40 Days and 40 Nights (2002)

Thomas finds the comedy frothy but more substantial than it first appears, with an engaging and insightful story. He praises its sly subtext about sex, love, and self-discovery.

McCarthy finds the comedy funny, sexy, and silly, but ultimately a disposable farce. He praises Shannyn Sossamon as especially winning, while faulting the hit-and-miss gags and the film’s failure to deepen its themes.

The review text is behind a paywall, so its verdict is unavailable. The visible page does not reveal what the critic singled out for praise or complaint.

The issue lists a review covering “40 Days and 40 Nights” alongside “We Were Soldiers,” but the review’s verdict is not visible. The accessible page does not reveal what Denby praises or criticizes.

The page is identified as a film review, but its text is unavailable, so the critic’s verdict cannot be verified. The headline suggests abstinence is a focus, but offers no reliable evidence of what the critic praised or criticized.

Gonzalez finds the film unexpectedly sweet despite its one-joke premise and fixation on sex. He praises the chemistry between Josh Hartnett and Shannyn Sossamon, while calling Paul Costanzo the weakest link.

Haynes finds the comedy cute and less crude than many teen-oriented films. She singles out its comparatively gentle treatment of celibacy for praise.

Ebert gives the film a negative verdict. He faults its comedy for relying on a thin premise and forced humor.

The review finds the comedy disappointingly average, caught between raunchy farce and thoughtful romance. It praises the neat premise and supporting cast, but says the attractive leads lack chemistry.

Dinning finds the comedy a neat subversion of the teen genre but ultimately humdrum. He praises the amiable cast and sharp observations, while criticizing Hartnett’s casting and the badly misjudged climax.

Tobias finds the comedy predictable and shallow about relationships, despite its smoother style than a typical teen comedy. He singles out Josh Hartnett’s strained manic performance and the film’s smutty jokes as major weaknesses.

Brooks finds the film an agonisingly prolonged sex farce and judges Hartnett hopelessly miscast. He especially criticizes Lehmann’s crass zooms and the characters’ relentless overacting.

The critic dismisses the film as unfunny and dull. He particularly criticizes Josh Hartnett’s bland central performance, saying the film only comes alive when the character is offscreen.