This is 40? Um, not so much…
Hi there, this is cousin Nora, signing on for my first movie review. It might be a little rambly, but hopefully you’ll enjoy my perspective. When I chose to see “This is 40,” I did so to avoid more overtly depressing flicks like Django and Les Mis. After a Christmas/New Year’s vacation without any sunshine, I needed to laugh and not think about slavery or oppression, two topics I deal with everyday at work (literally and figuratively, but I’ll refrain from the digression for now…) Anyhow, “This is 40” had its funny moments and great one-liners, but, holy crap, if that were my life at 40, I would’ve shaved my head, packed my s***and headed to Tibet. I couldn’t put my finger on what was so jarring about this movie and why it was taking up so much brainspace after I’d seen it – and it wasn’t that, “Wow, that was provocative” kind of brain space, but more of a “wtf” kind of brainspace. Then my B, Alexis, saw the movie and she summed it up nicely in two words: “Annoying and disheartening.”
Where to begin: The plot. There wasn’t one. This is 40 was a “slice of life” deal that looked at the lives of “Pete” and “Debbie,” who you would know from “Knocked Up,” if you’d seen that. In “Knocked Up,” Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann played Katherine Heigl’s sister and brother-in-law. In small doses, Pete and Debbie’s constant bickering and vitriol was hilarious, but a whole 2 hours of hate and bitterness kinda sucked. Why? Cuz it’s rarely that simple: A couple who hate each other usually do so in much more subtle ways. The characters of Pete and Debbie were constantly bitching at one another and their relationship didn’t show any depth. Every once in a while, they’d have episodes where they professed their love for one another, but that fell flat because, for most of the movie, they were just being complete assholes to one each other.
There was a funny scene where they escaped their two kids – brilliantly played by Judd Apatow’s own little girls. On a sidenote, the little girls were constantly bickering and mean to each other, with only a rare instance of sibling love. 
Anyhow, while at a posh hotel, Pete and Debbie eat some pot cookies and have a party for two (with the room service waiter looking on as they order tray after tray of desserts). But that was just about the only scene where they seemed to like each other at all, so, overall, the relationship came off as shallow. You’re left wondering why these two didn’t get divorced years ago. (Loved & Lost image courtesy of the Funny T Shirt category)
And, speaking of shallow, since this is the nerd blog, I’ll say that, as a nerd, I would be very happy to see this movie because it shows how tiresome and ridiculous the LA/So. Cal. lifestyle can be. Pete and Debbie emBODY that dream: They drive (probably lease) $100k in cars, live in a beautiful home, work out regularly, and look, well, like people from movies. But, just below the surface, you find that both are miserable. In one scene, Debbie confronts her daughter’s classmate, a kid who has a crush on the daughter and, therefore, teases the daughter. The kid even puts the daughter in the “not” category of his “hot or not” list (the ultimate insult for an LA kid, obviously). The kid’s mother ends up being Melissa McCarthy, who gives a brilliant performance when she, Pete, and Debbie are summoned to the principal’s office. In this scene, McCarthy’s character provides commentary on superficiality and she’s funny as hell. Other highlights include the adorable Jason Segal as the unlikely trainer and hot Megan Fox in her underwear/bikini. Also, John Lithgow and Albert Brooks as Debbie and Pete’s dads were interesting, but, again, there was a cringe factor. Which brings me to my main point: This movie didn’t know what it wanted to be when it grew up. Was it a lighthearted comedy? Not so much. Was it a serious look at relationships? Nope, because, like I said, the relationship seemed to consist solely on bitter back-and-forths. And the relationships between other family members (the daughters, Pete and his dad, Debbie and her dad) were also bizarre and under-developed.
So, now that I’ve seen this movie, would I recommend it? Hm. That’s a tough one. It did have some clever writing and I laughed a lot. The acting was fine, which led to a pretty big cringe factor. So here’s the deal: If you’re in a low point in your love life, like maybe you’re on a “guyatus” or a “shebattical” and have just endured a rough holiday season, this might be a good movie for you. It’ll make you grateful to be single. If you’re happily married or in a good relationship, it’ll make you appreciate your partner for their genuine spirit and overall kindness, even if they don’t look like a movie star or drive a BMW. If you’re in a relationship that resembles that of Pete and Debbie, seeing this movie with your “Debbie” or “Pete” might provide a means to finally deal with your misery. But, all in all, this movie didn’t really know what it wanted to be: Was it goofy, funny, and sweet like Knocked Up? No. Was it serious and soul-searching? It was set in LA, so the answer’s obviously no. But it was a weird combo of the two, which made it uncomfortable and awkward. If I were to choose again, I’d skip this movie and just go for Django or Les Mis. With those choices, at least I know what I’m getting into…overall, I give “This is 40” a C+, the C for a movie that’s just sort of “meh” and the plus for good acting and, at times, clever dialogue. And there you have it. Thanks for “listening.”
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.