Matt Sullivan (Josh Hartnett) smiles at a woman beside a stone overlook
Film review

40 Days and 40 Nights

2002 · Directed by Michael Lehmann · 1h 34m

In a sentenceForty days without sex, ninety-four minutes without a second idea

San Francisco. Matt (Josh Hartnett), a web designer, has been dumped by Nicole (Vinessa Shaw) and cannot get over her; every attempt to move on with someone new ends with him staring at a crack opening across the bedroom ceiling. After confessing all to his brother John (Adam Trese), a trainee priest, he swears off sex for Lent: forty days, no kissing, no touching, nothing at all. His flatmate Ryan (Paulo Costanzo) tells the office, where the staff open an online book on how long he will last, and his colleague Sam (Maggie Gyllenhaal) takes a keen interest in the odds. Then Matt meets Erica (Shannyn Sossamon) in a launderette, and the forty days start to look a great deal longer.

Fi1m review

Rob Perez’s premise is a good one and Michael Lehmann gets a bright, sly performance out of Shannyn Sossamon, but Josh Hartnett plays farce as if it hurt, and the jokes run out before Easter. Mixed, and the late scenes do it no favours.

Michael Lehmann’s 40 Days and 40 Nights has one idea, and it is a decent one. Rob Perez’s script gives Matt (Josh Hartnett), a San Francisco web designer, a broken heart and a remedy: he will give up sex for Lent, all of it, and see whether he feels better. The film states this in its first quarter of an hour, which is about right, and then has the rest of its 94 minutes to fill. It fills roughly half of them.

Shannyn Sossamon is the reason the romance works at all. Her Erica meets Matt over a washing machine and treats him, correctly, as a slightly odd man who needs watching. She plays everything a beat slower than the people around her, and the film calms down whenever she is on screen. The best scene is a quiet one in his flat in which Matt, forbidden to touch her, uses a single flower instead, and nobody takes anything off. Elliot Davis lights it low and warm, Rolfe Kent keeps the music to almost nothing, and for four or five minutes the film is tender and funny at the same time. We were moved, a little, and surprised to be.

The trouble is Hartnett. He is a brooder by instrument, good at standing in doorways looking troubled, and farce asks him to run, twitch, sweat and shout. He does all of it as if under instruction. The running gag, that celibacy makes him see bare breasts wherever he looks, in the street and across the office, needs a man who can do panic with his face, and Hartnett’s face does one thing. Most critics have said he is miscast and we agree, though we would put the blame higher up. Lehmann made Heathers in 1988 and knew exactly what to do with a cold lead; here he has cast one in a part written for a warm one.

The office is where the film gets its laughs, and most of them belong to the women. Maggie Gyllenhaal’s Sam follows the sweepstake with the air of someone who has already spent the winnings, and she gets more out of a raised eyebrow than Paulo Costanzo gets out of a whole speech. Costanzo’s Ryan, the flatmate who cannot stop talking about sex, is written loud and played louder, and we had tired of him by his third scene. Griffin Dunne’s boss Jerry Anderson wanders in for a couple of good lines and wanders out. Vinessa Shaw has the thankless job of being the ex, and the script gives her nothing to do but come back.

Elliot Davis shoots San Francisco in clean, bright daylight, white walls and blue sky, and Sharon Seymour’s dot-com office, exposed brick and half-empty desks, is the most convincing thing in the film; you believe people are paid to sit in it and do little. Jill M. Ohanneson puts Erica in jumble-sale cardigans and everyone else in clothes from the same catalogue, which is a small, correct joke. Nicholas C. Smith cuts briskly when the film needs it and mercilessly when it does not; the fantasy sequences are chopped as fast as a trailer, and Lehmann’s crash zooms onto every reaction are what a director reaches for when he does not trust the line.

The last twenty minutes take a turn we will not describe, except to say that the film pays off its premise with a scene it plainly thinks is funny and we found ugly, and then asks us to forgive everyone involved inside about ninety seconds. We sat through it feeling faintly sick, then cross, because a comedy about a man learning to want less had just shown it did not believe its own idea. The 15 certificate is there for the jokes, not for that scene, which is the wrong way round.

Against the teen sex comedies of its moment it is gentler and better dressed. Against the romantic comedy proper it is thin: one idea, one good scene with a flower, and a lead who looks as though he would rather be somewhere darker. If sunshine, San Francisco and Sossamon are enough for an evening, there are worse ways to spend 94 minutes, and most of them are longer. Watch it at home, where it is easier to step out when the ending arrives, and we would.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

50
Positive
1
Mixed
7
Negative
5

Most critics treat this as a slight, one-joke sex farce and do not pretend otherwise. The warmer reviews find more in it than the premise promises: a comedy that is sweeter and less crude than most teen fare, with a sly undertow about love and self-knowledge. Praise clusters on Shannyn Sossamon, repeatedly called the film’s most winning presence, and on an amiable supporting cast. Several note that the premise is neat even where the gags are hit and miss.

The spread is wide, running from mild approval to outright dismissal, and the division is largely over Josh Hartnett. The Guardian and Eye for Film judge him miscast and bland; Slant, by contrast, praises his chemistry with Sossamon, which Total Film says is missing altogether. The harshest reviews come from British outlets, which find the farce prolonged, the humour forced and the climax misjudged. Three reviews are only partly readable, so their verdicts rest on inference.

Los Angeles Times
1 March 2002 · Kevin Thomas
75*

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.

Read the full review →
Variety
21 February 2002 · Todd McCarthy
65*

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.

Read the full review →
Screen Daily
4 March 2002 · Emanuel Levy
64*

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.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
11 March 2002 · David Denby
64*

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.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
1 March 2002
64*

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.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
23 February 2002 · ★★½/4 · Ed Gonzalez
62

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.

Read the full review →

Straight answers AI written, from our review

Is 40 Days and 40 Nights worth watching?
40 Days and 40 Nights is a mixed romantic comedy, worth an evening only if sunshine, San Francisco and Shannyn Sossamon are enough for you, and we scored it 47. Rob Perez's premise is good and Sossamon is bright and sly in it, but Josh Hartnett plays farce as if it hurt, and the jokes run out well before the ending, which we found ugly.
How long is 40 Days and 40 Nights, and what is it rated?
40 Days and 40 Nights runs 1h 34m. It is a comedy and romance film.
Where can I watch 40 Days and 40 Nights in Bulgaria?
40 Days and 40 Nights is available to rent from Amazon Prime Video from лв 1.99. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.
How violent or frightening is 40 Days and 40 Nights, and is it suitable for children?
40 Days and 40 Nights is not violent or frightening at all; it is a sex comedy, and its 15 certificate is for constant sexual jokes, nudity and talk, not for anything scary. It is not for children, and we would not call it suitable for younger teenagers either. The late scenes are the part most likely to leave an adult uncomfortable, and not in the way the film intends.
What should I watch after 40 Days and 40 Nights?
After 40 Days and 40 Nights, try Heathers (1988, Fi1m 80): Lehmann when he had teeth; a high-school comedy that is cruel and means it. Then The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005, Fi1m 79): The same subject taken the other way round, with jokes that keep arriving; and The Apartment (1960, Fi1m 91): Office, lonely man, woman worth waiting for; Wilder shows how it is done.

Cast

If you liked this, try…

  1. Heathers (1988, Fi1m 80)Lehmann when he had teeth; a high-school comedy that is cruel and means it.

  2. The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005, Fi1m 79)The same subject taken the other way round, with jokes that keep arriving.

  3. Secretary (2002) · not reviewed yetGyllenhaal in the lead, in a stranger and braver film about wanting.

  4. The Apartment (1960, Fi1m 91)Office, lonely man, woman worth waiting for; Wilder shows how it is done.

  5. Y Tu Mamá También (2001, Fi1m 87)Two young men, one summer, and a film that is honest about sex.

Free account

Know what to watch tonight

Two lists that know where things are streaming, collections you can share, your own score beside ours, and Discover that remembers what you have seen.

  • Want to see, sorted by what is streaming now
  • Seen, with your score out of ten
  • No adverts, ever