40 Days and 40 Nights

This movie is pretty good. The acting is good the plot is interesting and fairly believable. I'm surprised that it managed to get an 'R' rating as there are quite a few things that push the envelope toward an 'X' rating. Josh Hartnett is wonderful as is the entire supporting cast. The sense of anticipation and heightened sexual tension/frustration is communicated extremely well while Matt (Josh Hartnett) embarks on his 40-day celibacy during Lent. However. In a movie that is intended to be a dot-com, light-hearted romp I was surprised to see a casual treatment of male rape. There is no question that in one scene a man is incapacitated and forced to have sex against his will. I found this extremely disturbing and it turned the entire movie around making it extremely unpalatable rather than risque. I would invite you to see this movie and decide for yourself. But strap on a seat belt...the content is extremely sexual.

For many women, giving up sex for 40 days isn't that big a deal, whereas for men with healthy libidos and plenty of offers it is a major psychological undertaking. That's the story behind this better than average adult comedy. Matt originally tries the idea for Lent in a last ditch attempt to get former `love-of-his-life', Nicole, out of his head after screwing everything in the trendy San Francisco dot.com world has failed to alleviate his emotional needs. Swearing off sex includes giving up sex, fondling, kissing and even masturbation. This means he actually starts communicating with women (one woman in particular) on another level than purely physical and falls in love again. Within this rather limited comic milieu, various ideas are played out fairly well women's use of sex to manipulate men features not only in the frantic attempts of his female colleagues (who, with the rest of the office, have placed bets on `how long he will last'), but also in the cynically exposed persona of Nicole. You have to give the film plenty of leeway in credibility terms the story has lots of far fetched aspects but so does lots of good comedy, and the love-it-or-hate-it script either completely justifies it for you or makes you wish you had such problems to faintly believe in them. If you were offended by `There's Something About Mary', don't go and see it. Of course, I've written this from a British point of view - Americans have had more exposure to the "abstinence" movement that we have thankfully been spared so far - they make get the jokes differently or take some meaning from the film that either isn't or shouldn't be there! (Apologies to discerning American filmgoers to whom this doesn't apply!)

I doubt it.

Someone who wants to have sex but is somehow thwarted; now THAT'S funny ... well, potentially funny. Someone who wants NOT to have sex but is somehow coerced into doing so; that's NOT funny.

-Actually, very frequently it IS funny, but under conditions that don't hold here. The man who simply wants to read a book or work on his woodcarving but has an insatiable spouse; that can be amusing. The man who for obscure "because it's in the script, that's why" reasons gives up sex for Lent … well, whatever. If the film wants to ignore this tepid premise and tell jokes about, say, badminton, that could work. But the sex that's been renounced is something we never hear the end of. It's like listening to someone say, "No thanks, I don't want any sugar in my coffee," six hundred and fifty times.

How long is this guy doing without, anyway? Forty days; a little over a month. Please. Most of us spend, give or take, the first five THOUSAND days of our lives without sex (and it's only so few if you accept the film's extended definition). How hard can it be?

Not a single player in the story has a brain, and the central character is in addition one of the wettest schmendricks ever to be pushed forward as a romantic lead.

First off this is far from a great movie but it's an ok night of entertainment if a) you're in the mood for a sex farce and b) there's nothing better on at the cinema. It has a lot of flaws, most notably the liberal applying of schmaltz across the whole film but it does have it's rewarding moments and interesting characters such as the Bagel guy who knows everything except how to turn up on time. A lot of the comedy is too heavy handed but there are moments which genuinely made me laugh. I particularly liked Josh Hartnett's Priest to be brother struggling to listen to Josh's tales of sexual encounters.

That said the two main characters are somewhat lacking in life and could have done with a bit more development. This is a largely French funded film and it does show in places. There are elements of French farce about it but with transposing the action to California it was always inevitable there'd be the standard Hollywood ending and it doesn't "disappoint" in that respect.

Hopefully this won't be the best film you'll see this year but it certainly could be worse.

I went to the movies with a friend, and this was the only film we could agree on. I had pretty low expectations to begin with, so I can't really say I was disappointed, but "40 Days..." didn't really leave any lasting impression on me. It's a bland film - it does create a few laughs - but all in all, it's a pretty forgettable affair.

The best thing this film has going for it, is the nice on-screen chemistry between the two leads. Both Josh Hartnett and newcomer Shannyn Sossamon do well with their characters - or at least as well as the juvenile script allows them. The funniest moments in the film were the condom scene at the beginning, dinner with the parents and the "examination" of Matt's sheets. It's also nice to see a Hollywood movie that doesn't drag on beyond the two hour point. "40 Days..." clocks in at a pleasant 94 minutes, which feels just about right.

All in all, it's a mildly enjoyable film, but nothing memorable. I'll rate it 3 out of 6 on my dice.