40 jours et 40 nuits

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.

40 Days and 40 Nights could have been written into something interesting. In fact I'm sure it started out interesting, then a series of re-writes probably ruined it. The film cannot decide if it's a sex farce, a date movie, or some kind of statement about morality. The cast seems generally appealing, and the idea of such a promiscuous young man suddenly abstaining from sex sets up some interesting possibilities. Ultimitely, it just goes down as another failed date movie.

Josh Hartnett plays a young man who has just broken up with the girl of his dreams. He then becomes wildly promiscuous; sleeping around with anyone who will talk to him. After some time, his conscience begins to get the better of him, and he swears off sex for Lent. Yep, that means he cannot even masturbate or so much as kiss a girl for the time frame mentioned in the title. That seems like an interesting starting point for a film, but scene after scene never generates the results we the audience are after.

Of course, Hartnett meets another wonderful young lady at the laundry mat. They obviously fall for each other instantly, but their relationship is nothing more than a ploy to see how much the young man can be tempted to break his vow. Of course the script doesn't give him the courage to be honest about why he can't sleep with his new girlfriend. This is only meant to cause tension between the two of them, and frankly it does nothing more than delay what we know will eventually happen.

Scene after scene reminds you that this is only a movie, and in no way do people behave normally or do things happen rationally. First of all, would it make any sense for a guy looking to avoid sex to hang around with a babe like Shannyn Sossamon? I think not. How about their first date? The two of them just ride around San Francisco on a public bus and make warm faces at one another while "Chemistry" by Semisonic chimes away on the soundtrack. Can we say "date movie"? How about the office where Hartnett works? All the girls are hot of course, further tempting our young man. All the guys dress like GAP models, and none of them talk about sports at all! Sure we guys talk about sex at work, but we always at least talk a little about sports, too. In another scene, Hartnett actually gives Sossamon an orgasm using only the petals of a flower. (He can't touch her, if you recall!) To meet a woman like that.... if only! On a more serious note, practicing Catholics will definitely be offended by one scene in particular. In it, Hartnett walks in on his brother who is a priest in training and catches him making out with a nun. If this were an intelligent film, you might make the case that the film is only lobbying for priests to be able to have relations with women; perhaps to help alleviate some of the child abuse scandals. Trust me though, this film is not that intelligent. The scene was included only for schlock value.

Overall, it was an interesting idea, but there were just too many ridiculous scenes to make it watchable. The film comes off as being more than a little wrong headed in a couple ways. First of all, nobody is really as sex-obsessed as the people in this film. And second of all, going without sex for 40 days and nights is disappointing, but not the end of the world. Having sex with a condom..... now there's torture!!!! 5 of 10 stars.

The Hound.

First of all, I would like to make the reader aware that the following commentary will reveal certain elements of the film's plot. If you would rather not have them revealed, then I would not recommend reading past this paragraph. However, if you watch the movie, I would urge you to think about the full implications of its various scenes.

I watched this film with two friends of mine, and despite the fact that we have fairly liberal views, all three of us (this includes both female and male) were rather appalled at what was shown, and found that there are some serious moral problems at hand. First and foremost, while some viewers might not realize it, Josh Hartnett's character is raped towards the end of this movie. His ex-girlfriend has sex with him, while he is tied to a bed, intoxicated, and only marginally aware of what is going on. In spite of this, the film does not seem to show the seriousness of the incident. The main character seems to be casual about what happened, albeit disappointed that his celibacy did not reach the 40 day mark; his current love interest, played by Shannyn Sossamon, chooses to be angry, instead of being supportive, and his ex-girlfriend revels in snide triumph. The rape of men by women does occur in real life; it is a horrific crime, as is any other form of rape, and this movie certainly doesn't help in making the society aware of its existence.

The film also paints an inaccurate and incomplete picture of human sexuality, since men are portrayed as sex fiends, who find it next to impossible to not be controlled by their desires, while women are depicted as manipulative whores. Shannyn Sossamon's aforementioned character is an exception, but she appears to be emotionally unstable, since she walks out whenever there is a problem, instead of making an attempt to communicate. When the main character ends up with her, this is treated as an "and they lived happily ever after" sort of ending, whereas realistically, what he probably has in store for him is another psychologically-damaging relationship.

The problem at hand is not in what happens in the film, but in the film's attitude towards what happens. I am not saying that a rape scene in a movie is always unacceptable. What I am saying, is that such a scene should be treated as a rape scene, and not as a casual sexual encounter. While I believe in artistic freedom, I also believe that film producers hold a level of responsibility for the sort of message that they carry across, and that is why I felt that something needed to be said. I would generally not recommend this movie, but to those who are planning on watching it - please be aware of what is going on.

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.

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.