Viewer Rating
Combines user and critic ratings from four sources

People We Meet on Vacation (2026)
Poppy's a free spirit. Alex loves a plan. After years of summer vacations, these polar-opposite pals wonder if they could be a perfect romantic match.
Poppy's a free spirit. Alex loves a plan. After years of summer vacations, these polar-opposite pals wonder if they could be a perfect romantic match.
The film leans left by normalizing a socially permissive worldview, celebrating cosmopolitan lifestyles, and prioritizing individual emotional fulfillment and self-discovery over traditional societal expectations regarding relationships and career.
The movie features a diverse supporting cast and female/Asian American creative leadership, reflecting a contemporary, liberal worldview. However, the central romantic leads are white and heterosexual, and the narrative does not explicitly critique traditional identities or foreground specific DEI themes beyond casting.
Based on available plot summaries and reviews, the film focuses entirely on heterosexual relationships and does not feature any explicitly LGBTQ+ identifying characters or themes. There is no depiction of LGBTQ+ individuals or community issues within the narrative.
Based on the provided information, 'People We Meet on Vacation' does not feature any identifiable transsexual characters or themes. The film's narrative centers on a romantic comedy about two best friends, Poppy and Alex, and their evolving relationship over a decade of shared vacations, without any reported transgender representation.
The movie does not contain any action or adventure elements.
The film is an adaptation of Emily Henry's novel. Available information confirms that all named characters retain the same gender as established in the source material, with no historical figures involved.
The film's main characters (Poppy, Alex, Sarah) are cast with actors whose race aligns with their implied white Midwestern/American origins in the novel. Supporting roles are diversified with actors of various races, but their book counterparts were not explicitly or strongly racially defined.
Combines user and critic ratings from four sources























