info coming later...

Just read this, can't believe how overly sensitive some people are.

-------

Judd Apatow's "This Is 40" movie contains a joke in which Albert Brooks' Larry character pretends to shoot his children in order to save money on taking care of them. "Line up! Line up for murder! Come on! Who wants to be killed?," the character tells his triplets.

The kids respond: "I do! Murder me!" So Larry pretends to kill them. "Boom, dead. You're dead. All right, the kids are murdered. That will save us some money."

Apatow explained that the joke was written two years ago, but will not remove it from the movie. "In light of recent events, I understand if some people might make an unfortunate association or put it in a context in which it was not intended," he said.

just saw this. it was pretty good. some genuine laughs and really the whole movie seemed genuine and portrayed a seemingly real family with real problems. maybe a little exaggerated, but overall seemed honest and one of Apatow's most revealing, though not the most coutured in terms of editting. def. a little long in the tooth. really should have been way under 2h. and would have made for a tighter, more funny and enriching experience, but overall not bad.

Good for him.

People and their illogical bullshit about that shooting. I'll never understand people who associate things w/ anything they can latch it onto w/ stuff like that.

This is pretty much Judd Apatow's weakest film so far. I've been a huge fan of Apatow's entries in comedy for a long time, but this movie wreaked of self indulgence. It spent most of the time trying to redeem Debbie from Knocked Up as a woman who is a shrew, but for a reason, and as I feared, Apatow spends too much time trying to show the audience how cute and funny his daughters are.

The characters of Sadie and Charlotte are very under developed, and there's never any reason for what they do or why they act the way they do. Most of the time it's all melodrama and unpleasant humor, and I just wasn't enjoying most of it.

This is definitely a sequel that didn't need to be made.

Also, the murdering kids joke "controversy" is fucking stupid. It's just Pete's dad trying to guilt him, so he suggests murdering the kids and keeping his favorite one. It's a flat scene, but nothing to be offended at.

"This is 40" could be titled "This is 40 Minutes Too Long". It's a big swing and a miss for me. Sure, some laughs were had here and there, but a meandering mess with uneven pacing. Maybe Judd Apatow was going for the "life happens" type of screenwriting this time around, but it results in a scattershot feeling that seeps throughout most of the film's running time.

Leslie Mann (Apatow's wife) doesn't quite have the dramatic chops to really dig into some of the more dramatic scenes, and in other scenes, she comes across a bit too shrewish as Debbie (who has a hard time coming to grips with turning 40). Paul Rudd's Pete is also at the crossroads of turning 40, with a business that's crumbling, and his family's way of life doing the same. Rudd tries, but again, not much meat on the bones of the script this time around.

Apatow's kids aren't given good material to work with, so their "Sadie and Charlotte" sister act gets old quick. Megan Fox is actually a bright spot in the film, even with being casted as the younger, hotter employee in Debbie's clothing store (with guys draping themselves all over her at every opportunity), her few scenes pumped some life into an otherwise mediocre film. Charlyne Yi is simply a bad caricature in the film. Albert Brooks as Pete's dad does throw out a bit that will get some attention due to the recent events in Newtown, CT, but I'm glad they kept it in. Just unfortunate timing, but there you go.

I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+. I might pare it down to a C if I think on it more.

Eh, it was alright as a throwaway romantic comedy. Nothing memorable, good for a few laughs.

Leslie Mann and the girls leave Judd Apatow for Paul Rudd after watching the screening of This is 40:

http://hollywoodandswine.com/after-w...for-paul-rudd/

That article is about as funny as I expect the movie to be, which is to say, not at all.

I laughed the same amount of times in both

Have you ever been around girls of this age - that is exactly what they are like - reason almost NEVER enters the picture

I thought overall it was great - 25 minutes too long but hilarious in spots and lots of relatable moments. Yes, they should have just cut the Lithgow subplot and the movie would remain unharmed, but I had a lot of fun with it and thought it was a good return to form after the over indulgence of Funny People.

This may be true, but she does get to deliver one of the film's best lines.

I just dont get how small roles from Knocked Up appear in this movie...but I hate that Asian actress. So annoying in Knocked Up

i'm assuming Rogen was shooting or possibly directing something at the time. as for Heigl...it's pretty well known that she did not enjoy her time on the set of KNOCKED UP but i did see pictures of her on the walls of Pete and Debbie's house. Rogen might have been up there too but i didn't see him, however he was mentioned as being the person who gave them the pot cookies.

I know all the Heigl stuff and never expected her to be in it. But I just can't see why Rogen wouldn't show up for a day of shooting.

I was actually fine with the Lithgow stuff, but other than that I completely agree with you. I went in expecting the worst and was pleasantly surprised that it didn't turn into Funny People 2.

Sadie's obsession with Lost was just obnoxious. I didn't get what the point was.

LOST is fucking awesome and worth getting obsessed over - that's what the point was

That was really worth noting in a movie about a marriage in peril.

This movie was an absolute bore. There were a few funny lines, but the laughs per minute were fucking low.

Knocked Up was much funnier, and I didn't even love that one.

I thought Knocked Up hit the perfect balance between Drama and Comedy, at least for Apatow.

Seems like he's been struggling to find that note again. Thought this film was a teeny bit better than Funny People, but I think that might be because I thought the leads were better.

I also agree with those who said it was too long. Once the initial onslaught of crude humor passed early in the film, it felt like it dragged ass all the way to the end. Pete's party felt like a scene I could have done without. Felt like it overstayed it's welcome.

Not a terrible film by any means, but I just thought it was middle of the road.

I just can't get myself to see this at the theater. I'll wait for the rental.

Probably a good idea.

We were talking as we left the theater about how many subplots could be taken out without hurting the film (Lithgow, Megan Fox, clothing store, record company, romantic vacation, etc). We had a much harder time thinking if what was worth keeping in (Albert Brooks, Smigel, the starfish?).

I very much enjoyed the movie (and put it just after 40 Year Virgin as his 2nd best). Yes, it could have been cut down 20 or 30 minutes. This is more what I expect in his "Director's Cut" DVDs.

Rudd's problems as a husband and father I get. I've been there. The kids (although maybe not the most experienced actor's - this was NOT Dakota Fanning) were very real with their problems (I have two as well) and the obsession with Lost? - yes, that is very real as well. My daughter has been through half a dozen similar obsessions as well.

That said... the only terrible part for me was Charlyne Yi. God, I hate her. A good cut to tighten up the movie would be to cut everything having to do with the clothing store, even Fox (who was great but I would gladly sacrafice her to get rid or Yi).