mechmaniac Reviews

The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005)

Don't let the critics yelling 'immaturity, run away!' fool you!

[7/10 · 5 February 2006]

"I'm not in on the buzz on this film. It's too low-brow to be much fun, and everyone in it--from the main character to passing extras--have one driving force: their genitals. "

I have to say one thing: welcome to the male world and that's just the way it is, I challenge anyone to find a comedy concerning sex that's constantly in a mature nature and is still funny. Also, you went to a movie with the title "40 year old *virgin*" not "40 year old dude" or "40 year old introvert". The film is probably going to be about sex, dear readers, so if you're not ready for some jokes about genitals and putting on a condom the right way the movie may not be for you.

"The inept acting, scripting, pacing, continuity, and direction are as bad as anything I've ever seen. "

I found Steve Carrol's acting along with his friends very believable... and what exactly does 'bad directing' mean? The only directing involved in this movie is in regular dialog and in some beds, so you have face A, then face B, then back to face A again: can you really screw that up? Also, the scripting was great because you have characters delivering rapid-fire dialog, then can change gears to slow seduction scenes, both appropriate for a comedy. I beg you readers to also ignore this horribly common stock criticism.

"The story is disjointed, fragmented and incoherent."

I found the opposite to be true. You start with a guy whose friends find out he is a virgin, so they try to give him advice then set him up with several women. He falls for a compatible lady incidentally, whom he starts a relationship with. Eventually he falls head over heels for said lady, things heat up between them... and so on, the events unfold in that order. Do these events really sound disjointed, or fragmented? Do they make sense, or are they incoherent? C'mon...

"This is a dull, painful and hopelessly dreadful film from nearly every point of view that caters either to adolescents or to the basest elements. How vulgar language, rubber penises, vomit and racist jokes pass for comedy is beyond me."

The content of this movie is immature at times, but it contains genuine feelings over a problem some face. What's wrong with exploiting it in humorous situations ? I've met friends in their 30s and 40s who still found this movie hilarious, so this brand of humor isn't necessarily bound to one age group; why when someone doesn't get a joke make up the idea that teenagers or college-aged students are more gullible and should find it appealing is beyond *me*.

Also, I'm sick of foreigners bashing it because it's "American Comedy". You don't see me complaining about the BBC making some very bizarre comedy that I think only the British or others can completely understand, because that is my loss.

So please, if you haven't already, check out this great movie not avoid it because you can't stand a little immaturity.

ER (1994–2009)

I like it

[10 May 2004]

I have seen every single episode from 1994 to present. I can't say much to it personally that can do it justice so I'm simply going to leave it at that I have learned much from this show, it has a lot of feeling and a lot of heart, and I have grown with it. If I'm labeled as a die-hard fan, then so be it. I'm a guy and I love E.R. Hey, I'm square with that... ; ) And to those who say it's too long because characters leave... welcome to real life. People go places, they die, they have their troubles, they go out with 4 different people (sometimes incredibly in the same workplace). They don't call it drama for nuttin' :D

1941 (1979)

For Spielberg, a turn for the better.

[7/10 · 4 January 2004]

I think that in history there has always been a fine line between a great success and a great flop in film. Especially when it involves comedy. For instance... when "The Producers" first came out in the late 1960's, it had been a fledgling director's first film, to us today he is known as the legendary Mel Brooks, perhaps the only director capable of out-doing nemesis director Woody Allen's wit. But this was a treacherous first step for Brooks to make, as it turned out, because of its bold humor about Nazi Germany that made many critics think it was one step away from being a "love letter to Hitler himself", as one character himself explains the plot to another. It was overshadowed by well-accomplished films of the period, such as "The Graduate" which actually opened on the same night. "The Producers" would have all but disappeared forever, if not for a very well written and widely published positive review by Peter Sellers, years after the film arrived in theaters which applauded the film for its audacity and for a rare genius which was something new in a world of slapstick humor. Today, after renewed interest, Mel Brooks has re-written it for Broadway and has become a smash-hit. Ironically, it has been a story which wins the audience of millions of Broadway-show goers with a story about two men trying to defraud Broadway, and the movie is redeeming itself today with the tremendous of sales its' made. I believe the same treacherous first step has occurred with 1941. Many people feel that it hits too close to the tragedy at Pearl Harbor and pokes fun at the competence of the ability of our determined soldiers that held the fort in our country during a time of war and paranoia of further Japanese attack. I am now waiting for the day when one well-known and very respected critic takes the time to give the film a fresh look, and will acknowledge Spielberg's great gumption at attempting a comedy about so sensitive a subject to many, and that the movie employs a plethora of legendary actors who gets their best product while in their prime here, while STILL allowing World War II veterans to retain their dignity. Until that day, I will be the one to say that I knew it was a great movie all along.