#1  
Old 12-13-2012, 09:26 PM
This is 40



Directed by Judd Apatow

Written by Judd Apatow

Genre: Comedy

Plot Outline: A look at the lives of Pete and Debbie a few years after the events of Knocked Up.

Starring: Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann, Jason Segel, Albert Brooks

Rated R for sexual content, crude humor, pervasive language and some drug material

Runtime: 134 minutes


The first trailer was bad, the second a bit of an improvement, and the reviews have been pretty good. I'm generally a fan of Apatow and I'll watch Rudd in pretty much anything, so I'll probably check it out. I wish he cut back on that runtime though... fuck.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-13-2012, 09:56 PM
The marketing of this movie has been terrible too. I really hope it is an improvement from his last movie. The topic is interesting to me. I hope more factual funny than just silly. The trailer with Paul Rudd on cam in his daughter's room is not good.


Oh, I hope this is the last time I see his wife and kids in his movies.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-17-2012, 07:44 PM
I'm an Apatow apologist, and I really disliked this. It's all of his worst tendencies amplified. Self indulgent, to be certain. Too long and very over-relient on improv which in some cases gives it a nice free-form feel and most other times makes it insufferable. There's also no plot, which isn't always a bad thing but it rendered this particular film amorphous and episodic. There are some funny individual moments, and some sweet moments too (Apatow does always try to paint his characters with more depth), but it all adds up to very little. His daughters are very hard to watch in this film.

Also, I am undoubtedly much younger than 40... but I don't think not being able to relate was the issue. Truths about relationships and family life should be universal, and it all just struck me as very pat and obvious.

Last edited by SpikeDurden; 12-17-2012 at 09:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-17-2012, 08:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDurden View Post
I'm an Apatow apologist, and I really disliked this. It's all of his worst tendencies amplified. Self indulgent, to be certain. Too long and very over-relient on improv which in some cases gives it a nice free-form feel and most other times makes it insufferable. There's also no plot, which isn't always a bad thing but it rendered this particular film amorphous and episodic. There are some funny individual moments, and some sweet moments too (Apatow does always try to pain his characters with more depth), but it all adds up to very little. His daughters are very hard to watch in this film.

Also, I am undoubtedly much younger than 40... but I don't think not being able to relate was the issue. Truths about relationships and family life should be universal, and it all just struck me as very pat and obvious.
I knew it was going to go down that road. Terrible, as I'm a Apatow apologist myself (I enjoyed Funny People) and the trailers for this just really turned me off.

I'll wait for cable.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-19-2012, 11:04 PM
I don't know why they made Leslie Mann look like Kate Beckinsale on that poster.

Not really interested in seeing this. 40 Year Old Virgin is still Apatow's best and each movie after has been worse than the one before. I'll maybe watch it when it airs on TV in about a year.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-22-2012, 12:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDurden View Post
I'm an Apatow apologist, and I really disliked this. It's all of his worst tendencies amplified. Self indulgent, to be certain. Too long and very over-relient on improv which in some cases gives it a nice free-form feel and most other times makes it insufferable. There's also no plot, which isn't always a bad thing but it rendered this particular film amorphous and episodic. There are some funny individual moments, and some sweet moments too (Apatow does always try to paint his characters with more depth), but it all adds up to very little. His daughters are very hard to watch in this film.
I mostly agree, except I was laughing so hard throughout that I actually liked it overall. It's fairly aimless (although I guess you could call it a non-indie slice of life movie) and indulgent, but because Paul Rudd is on screen pretty much at all times, the film is consistently funny. Where it falters is when it gets away from Rudd's character and focuses on things like the theft at the store or the sisters getting mad at each other. I realize Apatow is trying to incorporate the perspective of every family member, but I think it would have been a tighter and more focused movie had it stuck with Rudd throughout (which would naturally incorporate other characters and their feelings as they interact with him). It just needed to be tighter, and I think with less indulgence and a 100 minute runtime, it could have been much better. Still, it's funny as hell. The Eastern Medicine scene killed me.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-22-2012, 08:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
I mostly agree, except I was laughing so hard throughout that I actually liked it overall. It's fairly aimless (although I guess you could call it a non-indie slice of life movie) and indulgent, but because Paul Rudd is on screen pretty much at all times, the film is consistently funny. Where it falters is when it gets away from Rudd's character and focuses on things like the theft at the store or the sisters getting mad at each other. I realize Apatow is trying to incorporate the perspective of every family member, but I think it would have been a tighter and more focused movie had it stuck with Rudd throughout (which would naturally incorporate other characters and their feelings as they interact with him). It just needed to be tighter, and I think with less indulgence and a 100 minute runtime, it could have been much better. Still, it's funny as hell. The Eastern Medicine scene killed me.
Some aspects of it did feel kind of mumblecore. Perhaps Lena Dunham is rubbing off on Judd.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-22-2012, 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDurden View Post
Some aspects of it did feel kind of mumblecore. Perhaps Lena Dunham is rubbing off on Judd.
It's interesting that you bring that up. While Judd is a producer on Girls, I actually think the direction he is going with his work is more suited to a TV series. He's all about capturing little moments, which I think would work better within a TV series (like Treme), rather than in a feature length film that gets bogged down by them. I remember saying after seeing Funny People that it would have worked better as a TV series. Maybe not the romance angle, but the whole struggling comedian angle. But I guess Louis C.K. has pretty much mastered that with Louie.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-22-2012, 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
It's interesting that you bring that up. While Judd is a producer on Girls, I actually think the direction he is going with his work is more suited to a TV series. He's all about capturing little moments, which I think would work better within a TV series (like Treme), rather than in a feature length film that gets bogged down by them. I remember saying after seeing Funny People that it would have worked better as a TV series. Maybe not the romance angle, but the whole struggling comedian angle. But I guess Louis C.K. has pretty much mastered that with Louie.
Structurally This is 40 definitely felt like 3 episodes of a TV show strung together. TV is where Judd got his start, for the most part, and perhaps it is where he is best suited. I love Knocked Up and 40 Year-Old, but they certainly have an episodic quality to the way their narratives unfold. I'd love to see him do a new tv show, perhaps on HBO to compliment Girls (which I am a big fan of). In terms of films, I've found that both Seth Rogen and Jason Segel (in the Apatow gang) are better at writing movies that have a traditional movie structure, if that makes sense.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-22-2012, 10:11 PM
Knocked Up

What I still don't understand about this movie, is how is it supposed to be a follow up to Knocked Up?

I remember Knocked Up several years back. It starred Owen Wilson and Katherine Hiegl. The story was centered around Wilson accidentally sleeping with Hiegl, and getting her pregnant without any knowledge.

Paul Rudd was in that movie too as a side character. I recall both him and his wife (Leslie Mann?) being barely mentioned throughout the movie. They were supposedly friends of Hiegl and that was all the character development he did.

Do you mean to say this movie This is 40 is about those two characters & is a story centered on his life after? I was very confused by that trailer.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-22-2012, 10:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResidentWakeVille View Post
What I still don't understand about this movie, is how is it supposed to be a follow up to Knocked Up?

I remember Knocked Up several years back. It starred Owen Wilson and Katherine Hiegl. The story was centered around Wilson accidentally sleeping with Hiegl, and getting her pregnant without any knowledge.

Paul Rudd was in that movie too as a side character. I recall both him and his wife (Leslie Mann?) being barely mentioned throughout the movie. They were supposedly friends of Hiegl and that was all the character development he did.

Do you mean to say this movie This is 40 is about those two characters & is a story centered on his life after? I was very confused by that trailer.
First of all, Knocked Up starred Seth Rogen, not Owen Wilson.

Second of all, yes. Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann are supporting characters in Knocked Up and here they play the same characters but in lead roles. It's basically a cinematic spinoff.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-22-2012, 10:27 PM
You know, I never really thought about it until this discussion but I could absolutely see Apatow's work as a TV show and just being amazing. As films, I have to agree with the poster a few above me, he hit his peak with 40 Year Old Virgin.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-22-2012, 10:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDurden View Post
First of all, Knocked Up starred Seth Rogen, not Owen Wilson.

Second of all, yes. Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann are supporting characters in Knocked Up and here they play the same characters but in lead roles. It's basically a cinematic spinoff.
Ahh okay. So this one is basically a spin off? It has the same director/writers but lacks any Heigl or Rogen. I always get Rogen mixed up with Wilson because they look so similar.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-23-2012, 12:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResidentWakeVille View Post
Ahh okay. So this one is basically a spin off? It has the same director/writers but lacks any Heigl or Rogen. I always get Rogen mixed up with Wilson because they look so similar.
I can't even begin to understand how one would say that Rogen and Wilson look similar. But to each their own!

And yes, same writer/director (Judd Apatow) and indeed a spinoff.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-31-2012, 12:59 AM
Painfully slow movie. Lots of directors get slack for indulging too much with their style, but Apatow takes the cake. It's got its fair share of hilarious moments but they're too far apart. Albert Brooks annoyed THE SHIT out of me in this movie. Wow, I really wanted to punch his character in the face every time he was on screen. Hated him and everything he stood for. Mann's acting is still bad and the elder daughter is one of the worst child actor's I've seen in a very long time. Bah.

It's funny how this is one of the worst 2012 movies I've seen but it still has some of the funniest lines of the year.

Melissa McCarthy's blow up in the principal's office was GOLD. "You look like you stepped out of a bank commercial" had me in stitches.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-31-2012, 08:53 AM
I thought this was a step up from from Knocked Up and Funny People, but Apatow just needs to stick to producing other movies. His films have become a mockery of themselves with slow development of an actual story and, as always, an anticlimactic finish that makes all the character's struggles magically vanish.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-31-2012, 10:43 AM
started as a funny comedy ( i still laugh the "viagra is the digital to my analog dick" joke ) but it got depressing about half way.

"Shit happen so deal with it" & "I poop with the door open" jokes are not funny. Almost 40 myself , i thought this was gonna cheer me up but it brought me closer to suicide.

The overall message is not bad .... but the movie being labeled as a comedy is bad. It's closer to THE BIG CHILL than American Pie.

Apatow tries too much ..... 2h10 min for a comedy. Even Jerry Lewis would not know how to handle that.

Top model body on the slab but where is the soul ?

6|10
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-01-2013, 12:28 AM
So, I really enjoyed this, but, sweet Jesus, does Apatow need an editor. This movie needed to lose 30-40 minutes, easy. Though I'd hate to see so many funny scenes get cut. The entire shoplifting storyline (though it did add to the financial tension of the plot); the vacation they take; the endless screeching of the teenage daughter... even the Melissa McCarthy subplot, while hysterical, could have been trimmed (and their gag reel at the end was the movie's high point to me).

That said, I was laughing all the way through. And it is so fucking refreshing to see a "romantic comedy" that doesn't fall into the same stupid bullshit that every predictable romantic comedy does.

I was also expecting at least a brief Seth Rogan cameo - at least Jason Segal showed up.

8/10
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump