Cannes Film Festival 2013

Review: Judd Apatow's 'This Is 40' is honest and hilarious

The writer/director trades high-concept for grounded laughs and scores big

  • Critic's Rating A
  • Readers' Rating A
<p>Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann co-star in Judd Apatow's heartfelt and hilarious 'This Is 40'</p>

Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann co-star in Judd Apatow's heartfelt and hilarious 'This Is 40'

Credit: Universal Pictures

Are you a fan of Motion Captured?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.

"Forty can suck my d**k!"

With that emphatic birthday-morning proclamation, Judd Apatow's "This Is 40" kicks off a rude, rowdy, occasionally brutal look at aging, marriage, family, and love, and while it may be the most personal thing he's ever made, it is also the most universal.  It would be hard to not recognize yourself in some part of this film, and while your specifics may not exactly match what you see onscreen, this is as honest and observational as mainstream comedy gets these days.

Pete (Paul Rudd) and Debbie (Leslie Mann) were first featured as supporting players in Apatow's "Knocked Up," and they stole pretty much every moment they were in.  Part of what made them fascinating was how much further Apatow let their arguments go than what we're used to seeing in films where we're worried about "liking" the leads.  They didn't have to carry the film, and so Apatow seemed free to push things with them as much as possible.  Now that they are the leads, I was worried he would defang them, but if anything, moving them to the center of the film gives him more room to paint a painfully accurate picture of just how hard it can be to hold things together.

At the start of the film, both Pete and Debbie are celebrating their 40th birthdays.  Or, to be more accurate, Pete is celebrating, and Debbie is in denial.  As a scene at her OB/GYN demonstrates, she's spent so much energy lying about her age that even she can't quite keep it straight anymore.  They're struggling, and that may sound like a silly thing to say in a film where people live as well as Pete and Debbie do, but I think "This Is 40" is very accurate in the way it shows just how precarious that lifestyle can be, and how one year's worth of bad decisions or bad luck could lead to a complete collapse very easily.  Pete runs his own record label, and we see him doing everything he can to make Graham Parker commercially relevant again.  There's something very meta about Apatow, who is obviously a Graham Parker fan, mounting a reunion of Graham Parker and the Rumour for the film, and we'll see if this gives Parker the same sort of moment that Loudon Wainwright III experienced after "Knocked Up."  For Pete, though, it's a Sisyphean task, and he's hemorrhaging money.  It doesn't help that he's essentially keeping his father Larry (Albert Brooks) afloat with constant loans, something he never mentions to Debbie. She's got her store, a clothing boutique, and she's dealing with her own problems involving a missing $12,000 and her employees Jodi (Charlyne Yi) and Desi (Megan Fox).  Throw in the tensions involved with raising two girls, Sadie and Charlotte (Maude and Iris Apatow), and that's more than enough friction to create sparks and, just possibly, fire.

I've already seen some people try to dismiss this film as "rich people whining," and that's wildly off-base.  I know that if I ever published my salary, some people would automatically assume that everything must be easy for us.  But I know that by the time each paycheck rolls around, we are cutting it as close to the bone as possible.  Yes, I have a house that I like in an area we love and we send our kids to a school that we feel good about and drive cars in relatively good shape, and all of that means I have to generate a certain amount of revenue every single month, and if I miss that even once, things are going to fall apart.  That's a pressure I willingly accept, but it's one that terrifies me on a regular basis.  I have my fair share of sleepless nights, as does my wife.  And while I love my wife and kids, tensions erupt on a regular basis over all sorts of stresses, and no matter how much I wish we just lived like that image I have in my head of the perfect family, that's not reality.  Reality is messy and often frustrating, and Apatow's comedy in this film comes from playing things real instead of trying to wring some high-concept humor out of things.

One of the things I didn't expect from the film is the way it deals with the relationships that we have as adults with our parents.  I feel fairly blessed to have parents I can talk to about anything, parents who have supported me emotionally and financially when I've needed it over the years.  My wife's relationship with her parents is more complicated.  Her mom lives with us, and she's a wonderful person, someone I am pleased to call family.  Her father… well, let's just say I'm amazed my wife is as functional a person as she is considering where she started.  We are who we are in no small part because of where we came from, and both Pete and Debbie struggle with the roles their fathers play in their lives.  Albert Brooks does great understated work here, and it's interesting to see the ways he puts pressure on Pete.  Remarried, he's got triplets he's raising, three little boys who have so much energy that the only rational response from Larry is a sort of permanent state of shock.  At least he's in their lives, though.  As big a wreck as Larry seems to be at times, it's better than the near-total absence of Oliver (John Lithgow), Debbie's father who also started a second family, one that appears to be as loving and close-knit as his first family was dysfunctional and broken.  Debbie wants to know him, but we can see how clearly every interaction causes the both of them tremendous pain.

Apatow's got a gift for writing every character in the film deeper than expected, and his supporting cast really gets a chance to shine.  You've got comic pros like Jason Segel and Chris O'Dowd and Melissa McCarthy playing just a few scenes but really making every moment special.  Even in very small roles, people like Robert Smigel and Annie Mumolo are able to earn some big laughs.  Fans of "Super 8" will recognize Ryan Lee from that film, and he's got a couple of scenes with Mann that are solid gold.  By laying such a strong foundation across the board, it sees up a very rich series of opportunities for Rudd and Mann in the leads, and they each deliver performances that stand among their very best.  Mann fascinates me.  She's got that great Betty Boop voice, but she's also got a ferocious strength to her.  Love and anger are just slightly different degrees of passion for her, and Debbie is unapologetically complex.  I love the vulnerability that she displays at the strangest moments, like a scene where she goes with Desi to a club and ends up dancing with a bunch of hockey players all night.  She has a conversation with one of the players that is funny, charming, and enormously emotionally exposed as well, and I can't imagine anyone else really playing it all at the same time the way she does.  Rudd has carved out a very particular place in comedy for himself, and Pete feels like the best version of that character, a guy who can be warm and silly and charming, but who wields words as a weapon and who can be almost breathtakingly caustic at times.  No one's allowed to argue with his wife but him, though, and it's great to see how Pete and Debbie can savage each other at times but how they always work together as a team when it comes to issues about their kids or their marriage.  Apatow paints a convincing portrait of the ebb and flow of the emotional demands of holding a family together, and even when the film is delivering one big laugh after another, there is an undercurrent of real emotion running through the entire thing.

Phedon Papamichael's photography does a nice job of capturing a certain bright and sunny version of LA, and Jon Brion's score is supportive without becoming overpowering.  What I find most impressive here is the editing by David L. Bertman, Jay Deuby, and Brent White.  I know the big myth of the Apatow movies is that they are all made up of nothing but improvisation, but that's simply not true.  I think one of the reasons Universal made the script available online a few weeks ago, just before the film started screening for Academy members and press, was to give people a chance to compare the film to the script as written, and if you do, I think you'll be stunned by how much of the film is pretty much word for word, beat for beat, what Judd wrote.  Even the things that sound casual and tossed away by the cast are often exactly what he wrote originally.  The result feels like something that is organic and loosely crafted, but it's pretty meticulous, and it definitely reflects exactly the goals Apatow had when he set out to make it.

I was surprised by the performance Maude Apatow gives.  She's his older daughter, and she's at that age now where she's starting to become the woman she's going to eventually be, an age that must terrify every father innately.  I have never been happier to have all boys than I was watching Maude melt down as Sadie, screaming at her parents, moody and sullen.  What could easily be an indulgence ("Oh, look, he cast his kids again") is anything but thanks to the way he plays the family dynamics.  I am amazed at the way my kids can swing from best friends to bitter enemies and back again, sometimes in the span of an hour, and Apatow captures that volatile relationship between siblings quite well.  He also uses the kids to demonstrate the way the dynamic between Pete and Debbie bleeds into every part of their life, and he doesn't let them off the hook, either.  When they are at their worst, arguing and raging at one another, there is collateral damage, and Iris, his younger daughter, plays the family's psychic battery, the one who soaks all of this up.

Whether it's the secret cupcakes that Pete is constantly sneaking or Debbie's smoking or just the simple ebb and flow of a married couple fighting, "This Is 40" is exceptional at capturing the absurdity of the things that we all have in common.  While it is indeed very funny, it is the painful truth of the film that makes it feel like something special.  It's hard to believe that in seven years, we've gone from "The 40 Year Old Virgin" to "This Is 40," but even as he refines his storytelling and continues to hone his visual approach, what has always been a consistent signature of his work is the unflinching honesty, and "This Is 40" is no exception.  There's not an insincere moment in the film, and to be able to mix humor and anger and observation into something as simple and affecting as this is a real gift.  "This Is 40" represents the best of what Apatow is capable of as a filmmaker, and as mainstream comedy goes, no studio has released anything more honest or potent this year.

"This Is 40" arrives in theaters December 21, 2012.

Drew-mcweeny-sm
Drew McWeeny
Film Editor
A respected critic and commentator for fifteen years, Drew McWeeny helped create the online film community as "Moriarty" at Ain't It Cool News, and now proudly leads two budding Film Nerds in their ongoing movie education.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Watching_hour_poster__span_talkback_profile

    jweezy

    I am so jealous you were able to see this already. I read the script after you posted that article and loved it. Even just seeing the trailer, you can see how much already went from script to screen. I love the random line about "Ben" giving Pete the pot cookies and was surprised that they're nowhere to be found in the script, especially with the big party at the end with the families. Being the youngest of three, I already got choked up in the script with the sibling fights. I am counting down the days until I can see this. It appears Judd is 4 for 4, just from the script alone.

    November 5, 2012 at 1:42AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    what the hell

    "Yes, I have a house that I like in an area we love and we send our kids to a school that we feel good about and drive cars in relatively good shape, and all of that means I have to generate a certain amount of revenue every single month, and if I miss that even once, things are going to fall apart. "

    OK, dude, you have GOT to know that is bullshit. If you are bringing in a nice enough salary that you think you'd be judged but you are living on the edge every month it doesn't mean you're just like poor people--it means you're LIVING BEYOND YOUR MEANS.

    Poor people live on the edge because they literally don't have the money to do anything else, even with a shit car, shit apartment, and shit material life. YOU live on the edge because rather than live moderately and give yourself some budget room you CHOSE to live on the very edge of your salary in the name of the nicest stuff you could possibly afford without going red every month. There is a BIG difference. That's like the professor at UChicago who wrote an article complaining living on $250,000 was hard because of how much it cost to send his kids to private school and pay his maid. The guy was totally blind to the idea that maybe, just maybe, the maid and private school were CHOICES, not proof that he wasn't rich and whining about it.

    November 5, 2012 at 2:12AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      DefRef OK, it wasn't just me thinking the same thing in that part. I grew up poor - like "on welfare and food stamps in the ghetto" poor - but through hard work I've managed to claw my way into the middle class and with the budgetary discipline and gratification deferral skills I learned while less well-off, I've managed to live a lifestyle of someone making much more because I live cheap. I go to matinees and don't buy popcorn, wait for Blu-rays to get cheap and buy PPV copies from video stores. Packing a lunch instead of dropping $10 at Fuddrucker's stretches your dollars.

      Considering all the free screenings, screeners and promo swag Drew must get (and frequently mentions in his writing, like the cool toys his sons get from the studio), it's not as if he's paying a lot for his entertainment, so I'm not sure what the point of mentioning how tough it is for his family to scrape by on what's probably a Top 10% income ($118,200) is. It's as if he's trying to say, "Don't envy my globe-trotting media pro lifestyle where I go to Cannes and Toronto and Sundance and see movies months ahead of you people and get to visit movie sets while the films are being made and Hasbro sends over crates of toys for my kids because if we miss a single paycheck, we'll be living in a shelter." Boo. Hoo.

      November 5, 2012 at 3:19AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Arthur Oh yeah, let's all hate on Drew because his children sometimes get free toys, and he's not poor. How could anyone who is not poor ever be allowed to feel financial pressures? Heaven forbid he make an honest and authentic comment about his life. You guys suck.

      November 5, 2012 at 4:43AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Matt Drew-

      I have to agree with the general content of the above complaints. "This is 40" is about relatively rich people whining, which some people may find off-putting. That's a fact, but it's a fact which doesn't reflect at all on the quality of the film. Art aims to capture truth and this film does that, even if it's not a truth some people find compelling. "Girls" is one of the best TV series I've ever seen and many have dismissed it as weekly televised "rich white girl problems" and I can't necessarily argue with that. But guess what: rich white girls have problems. The problems may seem trivial or even shameful, but they exist and "Girls" captures that beautifully.

      By your own admission, you live a lifestyle considered luxurious by the vast majority of the world's population. There's no defending the notion that you don't have it much easier than most other people. You're "cutting it as close to the bone as possible" by choice. It's a choice that society encourages and tries to force upon us, but it's still a choice. That doesn't mean that your fears shouldn't exist or are somehow not legitimate. "This is 40" captures the essence of those fears in impressive fashion. It's not for everyone (and I absolutely resent that the trailer has the audacity to say explicitly that it is--I know of whole continents of people who would disagree), but that doesn't mean it's not great.

      November 5, 2012 at 4:45AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Matt 2 I don't think you guys how investments (e.g. a house) can put a person on financial edge.

      November 5, 2012 at 6:08AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Dom I think he just saying that stress is relative. And, face it, poor people (not starving in an Indian slum poor) often have a lot less stress.

      November 5, 2012 at 6:26AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Matt Dom-

      I'd avoid making general statements comparing the amounts of stress experienced by different economic classes. It just leads to silly and offensive comments without any basis in fact.

      The point is that, as Matt 2 acknowledges, the stress exists regardless and, as such, is fair game for artists like Apatow to try to capture. I just don't think Drew has a leg to stand on in saying that "rich people whining" is somehow a "wildly off-base" description of "This is 40."

      November 5, 2012 at 7:40AM EST
    • Fountain-small_talkback_profile

      Fawst Let's be honest, here: "rich people whining" is as disingenuous a write-off of this as saying something like "Scream" was a bunch of pretty people complaining. It misses the point, possibly deliberately, and is in no way an accurate representation of what the film is actually "about."

      And living beyond your means isn't what Drew is doing. I'M living beyond my means, and I know that's the case because I basically am negative in my bank account before my wife and I get paid every other week. And we don't have kids. And we split "rent" on a house with her parents. Everyone has different circumstances. As bad off as my situation is, I'm grateful that it's not worse. The last thing I'm going to do is call out someone else for their way of living when I can't keep my own shit together.

      November 5, 2012 at 10:48AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Brad Indeed it's all relative. I'm probably in a place similar to Drew - a relatively decent income, 2 kids, a mortgage and constant stress about how to keep it all together. Now, I know how fortunate I am in life - and am grateful for it - but there is a very real sense put forward by some people that only poor people have legitimate stress, or that their degree of struggle make them somehow more worthy of a narrative (or even better people).

      It's interesting, because I was talking to my brother-in-law (who is wealthy by almost any measure - way wealthier than me), and I thought how the hell can this guy worry about money - he's RICH! He put it succinctly - "the more money you have, the more you worry about money."

      This is a guy who has been very poor as well as very wealthy, so I trust his knowledge of that scaleability.

      November 6, 2012 at 1:17AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      FistOSalmon Obviously the stress of trying to provide everything you think your family deserves can be horrendous. However I have to agree with the original commenter in pointing out that on some level Drew is choosing to push his finances to the point where month in and month out he's on the edge of what he can afford. Perhaps if he had it to write over again he might put it another way than "close to the bone as possible". If I had to hazard a guess it would be that he realizes that his family could subsist fairly comfortably with a smaller house, his kids in public school and one of the cars being ten years old and paid off.

      Maybe I'm off base but my impression is that Drew is the sole or at least primary wage-earner in his family and in that situation a lot of a person's sense of self worth and identity gets tied up in how well he is able to provide for the people he's responsible for which in turn makes it much more stressful than on the face of things it appears it should be. I lived with a girlfriend who quit working to go back to school and having to provide every dollar coming in and going out was significantly more of a mental burden than when it was just me.

      That said as someone who's recently been laid off and has had to really cut it to the bone I admit my first reaction to this review was violently negative. I don't recommend anyone trying it voluntarily but if you have occasion to live on a 1/4 of your former income you learn quickly that most of your "necessities" are a luxury.

      Someone once told me something I've always found useful when dealing with others: Everyone else's problems are just as big to them as yours are to you. It comes in handy when I have a hard time understanding (or caring) why another person is upset. However there is a quantitive difference between worry that you can't provide your family with everything they deserve and not being able to provide them with what they need. There was a study done a few years ago on relative stress levels between lower and upper income earners. This is the internet so if anyone wants to see it google it yourself but essentially they took some hotel maids making minimum wage and some executives making six figures and wired them up with stress monitors. They found that during the time the two groups were working stress levels were equivalent which in itself was news, the presumption being that the executive's work would be more stressful since it involved "bigger" decisions. The big takeaway was that while the executive's stress level dropped to normal levels when he left work the maid's remained constant for almost all of her waking hours. The conclusion the researchers drew from the study was that the stress of subsisting at or near the poverty level was higher overall than that of more financially successful individuals in what were presumed to be more stressful jobs.

      I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that to people who are living closer to the fringes in a pretty dismal economy the stress of keeping a nice house, a few cars and a pair of kids in a nice school seems like a wildly desirable situation to be in when your own existence revolves around things like "if my fifteen year old car I can't afford to get a tune up for won't start and I can't get to work on time I'm homeless." Or "I can go to the doctor and get treated for this cold that won't go away or I can buy my kid a birthday present this year." Or "I have three medications I'm supposed to be taking and I can only afford two. Which thing of the three do I take a chance on and not treat?"

      I saw the movie Friends With Kids the other day and while I liked it and thought it was pretty well done I had a really hard time engaging with it since I was constantly wanting to shout at the tv for the self-entitled pretty people I was watching to stop complaining and enjoy the ski trip to Vermont which over half of the people in this country are never going to be able to afford even though the film on one level was addressing the ridiculousness of rich people whining about their lot in life.

      I'm not saying there aren't good and or funny stories to be told about people that are comfortably upper middle class and people are aspirational enough that you can make a film with that class of character that a broad audience can relate to. I'm just saying people that are doing pretty well by most standards should take a second to appreciate what they do have by comparison before they solicit sympathy for their troubles and should really avoid looking for an equivalence that just doesn't exist. And not to be surprised if this movie doesn't do particularly well.

      One other point, Mann is so shrill and comes across so shrewish I have a hard time watching her in anything. It's just my opinion but I don't think we'd be seeing her in a lead role if her husband wasn't producing or directing. Her kids are great though.

      November 6, 2012 at 2:56AM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Fascinating. I lived at or below the poverty level for most of my time in Los Angeles, and only in the last ten years have I been able to start building a life for myself that I have earned by busting ass and being willing to do without. I have sacrificed greatly to be at the place I am today, and when I see people talk about me being "rich," it is alternately hilarious and infuriating.

      It is amazing to me that trying to make a decent life for my family somehow disqualifies me from all money-related stress, evidently.

      November 7, 2012 at 8:05PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Eyes

    Forget about posting your salary, but I'm curious about how many people are reading. My guess is that the number of comments you tend to get is not a good indicator of the size of your audience.

    November 5, 2012 at 5:34AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Annie8bit_talkback_profile

      Stormshadow4life I think a part of the lack of comments...at least for me, is that unlike some other writers here on Hitfix, Drew doesn't seem to participate in the comments sections often enough. So many times, I won't even bother posting because I have no idea if anyone's even reading. There needs to be more back and forth with his audience (and not just when people bash him and he replies back to defend himself)

      November 5, 2012 at 10:39AM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Comments sections are a very strange metric by which to measure a readership's size. It is, however, probably a decent way to measure how much engagement there is in that comments section. I would encourage more conversation, always. And, Storm, I will certainly look for more opportunities to respond, and not just to negative comments. I try to do that, but it's always the give and take of how you spend your time, isn't it?

      I appreciate the comment.

      November 5, 2012 at 2:50PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Octaveaeon Drew, I've been reading your work since AICN, and I enjoy seeing you continue to grow as a writer, a movie analyst, and a person. I feel involved when I read your reviews. You are by far my favourite reviewer. Keep it up Moriarty.

      November 5, 2012 at 9:10PM EST
  • Raylan_-_copy_talkback_profile

    Jonnybon

    Never liked Paul Rudd. Always thought he got cast by Judd just for rhyming reasons. But I'm willing this film to change my mind.

    November 5, 2012 at 7:36AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Will write reviews for food

    Drew, injecting yourself in the review is never really a good idea - at least your kids didn't make another appearance, I guess. Guess what, you have rich people problems too, and if you can't see that you should really take a step back from things.

    This movie is indeed "rich people whining" no matter how you try to explain it. For this kind of comedy Apatow should have stuck with characters like the ones in A 40 Year Old Virgin - a bunch of shlubs working in a Circuit City clone. Instead, he's so out of touch with America that he thinks a couple upper middle class white parents qualify as slumming. To him, they probably do. To the huge majority of people walking the earth, not so much.

    November 5, 2012 at 8:51AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Jeffmc2000 Have you seen the movie?

      November 5, 2012 at 11:28AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      xactomundo WWRFF, if you really knew what it was like to bust your ass for a living year after year, you wouldn't be so quick to judge...

      November 5, 2012 at 1:06PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Bradmajors I for one followed Drew when he left AICN, precisely because of the tone of his reviews. So I hope he reads this and doesn't change one thing!

      November 5, 2012 at 2:02PM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew I'm just pleased you enjoy the work so much, WWRFF, and by all means, continue to read my work as ordered by the court, robbing you of all free will and the ability to read other reviews.

      November 5, 2012 at 2:48PM EST
  • A_monty_talkback_profile

    Monty Jack

    What's the running time? If it's less than 150 minutes, I will be VERY surprised.

    November 5, 2012 at 10:04AM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew 131 minutes.

      November 5, 2012 at 11:42AM EST
    • A_monty_talkback_profile

      Monty Jack I am VERY surprised. Good for Apatow, finally being (relatively) ruthless in the editing room .

      November 5, 2012 at 5:34PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Chase

    Such a scene-by-scene give away, amateur-written review. Never have I read a critic weave their own personal life so much into a review with such an unrestrained sense of gratification. Worst review I've ever read, hands down.

    November 5, 2012 at 11:58AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Freakazoid_talkback_profile

      mmcb105 Where does this "scene-by-scene give away" actually happen?

      November 5, 2012 at 12:48PM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Thanks. The good news is I have thousands more of them for you to enjoy. Happy reading!

      November 5, 2012 at 2:46PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    V.N.

    At the risk of steering the conversation back towards the film itself, I'm wondering if Megan Fox is any good in the movie? The trailer indicates she's just there to make Debbie feel even more self conscious about aging, but as neither a hater or a particular fan, I'm genuinely curious if she holds her own comedically, or if she is once again used as a sexy prop. Or if she was pretty much left on the cutting room floor, which would be the most likely option..

    November 5, 2012 at 1:00PM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew The entire role as written is in the film. She's more than just a prop, and she handles herself very well in the film. I was pleased that her role isn't there to serve as "possible temptation for Rudd," which would be an easy and predictable subplot, but is instead a part of the Debbie side of things. To say more would be to ruin the way things unfold, but I hope Fox gets a nice bounce out of this from filmmakers who start to realize she's capable of more.

      November 5, 2012 at 2:46PM EST
    • Funny-farm-animals-17_talkback_profile

      goodhorse Haven't seen the film, but agree Fox is capable of more based on (believe it or not) an Acer laptop commercial! It was just a fun little piece and she was great in it... she was game to poke fun at her image and got laughs (at least from me) with some subtle reaction work.

      November 5, 2012 at 5:58PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      V.N. @Drew: That's what I was hoping you'd say. I don't know that Apatow gets enough credit for outside the box casting choices, or bringing unexpected things out of his actors, like Eric Bana or Catherine Keener (or even Leslie Mann for that matter)

      @Goodhorse: That was a fun little commercial. Thanks for sharing it!

      November 5, 2012 at 6:49PM EST
  • Freakazoid_talkback_profile

    mmcb105

    The people that are complaining about this review being too personal or that Drew injected too much of his own life into the review are missing the point entirely. Not only are these private glimpses into Drew’s life a comment on how personally Drew felt moved by this particular movie, but they are a comment on the subjective nature of all film. Humans are unable to view movies (or any artistic medium for that matter) in a complete vacuum that separates our personal experiences from our viewing experiences. What Drew has made abundantly clear throughout his entire writing career is that he is acutely aware of the way in which circumstances inform one’s view of the world. Whether this is through the Film Nerd 2.0 series, his ongoing Bond column, or his intensely personal reviewing style, he never fails at giving the reader a window into his particular movie perspective. The way I look at it is that Mr. McWeeny’s approach actually begets more honest criticism. Instead of denying that perspective influences his personal views, he decides to confront the notion that we are a product of our environment head on, and challenges you to examine your perspective as a result.

    So, in other words, I loved the review. Keep up the good work, Drew. There are people out here who appreciate what you are saying and how you are saying it, so don’t bend to the pressure of a few people.

    November 5, 2012 at 1:06PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      MatMcC +1
      Drew's review made me very interested in catching this movie.

      November 5, 2012 at 6:01PM EST
  • 3_talkback_profile

    Intellectual Ninja

    Rich people whining?

    Sigh.

    It's amazing how SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS are being vilified in our current political climate.

    Why is having success now bad, or "evil" in America? Why are small business owners told, "You didn't build this!"? Why are we being told we should be jealous of those with success because they "obviously" screwed over so many people to find success? Why aren't we trying to EMULATE those who are successful?

    There is rot in America, and it has everything to do with us allowing ourselves to be painted as victims by those who have more than us, who do better than us. Instead of being introspective and asking ourselves what WE could do to have success like that, we are told to hate those who have found their own success.

    Jealousy and greed are evils, great evils, to a free society.

    I'm happy, Drew, that you were able to see past that.

    My stepfather is a small business owner, who is seen as very successful. And the funny thing is, as you explain, that doesn't make his problems any less or any less important than those who are less successful. In fact, his problems are MORE important because they impact so many more people who depend on his success for their own success.

    Small Business is what makes America run. We need to STOP vilifying those who are successful and start ASPIRING to do better so we can find our own success.

    THAT is the American Dream. Don't let ANYONE tell you different.

    November 5, 2012 at 2:13PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Freakazoid_talkback_profile

      mmcb105 I think you lost me at "his problems are MORE important."

      November 5, 2012 at 2:24PM EST
    • 3_talkback_profile

      Intellectual Ninja Crap... you're absolutely RIGHT.

      That was SUPPOSED to read, "more important in SOME cases."

      Meaning, it's one thing when you have yourself and your family to worry about.

      Another when you add 50-60 more families and their well-being on top of it.

      Sorry. Typing so fast, I left out a very important qualifier.

      Basically, pardon the paraphrasing, my stepdad has greater responsibilities, thus problems can be magnified.

      November 5, 2012 at 4:58PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      CinemaPsycho Thank you, Mr. Romney. What does any of that have to do with a movie about marriage??

      November 6, 2012 at 2:59AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      CinemaPsycho And for the record, Obama never said, "You didn't build this." He was talking about the ROADS, which are paid for with taxpayer money. You would know this if you didn't watch Fox News.

      I personally don't care how much money a character makes, and I hate the whole "rich people whining" argument. It's like those people who say a film is about "white people problems". I've watched films about rich people, poor people, middle-class people, lower-class people, people living in ghettos and slums. If it's an interesting story, who the fuck CARES??

      November 6, 2012 at 3:07AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Jack

    How was Fiona Apple's original song? Was it played during the credits? Think it has a chance at a Best Song nod?

    November 5, 2012 at 3:02PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Richard Sorenson

    Wasn't Citizen Kane, and The Godfather and Scarface about rich people? Since when are rich people bad for movies? I saw the movie at LACMA last week and agree with Drew. Judd's best film. Mann kills it. So does Albert Brooks. I saw Albert Brooks only recently in Drive, and two weeks later saw this. Is he the best character actor of his generation? It seems that way.
    This is a big step for Apatow. I hope people see it.

    November 5, 2012 at 8:27PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Howard G. Brooks is certainly the most real actor out there. Very few people can be that scary and that funny. Would love to see him in 3 movies a year. Have always been a fan.

      November 5, 2012 at 8:31PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    drew

    I'm always annoyed when the plight of the characters s invalidated because of their tax bracket. Like every movie has to feature characters right out of "The Bicycle Thief" in order to be sympathetic. I'll admit, I grew up with a fairly comfortable childhood and my parents were great quite frankly. I fail to see how anything I go through after the fact is any less dramatic or valid than the next guys.

    November 5, 2012 at 9:15PM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew To be clear, the above comment was not left by me.

      November 7, 2012 at 8:02PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Ngoc

    Hey Drew, I just want to say this is one of very few personal reviews I have ever read (I'm not a fan of Hitfix YET - sorry :-|). I think it was honest & brave, and i think you came across as a nice guy.

    However, about the movie, i feel like at the moment people dont care about Judd Apatow as much as before. I think the problem is that many associate him with the R-rated humour but somehow ignore/forget his heart - which is actually why i really like about him. Think of 40 / Knocked / Bridesmaids or lately Engagement, they r all really charming & good-natured. Especially 5-year engagement - which i think one of the most underrated & overlooked movies of the year.

    When i watch trailers 4 "this is 40" i feel like this will be a bittersweet movie - AND I WANT IT TO BE LIKE THAT. From your review, it probably is :) However, as an audience, I dont think not many people will likely see it - that is sad :(

    Just a quick question though, will Katherine Heigl make a cameo in it :> I just read it on IMDB board (an unreliable source - I know :-|)

    November 8, 2012 at 12:40PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    John

    Is this an Oscar contender in any way? screenplay? That Fiona Apple song?

    November 9, 2012 at 9:11AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    pete

    Drew, Paul Rudd seriously needs to stop playing these manchild roles. Paul has become typecast in these roles, and it is boring to see. But, maybe he realizes his acting limits. I would love see him shake things up, like Albert Brooks did in " Drive" and Jeff Daniels shocked in " Looper."

    November 17, 2012 at 8:05PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    dave

    Apatows latest This Is 40 looks hilarious. Great cast and from what I've seen looks like its going to be a great soundtrack too! Been reading a lot about cameo's from Graham Parker who i've always loved and it looks like a big year for him too witha new album out - http://music.aol.com/new-releases-full-cds/spinner#/4

    November 27, 2012 at 5:47PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    dave

    Write a comment...Apatows latest This Is 40 looks hilarious. Great cast and from what I've seen looks like its going to be a great soundtrack too! Been reading a lot about cameo's from Graham Parker who i've always loved and it looks like a big year for him too witha new album out - http://music.aol.com/new-releases-full-cds/spinner#/4

    November 27, 2012 at 5:47PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Hayley

    I really appreciated the personal nature of this review- I thought it really emphasized the depth of a movie that will attract most of its viewers from being classified as a comedy. It's a shame that a reviewer being honest and open in a post seems to make people think they can comment on that person's life by providing criticism or "advice". Great review and I'm really looking forward to seeing this movie.

    November 27, 2012 at 9:44PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Goon

    "What I find most impressive here is the editing by David L. Bertman, Jay Deuby, and Brent White."

    We didn't see the same film. The version of "This is 40" I saw clearly had no editor. A self-indulgent film with no clear narrative and an unjustifiable run time. A stressful, nasty film. 2 hours of yelling. Lots of jokes, but it didn't matter because the poor characterizations exposed an Apatow formula that has grown stale.

    November 29, 2012 at 1:32AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    rrdley343

    The whole movie was a humblebrag about apatow's live. Gorgeous blonde, skinny, wife, healthy kids, multi-million dollar house, job which starts at 10am and ends when ever he feels like it.

    He helps his humblebrag piece by presenting the characters in the most hate inducing ways, BMWs Lexus, MAMILS (Middle Aged Men In Lycra Shorts, and iPADS.

    January 2, 2013 at 9:35AM EST Reply to Comment

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web