No one I know who is 40 and married lives in a McMansion with their own businesses and owning Lexuses.
Does Apatow really think his incredibly privileged life is like everyone else's?
I know people like that. It happens.
Plus, it's a movie. Some movies are meant to be aspirational.
I aspire to be married to Paul Rudd.
[quote]No one I know ...
Well, that only proves you don't know many successful people.
[quote]Well, that only proves you don't know many successful people.
There just aren't that many people who are that successful as these two characters are. People like that are called "one-percenters" for a reason--99% of the population does not live as well as they do.
But "This is 40" as a title implies "This couple exemplifies all couples who are forty."
Apatow's milieu has always been narrow: privileged, Jewish LA west-siders. It's the world he comes from, and I think he really does believe this is how most people live.
Well.....the film documents a couple who come from a certain...um...tribe.
the whole entertainment business is run by and marketed towards Jewish people and blacks. The Jews are sympathetic towards blacks because they were outcasts like they were. How many Irish-American voices are there in the entertainment world besides the yukky Edward Burns? So sick of this juvenile ca-ca humor that's been the Gen X staple for 20 years now. to quote Goldie in "Shampoo" - "Grow up. Grow up, grow up, GROW UP!"
I'm so sick of him pushing his tiny little vision of life on everyone. And also pushing his talentless wife and daughters.
he needs to get out of LA and see there's more to the world than just what he grew up with. Woody Allen eventually did that with his circumscribed little world of Manhattan; Apatow needs to do it too.
It looks like the big screen version of MODERN FAMILY.
[quote]he needs to get out of LA and see there's more to the world than just what he grew up with. Woody Allen eventually did that with his circumscribed little world of Manhattan; Apatow needs to do it too.
The ONLY reason Woody Allen started shooting films outside of NYC is funding.
[quote]How many Irish-American voices are there in the entertainment world besides the yukky Edward Burns?
Brian Doyle Murray
Tom Cruise (Mapother)
Joe Queenan reviewing the movies
R7, R11, Guess I must be "chopped corned beef," and not "chopped liver," right?"
40 is the average IQ of the target audience for the movie.
Are they supposed to be Jews in the movie? The wife certainly doesn't look it.
R14, Stop with the blatant anti-Semitism. Not all Jews "look Jewish?" Have you ever seen Asian, Black, Hispanic, etc. Jews? Grow up.
Apatow is terrible. Everyone raved about Knocked Up and I finally watched it. Overlong, one step up from frat boy comedy mixed with some frau drama. Shit shit shit.
I want to get naked with Paul Rudd.
Even though he's flabby and looks like he has a five-incher, tops.
Is there such a thing as Small-Dick Face?
What a moronic thread. Lots of artists, from directors to novelists to musicians, have a subject matter and/or a milieu with which they are primarily concerned. Whether Apatow's choice of topic might fits with your own agenda really has no relevance whatsoever.
The Woody Allen analogy doesn't hold up, either. All his truly important films were set in Manhattan and portrayed a limited crowd of people.
Apatow may or may not be your cup of tea - I think he's had hits and misses, and his movies are definitely too long - but this line of criticism is particularly feeble.
[quote]Have you ever seen Asian, Black, Hispanic, etc. Jews?
Yeah, because representations of them are so prevalent in American pop culture, it would be natural to assume Judd Apatow would cast Lucy Liu to play a Jewish person. Get real, you're just looking to be offended.
I think we all agree that the issue here is, this is a movie that, by its title, purports to tackle the strangeness and crisis of reaching middle age, but betrays how out of touch its makers are by placing the characters in the upper economic strata, making them Hollywood beautiful, etc.
Multiple reviews of the movie I've read have used the phrase "white people problems."
"No one I know who is 40 and married lives in a McMansion with their own businesses and owning Lexuses."
You need to get out more. Most of my friends own their business, or are execs, own nice homes and drive nice cars.
Then you know members of the 1%.
Hip hip hooray for you: but most ticketgoers are not as rich & privileged as Apatow or his "everyman" & "everywoman" characters.
I am 43 and own my own business and drive a Lexus. It's a 2002 and I bought it used in 2006 for a really good price.
"Most of my friends own their business, or are execs, own nice homes and drive nice cars."
Then YOU need to get out more, R22.
[quote]How many Irish-American voices are there in the entertainment world besides the yukky Edward Burns?
[quote]Denis Leary Bill Murray Brian Doyle Murray Will Ferrell Bill Maher Tom Cruise (Mapother) Joe Queenan reviewing the movies
Must I go on?
I just hope Paul Rudd finally shows his cute ass!
This pic gets me rock hard in a matter of seconds...
R19, No I'm not looking to be offended, I was just trying to make a point. I'm sick of Hollywood stereotyping what Jews "look like," so I'm very glad Apatow decided to "break the mold." By the way Central Casting on up in the decision-making process would normally cast someone that was Hispanic or Hawaiian as a Jew, rather than a fair-skinned, light-eyed blond.
Oh and the same stereotyping goes for Blacks who supposedly "aren't Black enough," or Armenians being told to "grow a mustache to look more Hispanic." Every non-Caucasian faces these ridiculous and insulting old-fashioned prejudices.
Insular Jewish media
Why do you call Edward Burns "yucky"? I've always thought he was kind of cute.
It's not just him. Even "everyman" blue-collar type characters always live in some gigantic, beautiful house. And have cars, SUVs, etc.
Judd is alive, half your list is long dead.
When did you last see Alfred Hitchcock?
Sir Alfred passed in 1980.
Oh yeah, R24, I am 40 and take the subway and I have my own business: I am an artist who has shown @ the Whitney. My life is nothing like a Judd Apatow film. Thank god.
Just before the new one opened, his inane interchangeable comedies had earned him $39 million?
For a long time, the Irish were the only gentiles that would marry Jews
Wow, check out the Apatow fanboy prisspot @ Rs 1&3!
"Hip hip hooray for you: but most ticketgoers are not as rich & privileged as Apatow or his "everyman" & "everywoman" characters."
So? Most "ticketgoers" aren't as poor and abused as the woman in Precious Based On The Novel Push By Sapphire, either. Didn't mean they shouldn't or didn't want to see it.
OP, it's not intended as a documentary.
I just saw a trailer for this (for the 40thtime) and thought, hollywood is now creating movies for these 40s 1%ers to just watch in their McMansion screening rooms filled with Restoration Hardware decor. I mean who would go to a theatre to see this?
And why does my autocorrect make it "theatre" when I type "theater"?
[quote]I aspire to be married to Paul Rudd.
I really like Rudd, too, but someone said something about him once that's really very true: the bulk of his career has been spent making mostly crap movies, but he's white and a man and he's cute, so no one says anything about it. If he were black (Murphy, Perry, etc.) or a woman (Aniston, Witherspoon, etc.), he would be ripped to shreds for it.
DL queens with their claws out
Ummmm? Some do!
Many of the classic screwball comedies of the Depression era were about 1%ers. People adored them and still do, eighty years later.
Paul Rudd is not criticized like Murphy or Anniston not because he is a white male. It is because he has never been an A-List star of movies who gets paid $15-20 million or more for a string of flops. Rudd is not even really a leading man. How many movies has he headlined? How many 8 figure pay days? I recall seeing maybe 3-4 movies in which he was the lead male, but they were all low budget, focused on a much more famous or accomplished female co-star, and were many years ago. He was that one guy from Clueless and then he started showing up in Apatow/Apatow-tree comedies as a 6th-12th billed actor, with a couple semi-recent co-leads thrown-in.
r32 Their work is not obsolete because they are dead, you dumbass. They and their work are cultural icons. What are you, 20 years old?
Rudd is quickly heading into Steve Carrell territory. They probably get the same scripts.
The issue is not about the world Apatow potrays.
THE ISSUE is with the title, "This is 40." For most people in the country his 40 is definitely not 40. He should have called it, "This is MY 40."
I saw the movie a couple of weeks back in a screener. It is cute. But the couple lives in a house that looks like it should belong to a much older and much much richer couple. It looks like it's the home of a man who has made $39 million from his movies. I mean the master bedroom is about four rooms in and of itself - a bedroom, sitting room, bathroom, closet suites.
It's also a flop.
The semi-sequel to Knocked Up, with Paul Rudd and the incandescent Leslie Mann, opening at 10 mil?? Nuclear flop.
I agree the problem the OP is identifying is not with the movie but with the title. "This is 40" makes it sound like everyone 40 has the same problems these characters do, but also like everyone lives in a giant house in West LA.
He should have called it "Fart Jokes among the Entitled."
Um does anybody here watch House Hunters? Almost every couple aspire to having these homes albeit, not in LA, where they are in the millions. In most places, mcmansions like this are $250,000 and that is why they can also afford Lexuses because they are not paying that much for their homes.
R51 lives in the dream world that got us into this recession.
Was there a law passed when I wasn't looking that requires us to see this film...because otherwise who cares what a filmmaker chooses to call his film. It's his film. And either people will be on board or they won't. The OP won't or isn't. Others will be. Maybe the characters bought the house in a short sale, maybe they scrimped and saved. It's not like this is the fist time in cinema characters have lived in a way that didn't necessarily reflect reality. The title is also a marketing tool
The title tells you exactly what ground the film is going to cover. From the trailer you can see what his point of view is so it's not like it's bait and switch, you can tell if it's not your idea of forty before you set foot in the theater.
Years ago I read an interview with a Russian filmmaker who said that American films were just as full as propaganda. When asked how so, the example was that whenever a character in an American film opened a fridge it was full of food, which of course is not the reality of a good number of U.S. citizens.
So it's not like Apatow is doing anything that isn't already a hallmark of U.S. films.
This film is inaccurate in its timeline. Knocked UP took place in 2006. This is 40 takes place 5 years later in 2012. But 5 years later is actually 2011. Were they in a time warp? Why not just say this film takes place 6 years later?
stellar reviews from the NY Times!! They actually said, 'Don't listen to the mouth-breathers on datalounge. They are bitter queens who live in their mother's basements.'
Saw a screener tonight after postponing it for a while. Melissa McCarthy has a very funny scene in it. That's about it. There is something smug and self admiring in the tone of the piece. The 'humor' is TV level (mostly) and the 'story' is poorly formed and built, with a sluggish pace, very little logic and a facile, fairy tale conclusion. Apatow is willing to give the wife some unpleasant qualities but doesn't really play them out; Rudd is apparently a flop in his business but the reason he has enough to (barely) sustain an affluent life style isn't clear. Though Rudd's father (a de-energized Albert Brooks) is a shameless mooch and serious contributor to his son's financial problems, he has an embarrassing hymn to Jewishness, which seems entirely unearned and from left field and hardly disguises that he is a selfish, narcissistic putz.
In American to be Jewish is to have an ethnicity and in some cases a specific religious belief (this however is a secular film); in itself it is not an achievement. There are great artists, thinkers, political movers, who are Jewish and some Jews have been very brave in serious adversity or advocacy -- these are dreary nobodies who think only of themselves, who none the less are evidently to be held up as some kind of ideal because some of their domestic travails are treated frankly, and we get to see Rudd on the toilet a few times.
As with so many 'reviews' in the NY Times, A.O. Scott's is idiotic.
I just saw the trailer for the movie and it seems incredibly lame and unfunny.
I saw this last night and it was awful. Very few funny bits, totally unlikable characters (save the younger daughter), and probably an hour too long. Judd Apatow is the new M. Night Shayamalan.
[quote]and we get to see Rudd on the toilet a few times.
Does he show asshole?
God, how I loathe that most things that come out of Hollywood are representations of the white, upper middle class experience.
How dreadfully boring. I'm glad this movie is flopping.
And LESLIE MANN IS NOT A MOVIE STAR!!!
STOP trying to make her happen, Judd Apatow. She will never, ever happen. If her career was based on her talent level, she'd be the second banana on some ABC sitcom.
Why didn't Leslie Mann's career die after she screamed "Faggot" at that security guard?
Because he has whit for brains.
This is a really terrible movie about really horrible people. They whine the entire time about not having enough money. Yet somehow they have every expensive toy available. They live in a huge house in Brentwood (a really expensive neighborhood in LA). The wife has a cutesy clothing store but has not noticed that she is missing $10,000. In order to cope with not having enough money they take off for a weekend at a luxury hotel, get stoned and order all the deserts off the room service menu. I would say spoiler alert but nothing much else happens in this movie and it is 2.5 hours long.
Whit = shit
r51 has it right. That's the life of just abut every straight couple I know who are in their 40s. Those cheap McMansions are not the realm of the 1%rs. The 1% live in real mansions.
My God, you unemployeds sure are tiresome.
What a devastatingly witty response, r66.
I went with low expectation and I actually found parts of it very funny and very touching--it is uneven, half an hour too long, and it takes a long time to connect with any of the characters, but not every film has to be a lovefest between the characters and the audience.
And it made me glad to be 55 and not straight (yes, go ahead with the eldergay routine--but I NEVER hiss!)
They don't live in a $250K McMansion in LA.
For one thing, You can only get a McMansion for that price if you live way the fuck out in the Inland Empire or the meth cities in northern LA County.
McMansions in West LA are just tear downs of smaller homes with giant homes that take up their expensive lot and go at $600K on up.
The characters live in Brentwood, probably the most expensive part of the very expensive west side. His house would go for $4 million starters.
McCarthy was the bright spot
The people in the movie aren't that successful, none of them. Except for the wife's father, he's made real money. But the others, they're just faking it and scared shitless of being found out.
Exactly, R71; in fact they have to sell the house because they're both struggling in their careers.
To me the movie was about incompetent privileged people with "first-world problems". But I was glad to see they were miserable, because to be honest, playing sudoku on the toilet while hiding from your family is just a shit life to live. [and I'm not even mentioning the ipad tablet or whatever it was]
Movie was honest in a way.
Makes me want to watch Down and Out in Beverly Hills.
I saw this film completely by accident, online. Title didn't faze me. Might do if I were 40, but I'm getting used to American movies being seriously out of touch.
Leslie Mann is Irish btw, from SF. Irish Catholic.
I'm 41, make $265,000 a year and have a 5000 sq foot lake front home.
R74 me too! Down and Out in BH is a terrific movie. Holds up, too!
OMG, R77. I am so impressed with you! You must be a superior human being. Tell us more about each $, each year of your life (although I bet you look 29!) and each square foot. Thank you for sharing those humanity-defining statistics with us.
This Is 40 made me decide very firmly and once and for all that I do not want children.
I think it's an honest portrayal of how a lot of married couples live. Beyond their means, up to their eyeballs in debt, and mostly miserable. The message in the movie was to take a step back and appreciate what's truly important in your life.
Also, the house was just a house. I certainly wouldn't call that a McMansion.
I thought the movie was hilarious and I love Leslie Mann and Paul Rudd.
This is West L.A. Jew 40
[quote]Then you know members of the 1%.
Jesus christ, I wish people would really consider what they mean by the 1%.
Having a home and cars doesn't make you part of the 1%. Being the CEO of the development company that built your home or car makes you 1%.
Just like the people who make movies, even the top-earners, are not 1%. The CEOs of the multi-national corporations that own the movie studios are in the 1%.
Right on, R85. The people in that movie are privileged, but not that privileged.
And before you ask, I live on minimum wage and I rent.
Nicole Holofcener does this sort of movie better - funnier, with more subtlety and more likeable characters. See: "Please Give."
Agreed, R87. If Holofcener was a man, she would be much more well known by now.
True, Nicole Holofcener has this as her niche. I liked Friends With Money, but I might have found This is 40 more intersting. FWM had more highs and lows, 40 was more even.
All in all, I wouldn't buy either.
Yes, I buy DVDs. Especially when the box is nicely-built.
That she can make movies at all, about the topics she wants, is in itself pretty amazing.
[quote]Having a home and cars doesn't make you part of the 1%. Being the CEO of the development company that built your home or car makes you 1%.
It's American myopia, r85. It's the same reason most people who voted for Romney believed he was interested in protecting their interests. People get a little whiff of success (nice house, nice car) and suddenly think they are part of the upper class and anyone below them is just not trying hard enough.
I think it referenced the life crisis that every adult feels at that age...that this "should be the happiest time in our lives..." yet, do not.
I never thought 40 would be the happiest time... Always figured it would be 20-something.
My happiest times were 15-25. 25 was the high point, but looking back now I see how 15 had some very tender moments that can never be replicated.
You think you know all, but you don't, and that's sweet.
this thread it totally off the point about the film.
think about the wife discussion about how at this point, being 40, this is the time to finally be "happy" with everything...
meaning, this is the moment the highest level of happiness: you don't have to go through difficult growing pains or beginning professional and family milestones, AND you are not above forty where senescence starts.
I think the film was a good exploration of family bonds and professional strife; an assessment of what their true worth is, and how at times they can be the source of frustration and unhappiness which is contrary to the idea that at 40 you should be happiest in your life, when you have achieved everything that IS supposed to make you happy.
Teens and twenties were not my happiest points, as I was focused on finishing them and moving on to the next "step" --they were a wash for me.
I wasn't a hottie and wasn't rich. So that put a cramp in my teens and twenties.
Teens and twenties are fun if you are good-looking or have charm. You don't need much money at that point, you don't need to have succeeded in anything. You just need to be fun, enjoyable, and have the "promise" of something good in just a few years.
If you don't build anything during those years and just spend the time enjoying them, yes those years are going to be a blast, but the years following (30s and upwards) are going to be miserable. Because by then, you'll only be judged on what you've achieved.
Leslie Mann is okay but her forehead didn't move. Neither did her newly plumped upper lip. The kids were surprisingly good. Their multiple doctor visit montage was annoying too when you consider how many people have no health care. White people problems. Oh and Ryan Adams annoys the shit out of me.
They were also comparing the shopgirl's sales and they said they were $25,000 a day. Even with giant fixed costs and low margins that would be at least $2000 a day. So that's over half a million a year. That's the wife side business. Closed on weekends.
Harrison Ford and Matthew Broderick are at least half Jewish.
I can't stand the name Judd.
He's like the director (forget her name) that did That's Complicated and a host of other movie. They think everyone makes $500K a year
I hate Leslie Mann with the heat of ten thousand suns.