The 40-Year-Old Virgin

Steve Carell has made a career out of portraying the slightly odd straight guy, first on 'The Daily Show', and then in various supporting roles. In Virgin, Carell has found a clever and hilarious script that perfectly capitalizes on his strengths. Carell plays Andy Stitzer, a middle aged man living a quiet, lonely life. Andy is a little odd, but in an awkward nice guy sort of way. One night, while socializing with his co-workers for the first time, Andy accidentally reveals that he is a virgin. His co-workers, David (Paul Rudd), Jay (Romany Malco), and Cal (Seth Rogen) initially tease Andy about his situation. But it's clear that all three have a certain respect for the decent human being that Andy is, and they resolve to help him out by assisting him in ending his virginity. And so begins Andy's quest into adulthood. Andy is the quintessential innocent, and the bulk of the humor derives from his naiveté to the situations he finds himself in throughout the film. Some of the humor is crude gross out stuff, but most of it is just well done intelligent comedy. In addition, I found some parts of the film actually pretty touching as Andy finds himself developing both romantic relationships and friendships perhaps for the first time in his life. I'm not trying to portray the movie as a love story or a drama; it's a rolling in your seats comedy. Still, every good comedy I have ever seen contains enough heart for you to care about the characters. A good comparison would be 'The Wedding Crashers' from earlier this summer. Virgin has a similar humor, but is perhaps a bit more vulgar in some of its jokes. I particularly loved the ending of the film, which I thought was a perfect way to end the flick. Without giving anything away, it reminded me of 'Something About Mary'. Very light and fun; it leaves you laughing and smiling, which is exactly how you should feel when you finish a comedy. I would highly recommend.

How many stupid, sexual, frat boy jokes does it take to fill a 2-hour movie? That must have been the question on the minds of the makers of "The 40-Year-Old Virgin." With the exception of the chest-waxing scene (which seemed fresh and genuine, or genuinely painful), this unfunny, disturbing film should have been left on the cutting room floor or, perhaps, as a adjunct to the next "Porky's" movie. It was repetitive, predictable, and just plain dumb. This movie had a novel premise; unfortunately, it was lost in all the pubescent humor. Shame on the reviewers who sang this film's praises and conned me into renting this!

I saw this movie and I terrible hated despite all the commentary, what kind of humor is? I tried to laugh but only in one part I did it. If you plan to torture yourself for almost 2 hours, this is your movie. Using just sex and women like objects is stupid , the script is boring , predictable , the actors ,except CARREL, are the worst I've seen like Tom Cruise wife on Batman. I wish they don't have plans to make second part , but in this Hollywood , where's all in continuation and the same script again and again but different actors, the remakes ( I suffer when I see how great movies are destroyed) and unnecessary FX'S all is possible. I couldn't believe the rating of 7.4. there's tons of movies that deserve 1000 in rating if this deserve more than 7.

Insufferably and embarrassingly poor on practically every conceivable level. The inept acting, scripting, pacing, continuity, and direction are as bad as anything I've ever seen. The plot meanders almost from the outset suffering from non-sequitur dialogue and situations, with any attempts at humor being as sophomoric as anything in the history of cinema . There are endless topics of discussion and mis-fire situations that seem to pop in from nowhere and leave to nowhere. Foul-mouthed East Indians maybe amusing initially-only because that type of behaviour doesn't fit the stereotype, but they become tiresome quickly--especially when seen throughout the entire picture. However, after seeing a startingly high number of very positive reviews it has received--even from reputable film critics--I am somewhat disturbed by how the evaluation standards of filmaking apparently now isn't anything at all like how I think it has been, or close to what it should be. Will we now be innudated with a deluge similarly wretchedly produced films such as these? The prospect is frightening, if not unthinkable.