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. So ridiculous. White people moaning about white-people problems.



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.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.015625