40 Days and 40 Nights

I just didn't enjoy the premise of this film. There were some amusing scenes but too often I groaned at the antics of the cardboard characters in this film. I think the primary purpose of this film was to establish Josh Hartnett as a romantic leading man. I think he can be a great one but hopefully he will get to work with better material than this in the future. He is a superb actor as evidenced by his work in Black Hawk Down, "O," and even the critically dogged Pearl Harbor. Nevertheless, for my tastes, this film rates a 5 out of 10.

After his girlfriend dumps him Matt goes through a lot of meaningless sex that makes him feel bad,so in order to give himself time to recover he decides to give up sex and anything to do with sex for Lent.

I liked the idea, but the movie ended up being a disappointment.

Josh Hartnett is pretty bad in this movie. I can't think of any other movies with him, but considering that I know his name he did a few, so he might be a good actor. But this movie really doesn't show it. I wonder if he even knew it was a comedy, because he sure didn't act as if he did.

Actually besides having a more or less original idea for a romantic comedy the movie didn't go too far from it. The joke was pretty much the same all through 90 minutes. And it was also stupid. It was the kind of sentiment I would expect for a teen movie, but the characters in this one were in their 20's, the whole "omg the poor guy can't live without sex" thing is just dumb. And this is what the whole movie was about, exaggerated and annoying.

Also, while I think sex themed comedies can be very funny. Only this one was trying to be romantic, and this is what made her sexual theme fail. Some of the jokes were off, and seemed more vulgar than funny for the genre. Actually the only time I laughed was at the Bagel Boy.

The story was not well thought through. It makes no sense whatsoever to me why Erica was mad at Matt about the whole abstinence thing. It's not like he decided not to have sex ever again in his life, or that it was a personal insult to her or that he was supposed to tell everything about himself on one date only. Silly. Same as the ending. I don't want to spoil, but what happened with Nicole was in no way funny. And it was also pretty unnecessary, one could have done it better without it.

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.

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.