IMDb > 40 Days and 40 Nights (2002) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
40 Days and 40 Nights
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
40 Days and 40 Nights More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 6 of 21: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [Next]
Index 207 reviews in total 

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Awful movie further ruined by a terrible ending

1/10
Author: TheLittleSongbird from United Kingdom
22 August 2011

The only good thing really I can say about 40 Days and 40 Nights is the soundtrack, especially the use of Recondita Armonia(from Tosca) performed the wonderful Jussi Bjorling. The rest though is a mess. The scenery is decent, but the editing could have been much tighter and the photography more fluid. Josh Hartnett and Shannon Sossaman are charming to look at, but they are rather awkward and never are believable together. It's not their fault though, they struggled with a flat predictable story, a bad smutty script, uneven pacing and especially shallow characters. What spoilt this movie the most was the ending, which is the most terrible and most insulting ending I've seen in a long time. In conclusion, an awful movie. 1/10 Bethany Cox

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

"Porky's 4: 40 Days And 40 Nights"

1/10
Author: clydestuff from United States
2 April 2003

This movie is about a guy who thinks sex is getting in the way of his relationships, so he decides to do without it for 100 days and 100 nights.....no wait a minute, it only seems that long to the people unfortunate to view 40 Days and 40 Nights. This motion picture was released by Miramax, the same Studio that locked up the Academy Awards this year before they were handed out.....but if I were the head of the studio I would think long and hard before ever including this on my resume. Josh Hartnett should think about that also.

If there is something funny about watching Josh Hartnett trying to abstain from any kind of sex, you won't find it here. The whole premise is one long ridiculous bad joke, like one of those your friends forward to your e-mail box. At some point during all this, Matt meets the girl of his dreams (as if we didn't know that was going to happen), making the challenge and his half-witted goal that much harder to achieve. His buddies find out about Matt's quest, and they begin to wager on the outcome of his crusade (what a surprise here!)and as the end of the 40 days is near, they do everything in their power to see that he doesn't make it (Never would have guessed that!). Throw into all this, an ex-girlfriend who shows back up to........yep, you got it! All this of course, builds toward that big climactic moment when we found out whether Matt will orgasm, a minute before the time limit, or a minute after. (As if we didn't know that would happen either). The whole scene is so excrutiating, but then this whole movie is that way, not to mention more annoying than a fly buzzing around your potato salad on the picnic table.

How bad is this movie? I was positive someone had found a copy of the long lost Porky's 4, that had been lost in a movie vault. On the other hand, a Porky's 4 might have been an improvement.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

90 minutes too long

2/10
Author: SFLYNNLV from Las Vegas
9 March 2003

Ironically, this very heterosexual "masterpiece" is set in San Francisco and follows prettyboy Josh Hartnett doing his very best not to have sex for 40 days. From a medical viewpoint, it would have been interesting for the director and writer to have explored it with medical undertones.

I'm certain that sooner or later Mr. Hartnett will "breakout" and the world will experience his unique acting talent. Alas, 40 Days is not that vehicle. Hartnett can not hold this picture together at all. The supporting cast is terrible as well. Outside of a handful of comic scenes - the movie is a waste. And, a direct slap at the Catholic Church, which is not necessary.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

A comedy that isn't comedic

3/10
Author: TankThinker from Pacific Palisades, CA
17 November 2002

I gave this movie a 3 out of 10. While I was tempted to give it a one, I just didn't have the heart to and figured that 3 is only halfway between AWFUL and okay. I would've given it the 1 except for the fact that it's not Josh Hartnett's fault if some studio totally miscast him and also that I love Shannyn Sossaman as she's always so real and her own thing. If I was voting without those two in mind, I'd definitely have gone for 1, or if possible less than zero! The director made the most lackluster, unlaughable comedy that I've seen in so long that I can't remember another movie to bury below this one. And who the hell wrote this? What were they thinking? I mean the idea of a young guy in todays world trying to go celibate for over a month could have been an interesting premise, but instead it just comes across as completely, utterly, absolutely lame. Both Harnett and Sossaman give it their best, but Hartnett's strength certainly does not lie in comedy, at least not thus far in the evolution of his career, and Sossaman, God bless her, can't be expected to save a movie that fails left, right and center and everywhere in between. Usually, I'm a bit of softie and give films more of a break than a lot of users but I've given this movie as much slack as I possibly can. I would not even recommend this movie for rental. In fact, I'll take it one step further. I strongly suggest you don't even waste your time watching it for free on cable. It's an hour and change that you'll never get back of your life.

A dud from start to finish. Period.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Tasteless, Vapid, Silly

1/10
Author: denis888 from Russian Federation
3 June 2008

I can never understand why Hollywood enjoys making incredibly silly comedies about sex-crazy young men who cannot stay without intercourse a second or... 40 days. Josh Hartnett is great in Faculty, or Black Hawk Down but not in this typically greasy, canary, brainless, soulless, idiotic comedy. What is it about? A man tries not to have sex for 40 days? What's the big deal? And. especially, why all these Catholic references and mockery? Why citations from the Scripture, and all in a wrong way? Is it all fun to see an erected penis and all those nude breasts? And the flowers sex scene! It is so crude, artificially passionate, but simply pathetic. Josh did not live to the requirements here. He sizzles here, and all the rest are mediocre. It is not recommended to anyone.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

raunchy sex romp ends poorly

Author: weymo
31 May 2003

This movie is pretty good. The acting is good the plot is interesting and fairly believable. I'm surprised that it managed to get an 'R' rating as there are quite a few things that push the envelope toward an 'X' rating. Josh Hartnett is wonderful as is the entire supporting cast. The sense of anticipation and heightened sexual tension/frustration is communicated extremely well while Matt (Josh Hartnett) embarks on his 40-day celibacy during Lent. However. In a movie that is intended to be a dot-com, light-hearted romp I was surprised to see a casual treatment of male rape. There is no question that in one scene a man is incapacitated and forced to have sex against his will. I found this extremely disturbing and it turned the entire movie around making it extremely unpalatable rather than risque. I would invite you to see this movie and decide for yourself. But strap on a seat belt...the content is extremely sexual.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Not nearly as bad as I thought it would be

6/10
Author: Benjy from London, England
11 June 2002

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Average movie at best

6/10
Author: perfectbond
4 June 2003

I just didn't enjoy the premise of this film. There were some amusing scenes but too often I groaned at the antics of the cardboard characters in this film. I think the primary purpose of this film was to establish Josh Hartnett as a romantic leading man. I think he can be a great one but hopefully he will get to work with better material than this in the future. He is a superb actor as evidenced by his work in Black Hawk Down, "O," and even the critically dogged Pearl Harbor. Nevertheless, for my tastes, this film rates a 5 out of 10.

Was the above review useful to you?

Josh worth a couple of laughs

6/10
Author: SnoopyStyle
7 April 2016

Matt Sullivan (Josh Hartnett) designs web pages in San Francisco. Ryan (Paulo Costanzo) is his sleazy roommate. His brother John (Adam Trese) is a priest. It's been six months since Nicole (Vinessa Shaw) dumped him. He is tired of endless meaningless sex and then he's told Nicole is newly engaged. He vows to abstain from any sexual contact for 40 days and 40 nights of Lent. That's before he meets Erica Sutton (Shannyn Sossamon) at the laundromat. Ryan spreads the story and co-workers organize a betting pool on his self-restraint.

Hartnett is often a stiff pretty boy actor. In this one, he is able to inject a bit of comedic energy. His jittery sexually-deprived mess is kind of funny. There are some minor laughs in this. It is somewhat inappropriate which leads to some awkward scenes. The awkwardness detracts from the comedic needs. For example, the ending needs to be reworked. It isn't funny and is actually off-putting. I can think of plenty of funnier ways to end his 40 days. This movie has a couple of laughs and isn't as bad as expected.

Was the above review useful to you?

I didn't mind it at all! I rather liked it.

6/10
Author: callanvass from victoria b.c canada
18 June 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Matt Sullivan (Hartnett) is still in love with his ex. In order to get over her and start fresh, he vows celibacy for 40 days. When he meets Erica (Sossamon) , Matt's quest to stay celibate may be much quicker than he was hoping for. I actually had a decent time with this movie. It has some originality and it was genuine. It's also filled with smart humor and doesn't cross the line with crudeness. One of the funniest scenes is Hartnett faking an orgasm with Emmanuelle Vaugier. It still falls under the category of "typical Rom-Com" though. That's not a bad thing. I enjoy the genre, even the recycled ones. This one is definitely above average. Hartnett is winning in his role. I've always been a supporter of his. He's got charisma in spades and it sucks that he's not in the spotlight like he used to be. Sossamon is unique and winning herself. She's cute and spunky, something that was refreshing. She wasn't your typical love interest.

This was a fairly fun flick. It's sweet, funny, cute and genuine. It's nothing that reinvigorated the genre by any means, but it'll give you some laughs. Isn't that what counts?

6.6/10

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 6 of 21: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Parents Guide Official site
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history