This Is 40 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


Empire Admin -> This Is 40 (11/2/2013 9:22:53 AM)

Post your comments on this article




J_BUltimatum -> This is... AWFUL (11/2/2013 9:22:53 AM)

While much of the advertising has made this out to be a comedy it is far from that! I cam out of this bored, disappointed and would've been very angry if I had to pay for this movie (my friend paid for me to go). The only saving grace is I get to choose the next film we see!




gavc1978 -> Enjoyed this! (11/2/2013 9:33:49 AM)

Thought it was surprisingly good, could have easily been crap. Slightly long, could have taken 20mins off the duration. On par with Knocked up




gavc1978 -> Enjoyed this! (11/2/2013 9:33:51 AM)

Thought it was surprisingly good, could have easily been crap. Slightly long, could have taken 20mins off the duration. On par with Knocked up




fireflyfox -> toxically bloated, unsympathetic, cringeworthy (11/2/2013 9:22:15 PM)

Overlong, horrible characters, frustrating waste of talented actors... plus all the dialogue sounds too similar. None of the humour of Knocked Up.




smakris04 -> Pot movie (13/2/2013 4:33:21 PM)

I understand that it is one of these American pot smoke fun movies you have to smoke pot to laugh on but I am drug free and I live in Europe. Not my family not anyone else's would act like that. This is typical immature act comedy that somehow is supposed to make us laugh. The same goes for most recent american comedies, Bridesmaids, bad teacher, horrible bosses, ted, hangover etc. 4 stars? Empire are you smoking too?




Chief -> RE: This Is 40 (15/2/2013 9:02:09 AM)

I thought it started out ropey but turned out pretty damn funny. It was a tad over long but there was definitely some funny moments.

Melissa McCarthy has the single funniest scene though, still makes me laugh thinking about it.

Maybe not 4 stars for me, more like 3.5 if that was possible.




Wild about Wilder -> RE: This Is 40 (15/2/2013 10:29:11 AM)

Could've done with 20-30 minutes being shaved off.




wlucas -> (15/2/2013 6:50:08 PM)

Some funny moments and Paul Rudd is always good but it was so long and his kids were so annoying that it felt like Id spent a weekend in Judd Apatow's house during which his wife had repeatedly shown me her boobs, very weird




Indio -> RE: This Is 40 (17/2/2013 11:52:46 AM)


Thought it was OK - an improvement on Funny People, but it doesn't really have much of a plotline, it gets to the end and you just think 'hmmm....OK...'. It didn't drag but it was too long, Apatow could have cut all the scenes about Lost for starters (and probably all of the Graham Parker scenes too), but then when you're the writer/producer/director and your wife and children all have major roles, there's probably not many people that are going to be able to/have the balls to tell you your film is too long and a maybe a bit too self indulgent.




tysmuse -> Pretty bad. (17/2/2013 9:08:29 PM)

So smugly and snugly up its own ass that is can't see how bad it is.

Edited for Racism




Loosecrew -> Lazy, lazy, lazy. (18/2/2013 2:17:28 PM)

134 minutes with a script so good it needed ad-libs.
Note to Leslie Mann. Announcing what you're feeling all the time is not acting.




TheMightyBlackout -> A staggering lack of effort all round. (19/2/2013 12:33:34 AM)

A two and a quarter hour midlife crisis with a toilet-joke every 15 minutes. I'm actually scared for Anchorman 2.
Apatow's musician friends can't act. One of Apatow's daughters can't act.
40% amusing. 30% irritating. 30% dull.
Not good enough.




OPEN YOUR EYES -> RE: A staggering lack of effort all round. (21/2/2013 10:52:16 AM)

God,what a smug-fest of a film.
I also don't find Paul Rudd in any form humorous or engaging as a lead.

Plus,I don't think I've ever enjoyed a Judd Apatow film (Bridesmaids doesn't count because he produced it but he didn't direct,plus he didn't write the script either.[:D])




Vadersville -> RE: This is 40 (22/2/2013 6:53:05 PM)

I enjoyed it, although it was nowhere near the same level of Knocked Up. Think the main problem(s) was that it lacked both the narrative driving point and ensemble of different supporting characters its predecessor did. Robert Smigel's character felt like it was the leftovers of a role intended for Seth Rogen's Ben, and whilst I never expected to Katherine Heigl's Alison given the public falling out with Judd Apatow, it was a bit odd that her sister didn't even get mentioned, especially at Pete's party. Come to think of it where was their mum from Knocked Up. It's generally aimless and a tad overlong but that said the missus and I both had a good time and a few really big laugh out loud moments. It just needed a bit more of Jason Segal and a bit less Graham Parker.




djshaiguy -> Not groundbreaking, but found it really entertaining (23/4/2013 4:37:43 PM)

Couldn't agree with the review more. Definitely more Parenthood than Meet The Parents, and some really nice observational comedy of what family and relationships mean these days. If it had a stronger story, and done without the comedy interludes of Megan Fox / Chris O Dowd / Jason Segel, it could have been a better film - not that they weren't funny, they just didn't belong here.

Still really enjoyable fun though, and you come away from it feeling warm in the heart. Job done.




BelfastBoy -> RE: Not groundbreaking, but found it really entertaining (2/5/2013 1:02:30 PM)


SPOILERS ALERT!

Only just around to watching it last night. Enjoyed it, but not unconditionally, and there's nothing that would make me want to watch it again. 3* film, I'd say. My impressions:

- There isn't much of a plot, no defined 'start-middle-end', or even the dreaded three-act structure. If I'm being polite, I'd say it's 'picaresque'; if not, I'd say the structure is rambling. There isn't a satisfying conclusion, more a point where it just stops but could easily go on for another hour. Too many plot elements are left hanging without resolution - the family's financial problems, generally; does Debbie recover her stolen money?; does Pete's record label go bankrupt?; how does the pregnancy pan out?
- Paul Rudd's character hasn't changed much since Knocked Up. He's still a feckless, deceiving eejit who isn't deserving of the wife and family he has. A tacked-on moment of resolution at the end isn't enough to unravel 2+ hours of him being a selfish liar.
- Surely there's a role for Megan Fox that doesn't involve her prancing around in short dresses / her underwear / a bikini?
- Why cast Chris O'Dowd and Lena Dunham and then bury them in tiny, forgettable roles? (Ditto Jason Segel - his presence adds nothing to the film.) Melissa McCarthy pretty much steals the film though.
- Apatow's films make money, hence he can get away with being self-indulgent. But this also results in overlong, unneccessarily improvised, 'let's cast all my friends and family' films that would benefit from tighter scripting and editing.
- In many cases, the actual situations, characterisations and dialogue are believable, and the film works well as comedy-drama, as opposed to straight comedy. It isn't consistently funny enough for that, but is a bit of a let down since it's billed (however tangentially) as the semi-sequel to a much broader and funnier film.

Overall, don't expect to laugh out loud all the way through, but it's certainly worth a watch.




Conboy -> this is 40 (8/6/2013 4:12:10 PM)

The Apatow/Mann clan does it again.

Light-hearted yet often bittersweet romp about turning the big 4-0 (or 38, for those still in denial). Carrying on with the Paul Rudd/Leslie Mann coupling from Knocked Up, director Judd Apatow (Mann’s real-life partner) has concocted this fun light film for all. Which even manages to drop the C-word. America is beginning to get it in terms of fresh and applicable comedy, I reckon.

Pete and Debbie are at ‘that stage’ in life – about to enter the best part, yet still in denial about everything that comes with it. Daughter Sadie is in the full throes of puberty – mood swings and total incoherence all part of that. Eight year old Charlotte is as adorable as ever, especially when she is the target of all Sadie’s misdirected hormonal angst. Adding to the hilarity are the performances of Rudd and Mann as Pete and Debbie – trying to deal with broke and estranged parents, schoolyard politics, insufficient finances and disloyal employees.

While at first the film may seem disjointed, it is high enjoyable and far too easy to identify with. A great soundtrack ensues – well done for sneaking some Wilco in at the end, truly excellent.

In a way, even the conclusion is not too Hollywoodised – almost nothing is resolved, yet the charm remains – and the resolution is not necessary in the end. Look out for a fantastic scene between an irate mother and the girls’ principal, and Debbie completely losing it at a child who cyber-bullied 13-year-old Sadie.

Fun and surprisingly pertinent for everyone, I would see this again. Something for everyone, as long as you can deal with the occasional swearing and angst.

Lovely fun and on now, so get down to your local and check it out.




dseys -> DVD review (17/6/2013 5:06:46 PM)

Funny how this was downgraded to 2 poor star in the DVD review section of Empire's last issue :-)




bennyboy1971 -> RE: DVD review (19/6/2013 6:33:06 AM)

This is not 40.




elab49 -> RE: DVD review (19/6/2013 9:55:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dseys

Funny how this was downgraded to 2 poor star in the DVD review section of Empire's last issue :-)


Really, why? I mean most people understand that different people reviewing the same thing might have different opinions and this isn't exactly rare. Not to mention people can change their own minds.

So why was this so unusual here?




UTB -> RE: DVD review (19/6/2013 10:16:24 AM)

This is probably the first film I've ever heard Mrs UTB say "It was fucking shit!!". And she has a pretty high bobbins tolerance level. And doesn't really swear often.





elab49 -> RE: DVD review (19/6/2013 10:23:47 AM)

She chose a good one to start with [:D]




Dannybohy -> RE: This Is 40 (19/6/2013 1:08:24 PM)

Well while this is here I might as well just say ..yeah I was pleasantly surprised! and enough charm and humor to make for a decent movie. i enjoyed it.




UTB -> RE: This Is 40 (19/6/2013 3:17:22 PM)

I hope your eyebrows fall off.




Dannybohy -> RE: This Is 40 (20/6/2013 9:12:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: UTB

I hope your eyebrows fall off.


ha! [:D] Touche sir!




dseys -> RE: DVD review (20/6/2013 4:52:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49


quote:

ORIGINAL: dseys

Funny how this was downgraded to 2 poor star in the DVD review section of Empire's last issue :-)


Really, why? I mean most people understand that different people reviewing the same thing might have different opinions and this isn't exactly rare. Not to mention people can change their own minds.

So why was this so unusual here?


I didn't say it was unusual. Of course different people have different opinion, but the published review is kind of "Empire's official verdict". The magazine chose a 4 star review when the film was out in cinema and then, seeing the audience's poor reaction, picked up a 2 star review when it was out on dvd.

I don't have any problem with that. It's absolutely normal. But it's funny because it's like Empire's now saying: "You people were right, this movie is shit". The same happened with Cosmopolis.




bendoofus -> Watching this, you can actually feel your nails grow (23/6/2013 6:53:58 PM)

This is quite simply the most boring film I've seen in my life - absolutely nothing happens. I'm turning it off less than halfway through and am still regretting the time I wasted on it.




elab49 -> RE: DVD review (23/6/2013 7:39:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dseys


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49


quote:

ORIGINAL: dseys

Funny how this was downgraded to 2 poor star in the DVD review section of Empire's last issue :-)


Really, why? I mean most people understand that different people reviewing the same thing might have different opinions and this isn't exactly rare. Not to mention people can change their own minds.

So why was this so unusual here?


I didn't say it was unusual. Of course different people have different opinion, but the published review is kind of "Empire's official verdict". The magazine chose a 4 star review when the film was out in cinema and then, seeing the audience's poor reaction, picked up a 2 star review when it was out on dvd.

I don't have any problem with that. It's absolutely normal. But it's funny because it's like Empire's now saying: "You people were right, this movie is shit". The same happened with Cosmopolis.



Empire don't publish a committee review for any film - the review is the review of the person who writes it for the simple reason that they might be the only person who's actually seen the film - there isn't a mass office outing to every press screening (which is pretty obvious). It might not score the same if someone else in the office wrote and argued the toss on it. That's pretty much how most magazines/newspapers work. And, sometimes, a different reviewer will do the DVD and it will get a different rating. Or even the same reviewer, not caught up in the moment, presents a more sober analysis.

Sadly, your misperception isn't as rare as it should be. And specifically? To suggest that Empire solely changed a review score because of what some random others thought of a film and to suggest, then, that the review isn't the professional opinion of a particular film critic, is really tantamount to professional libel, so you might want to rethink how you word that particular accusation. Empire have been clear in the past they have little tolerance for this type of unsubstantiated accusation. You might not have appreciated that this is what your accusation essentially is but, genuinely, think about it - film critics rely on professional reputations and you've just suggested one of them doesn't actually have opinions but just checks some an other public opinion-ometer and writes what that says.

So what you're suggesting happened? That's not what happened. An opinion changed - Empire did not change a score because of anyone else's opinion but one of their own.




MonsterCat -> RE: This Is 40 (23/6/2013 7:53:49 PM)

Personally, I think Empire should preface each review with: "Film is subjective, and Empire is not run by a hive mind. Thank you"




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
6.298828E-02