40 days and 40 Nights (2002) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

The summary:

Josh Hartnett has a particularly harsh break-up with his girl. He continues to think about her. He can't form a relationship with any new woman because he's still thinking about Nicole. Therefore, he treats every woman he meets as a mere sexual object. Then he gets disgusted with sex because it gets in the way of really getting to know someone.

So he does what I think any of us would have done. He gives up sex for Lent. All sex. No intercourse, no kissing, no touching, no masturbation.

His friends find out about it, and make it a betting pool. They start up a popular internet site based on Josh's ability to keep his sacred vow. Soon the whole world knows about it. "Hey, you're that celibacy guy", people say to him on the street. Women want him more than ever because he's cute as a button and every woman views the vow as a personal challenge. Then he meets a woman he really likes, but can't make love to her because of the vow, and well, he doesn't really even tell her about the whole vow thing for fear she will think he is some kind of nut.

She thinks he is some kind of nut anyway, just a different kind.

Hilarity ensues, in theory.


Emmanuelle Vaugier shows her breasts and buns in a dark sex scene with Josh Hartnett

Shannyn Sossamon shows in right nipple in a no-touch sex scene with Hartnett. her body double (Mary Kwan) also showed some flesh

Josh Hartnett did a non-nude nude scene.

There was some miscellaneous incidental nudity.

DVD info from Amazon.

  • widescreen anamorphic format, 1.85:1

  • full-length director's commentary

As I'm sure you have deduced, it is an ultra-lightweight generally dumb comedy with some minor laughs, unrealistic characters, and convenient Hollywood resolution. Although the movie is not especially inspirational, it did inspire me to give up something for Lent.

I am giving up Josh Hartnett movies.

The Critics Vote

  • General consensus: two and a half stars. Ebert 3/4, Berardinelli 2/4

  • British consensus: one star. Daily Mail 0/10, Independent 4/10, Guardian 2/10, the Times 2/10, Evening Standard 2/10, Express 4/10, Mirror 6/10


The People Vote ...

  • IMDB summary. IMDb voters score it 5.8/10, Guardian voters 5.6/10
  • with their dollars: It was profitable. Made for $17 million dollars, it grossed $38 million in the USA (2300 screens), $8 million in England, and did fairly well elsewhere.



IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this film is a C-. Lightweight youth-appeal comedy with minor laughs, no special distinction.

Return to the Movie House home page