Extras: A 10 minute Making-of; 'Furious Nuts' featurette which is 7 minutes about the CGI-squirrels; 'Treehouse Tales' three minutes about the treehouse sets; a gag reel; 4 very short deleted scenes; and Tralers for "Van Wilder: Freshman year", "American Teen", "Stoned Age", " 'Kenny Vs. Spenny' Volume 1, 'TV Funhouse Uncensored'
This film was atrocious, the joke aren't just easily telegraphed, they're also massively unfunny, the acting is sub-standard and I didn't give a toss about any of the characters involved in the least. Also Jerry Rice was a great football player, and as an actor he was a great football player. That was seriously painful to watch. The only good thing that came from this film is the sex I got for being forced to deal with this major eye sore of a 'movie'. It's all about reparations people.
My Grade: F
DVD Extras: A 10 minute Making-of; 'Furious Nuts' featurette which is 7 minutes about the CGI-squirrels; 'Treehouse Tales' three minutes about the treehouse sets; a gag reel; 4 very short deleted scenes; and Tralers for "Van Wilder: Freshman year", "American Teen", "Stoned Age", " 'Kenny Vs. Spenny' Volume 1, 'TV Funhouse Uncensored'
Mediocre at best
chellethecat-126 November 2009
I'll be the first to admit, I'm VERY tolerant when it comes to movies. I will watch almost anything at least once. This movie was no exception, and after the first movie (which I have to admit I liked) I figured there was no harm in watching this one.
I almost never say this... but, I wish I'd turned the channel. Seriously, that is saying a LOT for me. I willingly sit through movies that most people cannot stand. I knew from the start that this was not actually a sequel to the second as far as characters and events; but rather of concept and idea. I have no problem with that. My problem is, the things that made the first movie endearing to me (a halfway decent script, fairly likable characters, and a nice good feeling at the end) were completely missing from this one. Add in goofy CGI squirrels (such things have a proper time and place people, come on!) and it was bordering on unwatchable.
I will say, you just cannot blame this on the actors, because that part wasn't bad - the material they had to work WITH was the problem. This movie started off on the wrong foot with a shaky script. And the actors are really the only reason I've rated this even as high as I have.
I almost never say this... but, I wish I'd turned the channel. Seriously, that is saying a LOT for me. I willingly sit through movies that most people cannot stand. I knew from the start that this was not actually a sequel to the second as far as characters and events; but rather of concept and idea. I have no problem with that. My problem is, the things that made the first movie endearing to me (a halfway decent script, fairly likable characters, and a nice good feeling at the end) were completely missing from this one. Add in goofy CGI squirrels (such things have a proper time and place people, come on!) and it was bordering on unwatchable.
I will say, you just cannot blame this on the actors, because that part wasn't bad - the material they had to work WITH was the problem. This movie started off on the wrong foot with a shaky script. And the actors are really the only reason I've rated this even as high as I have.
"not good at all"
snarf13217 June 2010
With out a paddle natures calling was a terrible movie i disliked it very much. it took the old movie which was awesome and made a complete knock off of it. it had the same story with a few quarks to it. the director Ellory Elkayem took and ruined the first (directed by Steven Brill) now if they had the original cast it would have been a great sequel. or if Steven Brill was directing it at least. but why take a great movie and completely destroy its title! i thought the movie was bad. if there was a zero rating for this movie i would have gave it that! alls i would want is the original cast i don't even think they tried to get them in the project. therefore without a paddle natures calling was bad!
Hour and a half lost forever
onemileout30 March 2021
A fun, quirky little flick
lilchele_0817 February 2009
I have to admit, I did not like the original Without a Paddle movie. I watched it with my brother and our friends, and I just wasn't impressed. I'm not a Seth Green fan, really. Anyway - I saw the commercial for this, and I just had to watch it. I absolutely adore Kristopher Turner and Oliver James, and seeing them together? Sounded great! I laughed a lot, it was good to see Oliver away from chick flicks and Kristopher away from Instant Star. If you're expecting a remake or something building upon the original, you're going to be disappointed, but if you go into this looking for a laugh, you're going to get it. It's not going to be named movie of the year, but it's certainly not a waste of time or money.
Decent movie - not as good as first - some fun laughs
hiphopherou4 January 2009
When I heard a a sequel had been made to "Without a Paddle," I was kind of excited. Dax, Matt Lillard & Seth Green were pretty fun in the first movie, so I expected a decent flick. With a cast of relative no names, this movie seems to be a more straight to DVD type of movie. The biggest name had to be Hall of fame football player Jerry Rice, playing crazy woodsman "Hal Gore."
Two lifelong friends (a laid back nurse and a stressed lawyer) and a Limey-Brit must take raft down river, in search of a beautiful hippie girl, who lives deep in the Oregon woods. Adventures unfold with white rapids, crazy squirrels and angry mobsters making things tough on the guys.
All in all, the movie is pretty entertaining throughout. Very simple and kind of silly plot, with a fair amount of laughs. This is a movie that kids will enjoy a lot more than adults and overall I found the first movie in this series to be better than this one.
Two lifelong friends (a laid back nurse and a stressed lawyer) and a Limey-Brit must take raft down river, in search of a beautiful hippie girl, who lives deep in the Oregon woods. Adventures unfold with white rapids, crazy squirrels and angry mobsters making things tough on the guys.
All in all, the movie is pretty entertaining throughout. Very simple and kind of silly plot, with a fair amount of laughs. This is a movie that kids will enjoy a lot more than adults and overall I found the first movie in this series to be better than this one.
An Okay Spin-Off!
namashi_18 March 2015
A spin-off to the immensely enjoyable Without a Paddle, 'Without a Paddle: Nature's Calling' is a harmless film, although in totality, its strictly an okay fare.
'Without a Paddle: Nature's Calling' Synopsis: Two best friends, along with a crazy Briton, embark on a journey in the woods to find a missing childhood crush.
'Without a Paddle: Nature's Calling' is best enjoyed if you willing to watch a film, where silliness plays a major aspect. I mean, its all harmless & in good nature, but its never smart or remotely engrossing. But, I wasn't bored & that pretty much did it for me.
The Screenplay is funny, but only in selected parts. The Direction is fair. Cinematography has captured the wilderness, very nicely. Editing needed more sharpness. And even though all the actors on board try to deliver, they never match above the given material.
On the whole, 'Without a Paddle: Nature's Calling' is just about passable. Keep a check on your expectations & you won't really complain.
'Without a Paddle: Nature's Calling' Synopsis: Two best friends, along with a crazy Briton, embark on a journey in the woods to find a missing childhood crush.
'Without a Paddle: Nature's Calling' is best enjoyed if you willing to watch a film, where silliness plays a major aspect. I mean, its all harmless & in good nature, but its never smart or remotely engrossing. But, I wasn't bored & that pretty much did it for me.
The Screenplay is funny, but only in selected parts. The Direction is fair. Cinematography has captured the wilderness, very nicely. Editing needed more sharpness. And even though all the actors on board try to deliver, they never match above the given material.
On the whole, 'Without a Paddle: Nature's Calling' is just about passable. Keep a check on your expectations & you won't really complain.
I loved it
madsen_holly11 June 2011
I loved this movie. The actors were great and this is not a continuation of the last movie, it simply is just a movie that is supposed to have a similar story line. I cant get enough of it. It is the perfect blend of humor, adventure, comedy and romance. They have selected the best actors for this role because they all seem to play off of each other bringing out the best in each of them. I think its amazing that Oliver James is able to hide his accent so well, it shows that he has talent and is willing to expand his skills. A person watching this should view it as a completely new movie enjoying the humor and the beauty of nature.
"In a Tree Without a Paddling"
Kamurai2523 February 2021
Good watch, could watch again, and can recommend if you've seen the first one.
This is clearly a lower budget version of the first movie, so no celebrities, or complex camera shots. The story also feels a bit lower quality. I like an idiot chases after the "one that got away" story, and having it go through the isolationism of the woods is full of potential, but I feel like the opportunity was wasted by having the English guy interrupting the best friend arc, and the goons ruining the isolation of the forest.
Don't get me wrong, the story is well written, and they balance the complexity between the story threads rather well, it just doesn't result in the thing I wanted from it.
There is plenty of good humor, romance, and awkward moments to keep the story interesting.
This is clearly a lower budget version of the first movie, so no celebrities, or complex camera shots. The story also feels a bit lower quality. I like an idiot chases after the "one that got away" story, and having it go through the isolationism of the woods is full of potential, but I feel like the opportunity was wasted by having the English guy interrupting the best friend arc, and the goons ruining the isolation of the forest.
Don't get me wrong, the story is well written, and they balance the complexity between the story threads rather well, it just doesn't result in the thing I wanted from it.
There is plenty of good humor, romance, and awkward moments to keep the story interesting.
Not great but entertaining
vchimpanzee11 April 2017
I am aware this is a sequel.
But if you haven't seen that one, this is a fun movie. No one will win awards for acting, but Kristopher Turner is quite likable and Rik Young eventually shows he is more than just a spoiled brat, although he is quite appealing in a way from the time we meet him. Oliver James has kind of an uptight clueless quality but eventually shows us some degree of substance.
The guys learn a lot about each other, and this movie turns out to be more than just silly comedy.
The villains have a lot in common with The Three Stooges, which is good news for our heroes, but things do get kind of scary.
The girls are gorgeous and do an okay job of acting.
And what about the Sasquatch? Fans of football great Jerry Rice may be the only ones to appreciate him. He does not have a future as an actor.
One thing is certain: this movie hammers home a pro-environment message. The scenery is gorgeous like the girls, and the idea is to keep it that way.
Can the entire family enjoy it? Maybe. More cautious parents might not care for the suggestive dialogue, and it is implied the girls are more than just friends. On the other hand, there is more sexual humor that suggests otherwise. There is cartoon violence including the favorite type of fans of the longest-running show that had Tom Bergeron as a host. The difference is that it really does hurt and we see what happens afterward.
Also ridiculous: the animated squirrels. It's great work for those who produced them, but this movie is too naughty for the young children who might just be the only ones to enjoy their antics.
It's a fun adventure.
But if you haven't seen that one, this is a fun movie. No one will win awards for acting, but Kristopher Turner is quite likable and Rik Young eventually shows he is more than just a spoiled brat, although he is quite appealing in a way from the time we meet him. Oliver James has kind of an uptight clueless quality but eventually shows us some degree of substance.
The guys learn a lot about each other, and this movie turns out to be more than just silly comedy.
The villains have a lot in common with The Three Stooges, which is good news for our heroes, but things do get kind of scary.
The girls are gorgeous and do an okay job of acting.
And what about the Sasquatch? Fans of football great Jerry Rice may be the only ones to appreciate him. He does not have a future as an actor.
One thing is certain: this movie hammers home a pro-environment message. The scenery is gorgeous like the girls, and the idea is to keep it that way.
Can the entire family enjoy it? Maybe. More cautious parents might not care for the suggestive dialogue, and it is implied the girls are more than just friends. On the other hand, there is more sexual humor that suggests otherwise. There is cartoon violence including the favorite type of fans of the longest-running show that had Tom Bergeron as a host. The difference is that it really does hurt and we see what happens afterward.
Also ridiculous: the animated squirrels. It's great work for those who produced them, but this movie is too naughty for the young children who might just be the only ones to enjoy their antics.
It's a fun adventure.
A fun adventure
aphillipsdakota8 June 2021
Not as good as the original but still worth a watch. Notice how the water level on the poster is lower than the water level on the poster for the first film that can give some idea to how good the film is. The film does contain some funny moments but at times tries to hard. The more times you watch it does seem better.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
