Pajiba

Nice review, Dustin - I'll take a chance on it.

"punctured through the dented hymen of comedy"

Wow

I will definitely watch this, although there seems to be a lot of critical hype surrounding it and its creator, not a good thing. (remember the Farrelly Brothers?) Best to keep expectations in check.

yay yay yay! cannot even *begin* to express my excitement for this film...I love freaks & geeks and have cracked up repeatedly over the trailer for this and superbad -- thank you hollywood for allowing some authentic writing/humor through your narrow, plasticine cracks!

and socalled, when you get to this thread, happy birthday (and give me a call if the missus ever gives you the heave-ho...you seem like a fine one to play naughty with). spankings!...for the birthday, of course ;)

Does the underlying conservative message of Knocked Up necessarily have to be hostile toward feminism?

I haven't seen the movie--YET--but it's my understanding that the female character decides to keep the baby, to raise the baby, and to involve the baby's father in its (and her) life.

I mean, the woman made all the choices in this scenario.

How in the fuck is any of that "hostile" toward feminism? You can only be a "feminist" if you make the politically-prescribed choices, rather than the choices you yourself actually want to make?

This Penguin person is an idiot. But you don't get off the hook entirely yourself, DR, assuming that by "conservative message" you mean "chose not to abort and tried to be good parents." I'm not prepared to cede those life choices exclusively to conservatives.

This movie really does sound like it has what I liked about 40-Year-Old Virgin: a human heart along with a buttload of laughs. I can't wait to see it.

Now, now, Jerce -- The "penguin person" actually seems like a very smart girl (and a reader here); I just happen to disagree with her on this point. And, of course, only conservatives can have nuclear families -- it's in the Constitution. -- DR

"other great comedies of this century"
Please tell me you mean decade, Dustin! Great review, though. However, there's so much hype about it, my expectations for it will now probably be too great and I won't find it nearly as funny as I should. Damnition!

real people? i think you mean real men. is it really that new?certainly, this has been all over television sitcoms for a decade (funny fat guy with obnoxious friends marries super-hot and smart woman).

it's still not ken loach or mike leigh reality casting.

who has an unhealthy love for profanity-fueled sexual humor, so long as it grounded in real-world situations

I'm with you on that one!!! And damn, is it hard to explain to some people why THAT is hilarious, but "Dumb and Dumberer" and "Norbit" are complete crap.

I was already looking forward to the movie, and now I definitely want to go see it. Thanks for the awesome review, Dustin.

I took a theater elective in college taught by a sexist asshole whom, after randomly going around the room and asking us who our favorite actresses were, I said Janeane Garafolo. Now this was the mid 90's and the argument can be made that she was a comedian before actress, but whatever -- it was the first person I thought of off the top of my head and I appreciated her work.

So this dick goes off on a hate filled rant disagreeing with my choice, not on acting merits, mind you -- but because she was ugly. I heard a few years later that he had some disease and went blind. (Ha!) Oh, the sweet irony.

Anyway great review. I'm also looking forward to New Hollywood.

Party pooper time: the biggest stretch of all in this movie is its premise - that the likes of Heigl would even go near the likes of Rogen. Y'all, I've been told I'm purty, but K. Heigl I'm not. I've been drunk, too drunk, on many, many occasions. I've never woken up next to somebody Rogenesque. Never. Perhaps this makes me superficial, but I'm really, really, really getting tired of film school nerds pairing hot messes of men with gorgeous women. I know the film confronts this, but we NEVER, EVER see the reverse unless it's the entire point of the movie. It's got nothing to do with feminism, it has to do with the extent to which we're expected to suspend our disbelief with respect to the unattractive dude/gorgeous woman hookup. Janeane Garafalo is not the female equivalent of a Rogen - she is far more attractive than he is. It's simply that the bar is so damn high for women in Hollywood and so damn low for men. I also don't buy that she'd have the baby, but that's an entirely different story.

Rant over. Dustin, you know I love you, right?

"they are broke, high, sitting on papasans and living on spaghetti. Or, for many of us, life at 23."

ahhh, le mot juste! although i'm only 22, but still...

Janeane Garofalo had a good run there for a while. She faded away like most Hollywood women after they are processed by the system every five years when they are removed to make way for a new batch. Remember Madeline Stowe?

Janeane was very tappable..... back then.

"average-looking Janes in Hollywood comedies are still a work-in-progress -- the world, sadly, is not yet ready for a gender-reversal of this very same premise"

That is my only problem with this 'new breed' of comedy. I loved the movie, otherwise, but what's the deal with showing pregnancy from a male point of view? It's the 'women aren't funny' approach all over again. Thing is, the women in this movie ARE funny, and real, and have their own fears about relationships. That deserved to be mentioned.

Love the review and I can't wait to see it tonight with my drucken buddies. But, I have to say one thing. Wedding Crashers sucked balls, big time! *in the words of the great GOB* COME ON!!!

Celery and Ginger touched on my first thoughts upon reading the first paragraph or so of this review, so I just wanted to throw a hearty "yeah, me too!" in there.

The face of comedy isn't really looking that different to me. When I think of comedy, I think of the regular guy - we're not talking action movies suddenly featuring slightly pudgy dudes who wear glasses. Comedy has pretty much always featured fairly attractive to average looking guys.

But, what the other two posters hinted at, and the problem I'm still seeing, is that there hasn't really been a big change. You seem so excited, as if something really different is going on, but until we see a comedy like this from a female point of view, rather than a decidedly male point of view with a few women who get to have a few jokes, I'm not getting too excited about things being "different in Hollywood."

The men may be three-dimensional, but the women are still most certainly relegated to the two-dimensional world.

(And, yes, I do realize that it was touched on in the review, but I still think it's worth talking about!)

"though, I will grant you that average-looking Janes in Hollywood comedies are still a work-in-progress..."

even before i saw her name i thought of janeane.

"Party pooper time: the biggest stretch of all in this movie is its premise - that the likes of Heigl would even go near the likes of Rogen."
wtf is up with that shit?? since when? how old are you people? i use that specific quote referencing everybody else that made that comment. i happen to know A LOT of nerds/geeks (and while i hate him with every fiber of my being has anybody heard of bill gates? or steve jobs for that matter?) i have to wonder where you guys think the technology you're using to post such thoughts came from. intelligent, quirky men are a lot more interesting than bonehead pretty boys.
figure it out ladies: the geeks shall inherit the earth.
and yes, i'm a woman.
i'll close with one of my favorite lines:
" are all nerds as good as you?"

rant over.

can't grasp the heigl-rogen thing? try this for size: kevin smith (http://imdb.com/name/nm0003620/bio) and his smokin' hot wife Jennifer (http://imdb.com/name/nm0777059/). plus he used to date that squeaky-voiced girl from mallrats and chasing amy. tubbies can score the ladies!

Ever since the first female actor walked on stage in Restoration England, the primary function of women in Western, English-speaking entertainment has always and will always be visual stimulus. With a few noted exceptions, in order to succeed in the theatre/film/television industry, a woman must be first and foremost easy on the eyes. Actual talent is a nice-to-have but not a necessity.

It's futile to bemoan the lack of truly geeky and awkward gals. Or hell, even "normal" looking women. Honestly, I can really only think of one actress currently working right now who I would consider "normal", meaning not ridiculously thin and/or lovely: Tina Fey. God bless Tina Fey and her hysterical show.

And why will there never be a movies populated by "real" women? Blame the patriarchal industry, but women are just as much to blame. We can pick apart actresses' beauty or lack thereof like psychotic vultures.

I think the female audience is the hardest sell on casting normal-looking actresses in roles. It's as if we somehow see what's on the screen as a mirror of ourselves (or the fantasy of ourselves) and damned if we're going to pay $10 to watch some marginally attractive chick in that same mirror.

As an admitted Plain Jane, I am so f'ing sick of being fed the notion that the only women that matter in life are the pretty ones. But it's the way Hollywood rolls. So either I turn off the TV or I just suck it up.

Did I just type a bunch of rambly shite? I should lay off the Coke Zero at night.

I do want to see this movie mostly because I gave birth over a year ago and Hollywood's (mostly male-slanted) version of childbirth cracks me up. It's always so ridiculously overblown.

Granted there's a tenuous argument to be made about the premise of Knocked Up, that an attractive career-obsessed woman (Katherine Heigl) impregnated after a drunken one-night stand would choose not only to have the baby, but to outrageously insist on trying to make it work with the less-than-average Joe who knocked her up (Seth Rogen) -- an argument that some are already making, and one that I'm not entirely unsympathetic to...

Uh, hi. I've never said this before, ever, BUT... I am an attractive career... (well, let's just say I have a great one)... woman and I've been waiting for Seth Rogen to hit on me for about 8 years now...

Ok. Back to actually reading the review.

I am glad the movie wasn't a massive disappointment. I may have to go see it after all.

As I said before, the article linked here about Apatow really puts some of the arguments brought up into a certain light. This is a man who was severely affected by his parents' breakup; no wonder he wants the couples in his movies to be together. He said it in his own words that he couldn't understand how people could split, especially when children were involved. He said that it seemed to him like the parents didn't try hard enough to make it work. So, understanding the source, it makes sense that Ben and Allison would try to make it work, for the baby if not for themselves.

Ciji, I think the deal with showing the prenancy from the male perspective is that, well, the movie is from a male's perspective. It is pretty much how it is going to lean. As the old adage says "Write what you know", and the same can be said for directing as well. I believe that if Apatow tried to put a more female touch to the movie, it would feel tacked on, and that would bring down the quality of the film. Plus, pregnancy by its very nature involves, if not defined by, the woman's perspective. There is always going to be an 'outsider' outlook for men when it comes to this, and maybe if there are more movies showing men the reality of pregnancy and childbirth, it will help them truly understand their role is more than that of a walking sperm bank.

As far as those who are complaining about the "hot girl/ugly guy" aspect: First, I have to agree with JP, melia, and several others who have pointed out not only their personal relationships, but many similar couplings among celebrities, especially since many a celeb has proven to be as deep as a pancake. Maybe there is something to this supposed wish fulfillment scenario. Maybe there are attractive women who actually believe that humor, confidence, and charm are more important than looks. Just to keep my bases covered, I AM NOT SAYING YOU ARE SHALLOW. Just that, maybe your tastes run different than others, and a guy you may not find sexy somehow revved another woman's engine.

This is kinda reminding me about the infamous Pajiba Most-Fuckable list. There was quite some dissension in the ranks, mostly (if not all) from women who didn't think certain people on the list were 'fuckable' to begin with. I honestly cannot think of a single male commenter from there who disagreed with any of the females' hotness. There may have been something about Maggie G., but whenever I try to think of it, I picture her screaming "Get bent, tax man!" and forget everything.

It is truly interesting this backlash against this particular aspect of entertainment, especially considering that most of those comedy writers were probably snubbed by women of all levels of attractiveness in exchange for the 'hot' guy. I know I have, and I am sure many a male here have felt the same. So what if it is wish fulfillment; when did that become so wrong? Maybe the reason Hollywood seems to insist on these hot girl/ugly-fat-geeky guy hookups is because the rest of society would never accept such a thing. See Aguilera and Bratman. Count how many people say he doesn't deserve her because of his looks, then count how say the opposite. Large gap, wouldn't you say?

I came up with a theory, one which my female friends immediately denied, and my male friends paused to consider before turning on me:

Any woman, no matter her looks or attitude, can always find at least one man that is willing to be with them, whether it is for one night or forever. Most men do not have that option.

I have said it here before: there isn't a single woman that could be considered 'geeky' or 'unconventional' that I don't find hot. Tina Fey - sexy as hell. Garofalo - hot to death. I even confessed that while I find Scarlett Johanssen attractive, I would shove her down a fight of stairs for a chance to hook up with Lily Taylor. And I know many of my male friends feel the same way. Maybe there is something to Alabamapink's argument. Maybe it isn't only guys who insist on the Hollywood standard of beauty. Frankly, I know guys who would be happy with a warm hole in the wall, and it doesn't have to be warm.

While I hope for reasoned debate, I will expect at least one vitriolic insult that completely ignores my point. I learn that from the pessimism article. Thanks, Pajiba!

Alright, I'll concede the point that women will occasionally pick mates based more on intelligence and personalities that are compatible than looks, I've accepted certain physical flaws in favor of personality myself. BUT, the argument being made is that, according to Hollywood, the reverse NEVER happens. So, lets hear it menfolk; Ever fallen in love, not "friends love" not "platonic love", full blown angels blowing trumpets, can't stop thinking about, only want to be near them for a moment so the world is right for then love with a girl who was plain and/or unattractive? Or even a girl marginally less attractive than you? Because if you have, then that's wonderful and I'm glad you found that, otherwise you don't get to call me, or any of the other lady pajibans who appreciate male attractivenes, shallow. If you get to be smart, funny, interesting people who can also enjoy Jessica Alba (a brilliant girl in her own right, I'm sure, but that's not what she's famous for) we get to drool over some man-candy if we like and not sacrifice being well rounded people for it.

Probably going to see this with my mom tomorrow as a "together" thing while I'm home from college. Looking forward to it!

But let's put the politics aside -- we are talking about a comedy here.

Hey! That's the great thing about a great comedy--you can choose to lay aside the politics if you just want to "escape", but they defintely have a place in the genre. Politics and comedy go back eons. Satire is the shit for that--how about Lysistrata and Modern Times?

Abortion messages, representations of women and men onscreen...at least you guys are generating discourse. Keep commenting, you awesome commentators.

Dear Vermillion: You are a big ole doody-head. There--are you happy now?

What you and Alabamapink wrote made me remember a theory I saw on a Desmond Morris program (I loves me some Desmond Morris): women are hardwired to focus on appearance--their own and other women's--because that is how they attract a mate. (Males attract mates through demonstrations of prowess.)

Sure, men prefer pretty to homely (as do we); but seriously, guys are not that picky. Think about the guys you know. It's women who have impossible standards for beauty--their own and other women's. We are completely merciless with ourselves and with one another over every tiny detail of appearance--things that men don't even notice. Ask a man or two if you don't believe it. Then listen to the women at your office...

Any woman, no matter her looks or attitude, can always find at least one man that is willing to be with them, whether it is for one night or forever. Most men do not have that option.

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with this. Mainly because I don't know most men, so it's difficult for me to assume what limited options they may have or may not have. I've known different kinds of men, and none of them have had problems with romantic, female companionship - regardless of looks. That's just my experience, though. Vermillion, quite frankly, men who find Lily Taylor and Janeane Garofalo sexy may be fewer in number than you think.

Yes, I agree that women can be hard on female celebrities. I know I've done it, but it's mainly because I HATE being told who is supposed to be attractive, when I see plenty of pretty women every day who wouldn't be given a 2nd look by Hollywood or the media. But you know, I'm gonna be more mindful of that. No sense in me tearing a female celebrity down just because I don't agree she's "beautiful." Or even cute. OK, I gotta work on that.

However, let's not pretend that men don't critique and bash looks on blogs (I recall Maggie Gyllenhall receiving quite a few negative comments - from what appeared to be men). Plus, as a woman, how can I comment on what men talk about behind closed doors - unless I'm there? I'm just not buying that men can't be as critical as women when it comes to looks (not saying all are, just like it's incredibly condescending to assume that all women are). I call bullshit - I think it's not said to our faces, so the presumption is that it's mostly women. And given that Hollywood's top dogs are mostly men - it's double bullshit.

Bottom line - I'm with Samantha T. I know what I find attractive, just like a man (or any other woman) does. And I'll be the first to admit that what I find attractive/sexy may NOT be what's considered attractive by many other women. Nor have looks EVER been the sole indicator of attractiveness for me. And no offense to anyone here - as we're all entitled to our perspectives - I'll never apologize for knowing what I like. Call me shallow, call me whatever. If I ever get married, or the next long-term relationship I have, it ain't gonna be to someone I'm not physically attracted to - Period. I think the issue, as others have stated, is that you don't see men, on film at least, actively choosing what would be perceived as regular or plain women with any consistency. It's no secret that women have chosen men who are not perceived as conventionally attractive. They've been doing that for decades. It's nothing new, which is why I fail to see the novelty of this movie (or 40YV). Frankly, I've always thought the bigger issue with women was dating men strictly for the financial benefits more so than their looks or personality.

filmsoncon, for the record - my understanding is Samantha T is married. And I didn't get the impression that her life or marriage was empty. Just sayin'.

One more thing - many of the men hooking up with hot women on film don't have a lot going for them - other than geekiness. Often, their shortfalls are played for laughs, but they would be hot messes even if they were cut from granite. The immaturity, while it can be funny, doesn't translate well to real life, IMO. I'm sure many men IRL have themselves together - and that's what can send attractiveness off the charts.

women are hardwired to focus on appearance--their own and other women's--because that is how they attract a mate. (Males attract mates through demonstrations of prowess.)

Precisely. Since men focus on appearence over other qualities in their mates, straight women and gay men tend to be more conscious of their appearence, and more tuned in to the looks of their competition. Women are attracted by a wider range of qualities, including looks but also the ability to parent and provide, so straight men and gay women worry less about their own looks. Men rarely date women who are less attractive than they, or for that matter more intelligent or better off. (Check out the study published in Freakonomics about what men and women respond to when dating on-line, and stop whining about how shallow women are.) Consequently, I buy the premise of a very good-looking woman picking up a less than good-looking man, but I'm less convinced that a slacker would start a relationship with a successful woman. This doesn't mean I won't see the movie, I probably will, but let's get our probabilities and improbabilities straight, shall we? And while we're getting things straight, the implication that a career-oriented woman would automatically and unthinkingly end an unplanned pregnancy is insulting. But then, the film's assumption that smart women are people too is another reason to see it.

Regarding the Heigl/Rogan appearance mismatch, all I'll say is that my wife is so far out of my league that I have no problem buying the premise. And my wife wasn't even drunk when we met!

As far as women getting to drool over eye candy like men, well, read this site's own review of Supernatural, then bop over to the forum @ TWoP. I'd say both sexes are pretty equal in the slobber department.

Genny,

You're challenge is flawed. It assumes an objective, constant standard of attractiveness. And I think it's a two-way street. You get to drool over man-candy and be well-rounded humans when you extend that same privilege to men. Too many folk of both genders hold on tight to the old double standard, and the virgin/whore dichotomy, and the good boy/bad boy paradigm. Not to mention the Jennifer Garner in a blue vinyl dress/Halle Berry as Catwoman complex.

Jerce... Amazingly perfect point. I couldn't have said it better if I used one hundred paragraphs.

Sure, maybe it's unbelieveable that a guys like Rogen would get a gal like Heigl, but maybe it's not. I for one, am incredibly good looking and have dated guys out of my range many times. Ha ha ha. OK, I couldn't help myself.

But seriously, this movie is bound to be better and more real than Norbit or Epic Movie or... fill in the blank. I can't wait to see it.

I love all you Pajiba heads for making this site so wonderful, not just because of the articles and reviews, but because of all of your viewpoints. I wish we could all meet and discuss music and movies and politics. And maybe get a little stoned. ;)

You know that part in Little Miss Sunshine when Abigail Breslin finds out she's going to the competition? That's how I screamed and ran around my room when I found my blog linked to in this review. Thank you, Dustin!

re: Jerce. It's okay if some people think I'm an idiot. I'm not one for name calling, nor did I personally write that Knocked Up is "hostile towards feminism." But I'm glad you read my blog. Or at least, I hope you did before you called me an idiot.

I liked The 40-Year-Old Virgin, and Old School was funny. But Wedding Crashers as one of the "great comedies of this century"? I don't think so. Two overgrown boys tricking women half their age into having one night stands with them does not equal hilarity in my book.

the world, sadly, is not yet ready for a gender-reversal of this very same premise

Who constitutes "the world"? I own The Truth About Cats and Dogs and I love that movie. I liked Wonderfalls. I loved the original Hairspray. All those "unattractive" women had significant others who were better looking than they were. And even the women in those movies and TV show were arguably better looking than Seth Rogen is ever.

it's the unfortunate reason why Janeane Garafolo was relegated to radio

Janeane's wasn't "relegated" to the radio because she's average-looking. She was put there because she has strong political views and a large fan base. Plus, she was on the final season of The West Wing at the same time, so she couldn't have been that aesthetically unacceptable.

My point is mostly what Brenda said about women who "basically never get to see versions of themselves in movies ever, except as a sympathetic but loveless best friend or maybe as a punchline." I'm not hating on people who want to see the movie. I am saying that Judd Apatow's world is not full of real people; it's full of less-than-attractive (white) guys. Which is great for some people. But Dustin, if you can't see yourself in the marginally-attractive-only-when-he-has-muscles Ben Stiller, or even in Owen Wilson with his janky nose...imagine how hard it is for a woman to see herself in Katherine Heigl, especially if that woman is short, chubby and brown. And yes, I am playing the race card.

Imagine if every male character in mainstream movies were played by guys like George Clooney, Johnny Depp and Brad Pitt. Except that all of these male characters were emaciated, under 30, and had no funny lines or any distinguishable personality. And their main reason for being in the movies is not their talent, but their ability to attract the main character solely by their looks. Then you might begin to understand what it's like for women to be completely ignored and summarily dismissed by movies and by the mainstream media in general. It hurts. Deeply.

This comment is way longer than I meant for it to be.

In conclusion, thanks for linking to my blog! And...there's a war going on, and many additional problems in American society. Maybe we can solve those issues underneath the upcoming Harry Potter review.

i wholeheartedly agree with the praise that the guys in this movie are far closer to real flesh and blood people than most... and with the critique that the women aren't.

i also think that that's not the same issue as the hotness mismatch of the main couple. for me, it's not about heigl slumming it looks wise, just that, like in most movies, we never really know WHY-- why she keeps the baby, why she lives with her sister's family, why she gives this guy a chance. not that there aren't by any means plausible and interesting (and funny) answers to these. but, as usual, the girl character is there as more of a plot device than equally developed character-- let alone equally funny. she's there mostly to be a foil to rogen's jokes and his character development. really entertaining a lot of the time, but, as a female viewer, unsatisfying.

i think apatow does better than some in this realm, but given his talent with characters (and in the past with female ones-- lindsay weir was far better!) i'd just have expected more.

If you wanna switch the roles of average guy and attractive girl, you might need a woman to write and/or direct. I think it would be tough for a man to make a good movie with a female protagonist in the Seth Rogen type role, and there just aren't many women making movies in the Apatow mold. You can't blame the guy for not making a movie about an average Jane when he's an average Joe.

Wow, you've got me feeling all giddy and hyperbolic too now! I'm looking forward to watching this.

I think it's not said to our faces, so the presumption is that it's mostly women.

I share your opinion on this one, Daphne (for what it's worth), if only because my personal experience agrees with it (for what that's worth, too). I've had close "guy friends" since I was five years old and have been in a position to hear their views on breasts that aren't quite perfect, knees that are a bit too pokey, toes that are "weird", foreheads that are too big (how many men have said that about lovely C Ricci? I've lost count) all on otherwise above-average attractive girls or women...

And then, as I mentioned in a post months back (somewhere), came the online world. Online commentators who identify as male can be brazenly superficially dismissive down to the meerest detail on an otherwise perfect woman. Go to Fark or PerezHilton and count how often you read the word "cankles", "cottage cheese", "chunky" and "butterface"--in discussions of beautiful svelte models and actresses.

I think it's important to remember that humans seem prone to see the world selectively--fight it every day!

"But abortion is not funny, unless, of course, Laura Dern is involved..."

Sick, a Citizen Ruth reference, I'm pretty sure you've crossed some line here. :)

Thanks, Jerce. And you are a stinky booger picker.

To the others that responded: I completely understand. You often don't see what goes on when the wimminfolk are around; and yes, thanks to the anonymity of the internet, assholes of both genders can slap their essentially pointless opinions on a sounding board, unlike us, whose opinions always matter. ;)

Maybe there are fewer guys like me, that think that personality and intelligence are an important part of the package. But, like with any other stereotype, it hurts me to hear how some women see my gender and, by extension, me. It isn't a good feeling. Being constantly told by those who purport to be representatives of men that I have to sleep with every woman that would willingly put out, while being vilified by the other side for something I never did really gets to a guy. So, maybe there are some losers who feel that way, but I am not one of them, and neither are those who I choose to hang around with. So forgive me for my defensiveness.

From my experience, limited it may be, usually those who spend so much time being 'picky' and superficial, the ones that are always trying to find flaws in people, are usually pretty shabby themselves. It is one thing to say you don't find so-and-so attractive. It is another to constantly mock that person and anyone that thinks otherwise for reasons either the person can't control or are so ridiculous no one else even thought it was a problem.

As far as my theory, most of my evidence can be seen on the local news, at least in my city. Let's just say, there are some folk on there that pretty much amaze me that they could get a date, let alone procreate enough to abuse their children and get on the news. And don't even get me started on Maury Povich and his ilk.

Plus, and this is pretty much from my perspective, I think all women are beautiful. Seriously. There are only a few women I can think of that I don't find somewhat attractive, and mostly it is because of their attitude more than their looks. So I don't get jokes about a woman's 'cottage cheese' or 'butterface' or whatever, because I don't even see that. Hell, I pretty much proposed to Daphne just based on her posts! If that means I am in the minority, well, that is fine and dandy with me. I guess I assumed better about my fellow men and got let down.

Maybe Apatow will next bless us with a Judy Greer vehicle?

So, I tried to read all the comments for this movie, but I gave up.
I would just like to say that Dustin is right and this movie is awesome! I saw it last night and while I felt there were a couple times that it dragged on, I still loved it. The cameo by the guy that plays Darryl on the The Office was one of the my favorite scenes in the movie.
Also, I would have Seth Rogen's baby anyday.

Big, big fan of 40 Year Old Virgin, not so much Wedding Crashers (so-so) or Old School (less than so-so), so I shall approach with *some* caution.

As for the Plain Jane thing, am I alone in thinking that Janeane Garafolo is actually very attractive? In terms of major roles, I've only ever seen her in The Truth About Cats And Dogs (a guilty pleasure), but her smile just knocks me out. Kevin Smith has since said that she should have been Bethany in Dogma; it'd have been interesting to see how much different her career would have been had she been cast in that role (though, in retrospect, it didn't really do much for Linda Fiorentino).

Man, just change your handle to "Wash." You motor-boatin' son of a bitch.

I am an attractive girl who has received many compliments in my life, been called "beautiful" numerous times, and am generally considered "the pretty one" at work (don't ask me how I know this, it's just something you know as a girl). One time I was at a bar and I jokingly told a frat-boy type to kiss my ass. He gave me a look of disgust and told me (and I quote),"You'd better be better looking than that to talk to me that way." I have never, and will never, forget the sting of that one comment. The fact that guys are capable of thinking and talking that way is something that is really hard to deal with, as a girl. It's like, no matter what you may know about personality being more important than looks, there is always that feeling of having to be perfect to please men. So yes, casting Katherine Heigl vs. Seth Rogen is a little irritating. This movie would never have been made with Pam from the Office, for example. The fact that she's hot is a big part of way the movie works. And that really sucks. But I still really want to see it.

Pedro Almodovar

comedies, tragedies, EXCELLENT women - all ages, shapes and sizes and total love for them all.

"if Knocked Up succeeds as at the box office, as it should, no longer will comedies singularly rely on pretty boys who can't get laid, ebonics and fat suits, or middle-aged men and motorcycles."
-- I wish i could share your optimism.

I've been looking forward to this movie for a long time, and I am happy that it seems to be so good. I can't wait to see it. However, there is something to be said for the feminist aspect of it, and I think it has to stem from Judd Apatow. I recently read a long article on the genesis of his career, and it seems that he grew up just like one of his characters -- kind of dorky, insecure, not typically good-looking, etc. But it also seems like he still went for the hot blonde wife, completely cliched (although she may, and in fact seems to be, a smart and talented woman, granted). Still, as an outside observer, it seems to me that he tried to get the "best" wife he could, and in spite of, or perhaps because of, a life spent getting picked last for sports, the "best" was thin, blonde and hot. This has to have something to do with the fact that he makes movies where the schlubby guy (although I love Rogen and think he's hot, personally) ends up with Katherine Heigl.

As a Janeane Garofalo type of gal, I am happy to watch what seems to be such a wonderful movie. But because I grew up the female equivalent of a Judd Apatow, it still kind of hurts that there's such a dearth of female equivalent movies out there for me, and that someone as insightful and smart as Judd Apatow seems to be still succumbs to typical, conventional, societal pressures just like a Maxim-reading man/child.

I'm not saying all men are superficial jerks -- but you all know the type I'm speaking of. And I'm not sure when it became accepted, on this comment board, at least, that women value looks more than men, because that has not been my experience at all. I can only speak for myself, and I don't intend to speak for all of womankind, but I think that if women are overly conscious of looks it's because society teaches women to see themselves through mens' eyes. As a girl, I was constantly put on diets because: "If you're not thin, no one will want you." My brothers were free to, as David Sedaris once wrote, drink pancake batter straight from a tub. Perhaps my childhood was spectacularly shitty, but I think that most women out there have some kind of experience with their worth being judged by their looks. Men might be judged on their looks, but it isn't tied up to their intrinsic *worth* as a human being, which is what women are often taught is true of themselves.

Anyway, I think that might be why the feminists have their panties in a bunch.

OK -- just read this, and you say it better than I:
"Imagine if every male character in mainstream movies were played by guys like George Clooney, Johnny Depp and Brad Pitt. Except that all of these male characters were emaciated, under 30, and had no funny lines or any distinguishable personality. And their main reason for being in the movies is not their talent, but their ability to attract the main character solely by their looks. Then you might begin to understand what it's like for women to be completely ignored and summarily dismissed by movies and by the mainstream media in general. It hurts. Deeply."

the Nicolas Cage with Jessica Biel style pairing hurts me more than Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl

"... society teaches women to see themselves through mens' eyes..."

In my opinion, there's also a question of, at what level?
For example if you're talking about young females who are trying to emulate what they see through the media then you are talking about women who are being taught to see themselves thru the eyes of homosexual men (sorry but not the same as "men"),. A group that has some very skewed and twisted view of what females should look like.

"Anna Wintour- female editor of American Vogue, perhaps woman most responsible ?!? for size '0' phenomena"

She's the most visible, but behind her there is whole superstructure of media/fashion where all these designers, stylists, photogs, etc... are churning out a "vision" of what females are supposed to look like. And I will stand by the statement that most of these people are part of the gay sub-culture. They carry a lot of responsibility for the current state of affairs. If they don't like reading that they're just gonna have to deal.

Hi Slim!!!!
I loved 40 year old virgin, undeclared, freaks and geeks. And I will now put Seth Rogen on my "list". *wink wink nudge nudge*. I am so farking sick of the crap being pumped out of Hollywood, it's good to see really good comedy.

Any woman, no matter her looks or attitude, can always find at least one man that is willing to be with them, whether it is for one night or forever. Most men do not have that option.

Really? I believe that works the other way, for men not women.

buhhhh...Jon Lovitz. Just thinking about that guy makes me shudder uncontrollably. And it has nothing to do with how he looks. It's that nasally, whiney voice, and I'll never get out of my head that character he played on Friends. (Shut up; I watched the re-runs in college after class and was too stoned to make the effort to change the channel after Simpsons...) God, his character made me want to eat glass.

"So while the more obvious target would be Heigl, subconsciously, one is confirming that they don't find Rogen attractive enough for her. And yet, if Clooney or Pitt or, my personal choice, Aaron Eckhart were put in their place, nobody would believe a guy that good looking would be a slacker, which the role required. So either he looks as the character he is portraying, or he is hot enough to match up with his hot costar. One or the other."

Truly, we don't have a choice as to whether we believe Rogen's character is "attractive enough for her" because the creators of the film already made the decision for us.

Sidenote: The good-looking guys I know, with a few exceptions, pretty much are slackers, and count on naive and surface-prioritizing women to take care of them. Of my friends, it's the not-so-good-looking guys that really have their shit together. Huh.

Another sidenote: Seeing people from high school, there are a couple of evolutions: some hot guys have turned into hot gay guys; some hot guys have turned into plumbers, beergut and crack intact; a large number of geek guys have turned into hotties. Maybe all these good-looking people in Hollywood are former geeks themselves, and are just having their moment in the sun. And then again, maybe some of them are plastic, fake, no-talent having high dollar whores, figuratively speaking. :)

But but but... I DO find Seth Rogen attractive!

Most people have traits they appreciate that will trump overall looks. Sense of humor and talent, for example.

But I think that is only because people WANT to think that men's looks aren't important. That only women are allowed to look glamorous, while men must be effortlessly handsome. A woman can use makeup and fancy clothes to make herself more beautiful, but a man is stuck with whatever God decided to slap onto his face. Any attempt by a man to look better is considered either effeminate or a sign of weakness.

While I agree with the last sentence, I admit to being a little confused. Who is it that implies men's looks aren't important? Women? I'm just not seeing where anyone has said that men's looks are not important. I think it is true that women may be more flexible with regard to what is considered attractive. I also agree that Hollywood has set unreasonable expectations for attractiveness for men and women. Can I get a list of male actors, who aren't considered conventionally attractive, who still have been able to have a thriving, sometimes lengthy career in movies vs the number of female actors, who aren't considered conventionally attractive? I get the feeling one list will probably be a little longer than the other.

Also, a couple of those British/Australian fellas mentioned as sweeping women off their feet made careers of being bumbling fools - Hugh Grant and Colin Firth(Darcy notwithstanding) included. They were not always considered the handsome, Prince Charming-type of guy.

As for the Jon Lovitz as James Bond argument, I can't agree. Only because characters like James Bond are tied to being action stars. And regardless of what I think of Jon's attractiveness, the guy is obviously in no shape to play an action star. Many women don't consider Daniel Craig attractive, but it's difficult to deny that he handled the physicality of the role quite well. To me, it's like implying that Camryn Manheim should play Wonder Woman. And I'll never say that.

Regarding the movie, there is an even bigger issue that isn't really discussed - why would a woman pursue a romantic relationship with a one-night stand? Who apparently was a one-night stand only because she was drunk? Because she got pregnant? WTF? It's one thing to inform the father of the pregnancy, and partner with him for the sake of the baby. But she doesn't know this dude or anything about him, presumably. And why would he want to pursue a relationship with her? Because she's hot? I may feel differently after the seeing the movie, but right now that's the most idiotic aspect of the movie. If anything, it feels like a regression.

I agree - Knocked Up was great (if a little long), but to call it "a world full of real people" - let's not go too far here. I'm glad you admit in this article that by "real" we're actually talking about "real MEN" because this film sure as hell didn't have any real WOMEN in it - they managed to get around that fact by making their female protagonist a TV host, so she HAD to be beautiful. It was a great film and brilliantly cast and I really enjoyed it, but it's sad that you can throw a few pudgy blokes into the script and all of a sudden people are praising you for how you're breaking down Hollywood barriers. Fat chance.

Just for the record, I'm a pretty attractive, successful woman, and never in my life have I been attracted to a "mainstream-hot" guy. I used to watch "My So-called Life" and curse Angela for not going after epic-hottie Brian Cracow, preferring the vapid loser Jared Leto. I DROOLED over Brian. Same when I saw "Almost Famous"--I'll take Patrick Fugit over Billy Crudup any day of the week. And we won't even get into the teenage crush I had on Max Fischer. These guys are just much more interesting and relatable, and have much more to contribute to the planet personality-wise, in my opinion.

I'm a big "Freaks and Geeks" fan and related especially to Lindsay Weir -- when I saw the show at 16 it was incredible to see such a "real girl" on TV. She was interesting, vulnerable, conflicted, and very authentically pretty.
After the show got cancelled, the next time I saw Linda Cardellini was at a TRL guest-spot pimping "Scooby-Doo." Props to her for playing Velma, but on TRL Cardellini had lost about 20 pounds since "Freaks and Geeks," was wearing a tiny denim miniskirt, had hair extensions, and was generally playing it up as a mainstream Hollywood vapid hottie. I was so disappointed. Then she went on ER and, perhaps in order to "pretty her up," had her hair dyed blonde. So, so much for Cardellini, at least for now.

What about Alyson Hannigan -- she doesn't strike me as traditionally pretty, and she's banging Apatow hottie Jason Segel on "How I Met Your Mother."

And I can't believe someone referred to Tina Fey as unattractive. She is unbelievably sexy.

And while we're on the subject of Apatow-esque hotness, has anyone seen pics of Martin Starr lately? DAMN! I offer, for your viewing pleasure, more proof that the geeks continue to inherit the world:

http://www.imdb.com/gallery/hh/0823555/HH/0823555/iid_1215095.jpg.html?hint=nm0823555

damn, seth rogan seems fine to me... he isn't butt-ugly is what i'm saying.

OH, I so can't wait to see this, I love "Freaks and Geeks," love "40 Year Old Virgin," and I'm totally fine with Seth Rogan becoming a star from this. He's so great, he deserves it. I love the cuddly, funny type of guy, and he's made it clear in interviews that in no way does he think he's any kind of "match" with Katherine Heigel (whom I think is totally adorable, anyway). I had my baby girl four weeks ago (first time, 3 hour labor, natural childbirth) and this film seems like it's just MADE for me. I kind of want to take her to "see" it with us (she hardly ever fusses and is quiet the minute you breastfeed her) but -- is that okay? I think it would be so appropriate as her first movie experience. Mine was "A Clockwork Orange" (no kidding) in 1970 at a drive-in.

When did it become the fantasy of young women to become Marge Simpson or the wife on the Family guy? I know that guys love these shows, but really, if a gal likes those shows, they are not identifying with the wife as an ideal.

The gal in Knocked Up, after the afterglow of birth fades, faces a future of grumbling, teeth-grinding wife/boy-child shlubby husband. Gee, what a future! Shitty diapers and Mr. Skidmark!

You know why you don't see a comedy with chubby girl and Orlando Bloom? Because guys have enough self-esteem to not give up the dream of marrying someone they'd love. Apparently, when a man writes a screenplay, it's okay for a woman to give up all sexual desires and give up what she wants for the the chubby guy who she has no compatibility with. Afterall, women don't need a sex drive in marriage or ambition. or a self. But they do need to be the mommy. Oh, my, god. cannot select an abortion. Has to be the Marge Simpson Mommy-responsible-one in a relationship or all of nature will collapse!

The gal in the movie has no single childless friends to confuse her choice. Or friends that say "wait for the guy you love." Just a white suburban glow of a sister. It's sort of a loaded deck here. Every sperm is sacred, especially when it's a chubby loser.

What about the happy ending for woman?

Even the writer/director admitted in an interview that this coupling would probably last two years post birth at most before a splitup.

there is a reason Harold Ramis signed on to this project. He recognized his own groundbreaking comedy genius in Judd Apatow.

like you say, this one rises above schtick and even his own "40 year old Virgin", because somehow he manages to write comedy and story that end up very real. It remninded me of how i felt leaving Swingers. I found myself quoting the movie just hours later.

The movie is sweet, funny, and entirely believable. Every character is memorable and very good in their roles. Even though it is a pretty long movie (a little over 2 hours) for a comedy, you don't notice because it moves so quickly. I loved the characters and wished they were my neighbors. This is the best movie I have seen in quite some time. Skip the bloated triquels and spend your money here.

My BIGGEST complaint was the wife. She was MAD unreasonable! I would have "cheated" on her too. What a be-yotch!

My fave part was the last club scene. I use to run the door at many popular clubs in LA, and what they man said is SOOOO true!

Sephorablue, I will concede that Ben had very few redeemable qualities. But again, she was attracted to him a bit physically, then his gallant-ness at the bar intrigued her, and then boom! they were drunk and in bed. Now, you can use your arguments to question why she tried to continue the relationship, but she was already preggers then. Did she really have a choice to be picky? She obliviously wanted to at least try to raise a child with him because she didn't want to do it alone.

I'm curious to know if you liked it because it was directed by Judd Apatow and 40 year old virgin was so likeable that you've become biased...just an observation...I know dorky is the in thing here at Pajiba, but if it's really that good then I'll watch it because Seth Rogen plays some of my favorite character in both his TV shows. not only because Apatow directs and, I agree, he does infuse his movies with a good dose of humanity at least we can enjoy shifting in our seats uncomfortably when he embarks on the familiar territory of being human and making mistakes.

Oh, I'LL see it, Mr. Vermillion ... IF that's really your name.

Crap. Well, I'm the first one to fuck things up. But Daphne said "Turdyck." If that were really his name, he wouldn't have made it out of junior high.

yeah fine for u guys - a lot of pudgy, dweeby pot freaks to relate to. Meanwhile, the lead chick still has to be smokin hot. typical.

Well said, sephorablue.

The problem isn't that a Katherine Heigl-type would go for someone like Seth Rogen.

It's that their characters would go for each other.

Allison wasn't just a pretty face. She was smart, successful, and driven. Ben was an immature, unemployed stoner who showed absolutely no ambition or drive at all. She could do much better.

I have had Seth Rogen on my to-do list for a while, ever since I saw him in 40yo virgin. I can see where he might not be everyone's exact cup of tea, but the big deal that is being made about his (lack of) looks is baffling to me. He is a very sexy man and hilariously funny, which just makes it all exponential.

"projectile ejaculating Icee from my nostrils"

HA!! And ouch.

Wow. I've never see a movie critic hump a movie before so this must be worth a watch.

If its not funny, I'm gonna be pissed.

Holy cannoli, I was not ready for the 'freedom' link.
It's way too early on a Monday to be reading that.

I will second the opinions of all who agree that Freedom of Choice is exactly that. That's what I marched for back in '04, and it irks the fuck out of me to hear unenlightened fools tell me that wanting children makes me a Fake-Feminist.
Um, no.
What it does mean is that I took the time to educate myself, have a life, and when I met my equal partner in life, we decided that children were in our future.

It's not the belief that having children either completes you or not, it's having the choice to make that decision, whichever way it pans out.

And for whoever posted the "abortion is not funny" list, no it's not. It's a heartwrenching experience that I never want to go through, but I will fight for the right of another to make that choice til my dying breath.

Unless you think this is funny: A sign posted above an abortion clinic: "You rape 'em, we scrape 'em"
But in that case, you're just a sicko.

*Unless you think this is funny: A sign posted above an abortion clinic: "You rape 'em, we scrape 'em"
But in that case, you're just a sicko.*

Stella, I'm assuming you were around for the big Dane Cook clusterfuck last week ... in which case: Heeeeeeeeee!

For what it's worth, and because Apatow based Knocked Up largely on his own marriage, I'd just like to add this bit to the ongoing discussion, because I think it's germane to the superficial debate. Here is Judd Apatow. And this is what his wife looks like. The physical discrepancy in Knocked Up may have been a little more extreme, but -- in the looks department, at least -- Mann is a step half-a-ladder above Apatow.

socalledonly cousins... I'm here for it all. Pajiba is the only bright spot in an otherwise dreary cubicle day.

Well at least til I get home to my hubby and two mutts. Then it's all smiles and belly rubs.

The guys may be true to life, but the girls are still blonde and busty [rolling eyes]

Nexus 6 (I think) wrote:
Actually, 'someone somewhere', that was me, and in all honesty, I'm shocked by what is either A. your ignorance, or B. inability to acknowledge that reason exists in every decision.

Just about any decision can be rationalized, but few are actually rational. Procreation requires many physical, mental, financial, and other sacrifices, and the 'payoff' (net happiness) is rather limited. If this were some pruduct in a shop, you'd get ripped off big time. Only suckers would buy it. The only reason why women 'want' (or rather think they want) to get pregnant is because both biology (hormones) and society are messing with their heads. Bigtime. They're being bullied and suckered into pregnancy, and most are too weak to resist (and, ironically, those who do resist often do it for the wrong reasons, like careers. 'Gee, I'd love to be a breeder, but I'm just too busy being a wage slave right now'). Peachy.

"Slavery", as you so call it, varies from individual to individual.

The loss of freedom resulting from procreation can be objectively measured, just like the loss of freedom resulting from, say, converting to Islam can be objectively measured. Both are bad for women's lib.

I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that I know MANY happy, empowered, smart feminists that ALSO choose to become mothers. Your supposed "right choice" is not universal.

Wrong; if we assume that deep down we all want to be happy, or at least free from suffering and oppression, for as long as possible, then there are definitely objectively right and wrong choices.

That is the beauty of diversity, and it is what I vehemently support.

Oh yeah, thank god for Sharia and Communism, world wars and Dark Ages... such wonderful diversity!

Your right, my right, anyone's right, no matter how flawed their logic may be.

The problem is that fools often not just mess up their own lives, but other people's as well. It's called democracy, among other things.

Knocked Up: Pro-Lifers and "Family Values" Find their Place in Comedy?

My own review departs slightly from the above.

This was one of the most enjoyable comedies I've seen in a long time. Judd Apatow knows comedy and that I will not deny.

But at the moment the one-night stand occurred, subtle messages about right-to-life trickled into my awareness. During the one-night stand, Ben decides to discard his condom right when he's putting it on because he interprets what Alison's saying - "Just do it already"- as her meaning "Forget the condom, let's go for it." This shouts support for an idea that I had hoped was dying out: It's the woman's responsibility to bring contraception into sex, because a man will bone anything in sight and not consider the consequences. This scene also touts the widely supported urban myth that condoms ruin the moment. In the era of Abstinence Ed versus Free Condoms in Public Schools, in the era when sex education is a plausible aspect of a child's upbringing -- I do not appreciate the undertones here: "All those myths you've heard about condoms are true! Just do it already."

Fast forward to Alison grappling with her options. Wait. What? Surely we will see Alison grappling with her options (abortion, keep the baby, give baby up for adoption, etc). No! We don't! We do see her decision, after it is made -- a tearful Phone Call to Ben letting him know she's decided to keep the baby. We do not see any of the thoughts she may have had that led to that decision. Suspension of disbelief much? Indeed.

Shortly before this Phone Call, Harold Ramis' character (Ben's Dad) gives Ben a speech. In sum: "You never know where life will take you, you just have to go with it," which, for all its hippy-dippy feel-good vibes smacks of "She doesn't need to get an abortion, man. She just needs to go with the flow, man." Mistakes are cool, man, because Ben - a mistake - is the best thing that ever happened to his dad.

Hooray!! Let's all throw our condoms out and make lots of life-changing mistakes!!

Prior to The Phone Call, we also meet Alison's mother (played by Joanna Kerns) -- the Pro-Choice Hellbitch. The one voice in the film supporting the option to have an abortion sounds like the wicked stepmother from Cinderella. Over lunch, Alison's mother dictates that Alison has to "take care of it." Alison's mother then tells of a friend who had an abortion earlier in life and was able to get past that time and now "has a real baby." Way to fairly portray the mind of the pro-choicer, Apatow. "Kill the fake babies!!! Raaaaaa!!!"

Oy.

The film does a decent job of exposing the real crap that can occur in marriages (between Paul Rudd's Pete and Leslie Mann's Debbie). They are not happy. So we get an in-the-dog-housed Pete-and-Ben weekend trip to Vegas and a heartfelt male-bonding mushrooming experience that leads Pete to realize he doesn't need alone time or his own activities, nah, he just needs to accept the smothering love of Debbie. Simultaneously, Debbie and Alison realize that they, as women, are too old and/or pregnant to be single, so they might as well face facts and deal with their mess-up male partners. It's a harsh and displeasing view of relationships. I hate to say it looks like a Pro-Life agenda, but it's not a stretch to connect that "you're stuck with each other, so deal with it" attitude to a more Catholic notion that true love is a myth and family is all about duty.

There's some real anti-man sentiment locked up in this. In the film, it's the MEN who are mess-ups, it's only the MEN who have to change. BEN has to change to become a decent boyfriend and dad. And PETE has to be more willing to be fawned over by Debbie so that their marriage to work. Debbie gains no insight into her own personality or what she brings to the marriage. Alison's character undergoes literally ZERO development (besides in her uterus). While her emotional outbursts and rejections towards Ben force him to look deeply at his life, there is no counterpart in the film that forces Alison to change from being a career-driven, selfish, living-with-her-sister control freak into an insightful, nurturing, compassionate, good listener. Did SHE read the baby books? We ASSUME so, but as an audience we don't know so. And are we to assume that even though we do not see her mature, as soon as her baby is born, she'll suddenly become a better human being, girlfriend and informed mother? Why are we to assume that?

Because women are biologically manufactured to be good mothers. They don't need training, nor do they need to grow up. As infantile as they may be - and Debbie and Alison both behave like bitchy schoolgirls for most of the film -- women just "know" how to be good moms. Harumph.

Fast forward through the birth to Ben, holding his newborn baby. Ben is cutely describing to the baby how she was conceived and says something like, "I'm really glad I didn't put that condom on." Oy! Did the National Pro-Life Group act as the final editor on the script and pencil that line in at the last minute while holding a machete to Judd Apatow's throat?

In sum: Don't we all wish our juvenile 20-somethings would get their acts together and grow up already? Well, this film has the answer: accidental pregnancy! Boys will become men. Girls will become...mothers, at the very least. Boys will get JOBS and stop SMOKING POT. Girls will...become mommies. Boys will get their own apartments finally and stop hanging out with all their loser pot head friends! Girls will...become mamas. Boys will stop talking about BJs and big titties all the time and bond with "cool" 30-something dudes who have real jobs and families! Girls will...get knocked up.

So I did go see this movie this weekend, and it was sweet and funny and a GREAT movie!

I didn't think it was too far-fetched that they hooked up. He bought her and her sister beers in non-skeezeball way, they danced, they laughed, and he's not a completely unattractive guy. AND SHE WAS DRUNK, and you get the feeling from later conversations that she didn't have sex a lot, so she might have just wanted a one-night stand with anyone. Nor did her decision to keep the baby seem unreasonable for the character - her mother acted like it wasn't a "Real Baby" and I think that comment forced her to act in the way that she did. They addressed abortion in a very realistic way, not flipping out or going on and on about it, but mentioning it as an option. It just wasn't the one she took.

And this, in and of itself, is a deeply feminist decision. Many people believe that feminists believe (and maybe some do) that the point of being pro-choice is to have an abortion if you get unexpectedly pregnant. As a feminist, married to a man who considers himself a feminist, I can speak to the fact that TRUE choice is about having the option to choose what you want to do, whether that is staying home or working as a mom, having a baby or an abortion, shaving your legs or going au natural. I appreciate all my mother's generation did to allow us to have those choices.

If people become upset by an unmarried woman who chooses to have a baby, then it is not that they feel she is promoting a "conservative" or "un-feminist" agenda. If anything, they are the ones who are being too conservative by not accepting the option that unmarried women are allowed to get knocked up and keep the baby without getting married or having regrets.

I'm having trouble with those who are turning this into an abortion debate, and complaining that they never showed Heigl's character thinking about other options...

It's a movie (and a comedy, no less) about PREGNANCY! Jesus, people. I understand the importance of reproductive rights, and the politics involved. But for fuck's sake, this is NOT that movie. This was supposed to be a cute romantic comedy and a couple and their pregnancy. NOT a political statement.

I think that lack of the decision process in this movie was less a political statement and more a means of simply moving the plot along.

TK (and Nexus 6 and Stella): Come on, it's kind of fun to see a certain someone from a certain somewhere waving around her brand spanking new sociology degree (I can smell the fresh ink from here), fresh off the presses from Logic and Reason Take a Holiday College, if only because THERE'S NO NEW CONTENT! (My favorite: Procreation causes the loss of "women's lib." First, I didn't know anyone used that expression any more, which means this person is probably a 50-year-old man pretending to be a 22-year-old woman to fuck with us; second, eliminating procreation is going to cause a DRASTIC loss of "women's lib" as soon as all the women are gone because no one procreated. Anyone else here care to argue that species extinction is the cool new expression of feminism?)

Man, I hate to be needy and bitchy (that's probably a lie), but it's Monday morning and I need my fix. Isn't there some trade to round up? Isn't there some Sopranos to dissect? Isn't there some Entourage to mock?

Puhhh-jeeee'-baaahhhhh!!!

(Sorry, Dustin, but that pronunciation is how I activate my superpowers.)

Seriously, I have something to say.

Average men are under-used in cinema. Men in American films are either super hot, or super ugly.

Women on the other hand, are the opposite. Most actresses are not really drop dead gorgeous. You see, the point is to make women envy her, but not hate her. This is why women like Catherine Zeta-Jones and Jennifer Connelly had problems finding work in America for a long time, and why actresses such as Angelina Jolie spent most of her time "uglying" herself up in odd films (even when playing a supermodel, she had to eventually "ugly up" to get the part) until she won her Oscar (the role she won that Oscar for? well that would be "Girl Interrupted", and as awesome as she was, I am sure it was in her contract to look like shit.) Once she won her Oscar, it was okay to be gorgeous.

And now, to break this to you, That Gray's anatomy chick is no hot shit. I know 3 people who look like her (two of them have ugly losers for husbands...). Sorry. Maybe it's because I live in Miami, but I don't think so. Truly gorgeous women are everywhere - but not hollywood films.

Are any of these women so hot that you have never seen women hotter than them in person?

Julia Roberts
Drew Barrymore
Reese Witherspoon
Rene Zellwegger
Meg Ryan
Sandra Bullock
Cameron Diaz (Toni Collete is way hotter than her!)
Gwenneth Paltrow
Kare Winslet.

The list goes on and on. Yes there are some truly beautiful women in Hollywood, and the occasional ugly comic (Which Jeanine is not, just see "The Truth About Cats and Dogs") The real reason that women think that Hollywood is filled with gorgeous women is simple. They are too busy picking out their own flaws - and cattily picking out the flaws of their friends - to realize that all any woman needs to look like Heigl is to never eat anything, and to have the make-up team from "Greys"

And by the way, not only am I a woman, who is also a film major, but I don't give a shit about my bad grammar. So please do not use that to tear apart my argument. Tear it apart for a real reason only.

Thanks.

Kolby: + a brain + maturity = not annoying the shit out of the rest of us. ;-)

Actually, the only truly smart, empowered, feminist choice is to remain childfree, regardless of 'careers' (wage slavery) and other such crap.

Good Gawd, Someone, somewhere, I have no idea how you can possibly argue that giving birth or even wanting to give birth is somehow negating a feminist ideal. The way I see it, the whole point of feminism is to embrace and love who you are as a woman. To know that there is nothing that you can't do with your life, there are no boundaries that you don't set yourself and being proud of that. And let's face facts, part of being a woman is being an incubator for the human species, to give that up and deny it, well that's just plain stupid. If every woman in the world said "Fuck that!" it would be a pretty sad way to end our existence as a species, I'd personally much rather go out in a big ass explosion. That's at least entertaining for the first 40 seconds.

And for the record, I'm female, career oriented, incredibly independent and I totally see myself having kids someday, that doesn't make me less empowered, it means living my life, as a woman, to the fullest as I see it.

Rogan is a cutie. So there.

I haven't seen the film, so I'm really responding to previous posts. (Though, given comments from people who HAVE seen the film, I'm totally willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.)

There have been a lot of comments about the absence of a reverse version of this plot in Hollywood (i.e. the absence of films where a frumpy woman ends up with a really attractive man). But, you know what? As a woman who is far from conventionally attractive (but, I assure you, a catch in every other way) I'd be happy to see an American film where a woman who is, say, far from conventionally attractive, but a catch in every other way, end up with, hell, ANYBODY. In commercial-movie logic, a woman who's as attractive as Rogen can only end up alone.

That's what gets me: the idea that there's lots that a dumpy man can do to make him worthy of coupling (be smart, or wealthy, or decent enough to stick by the woman he knocks up), while at the same time being a dumpy woman is an absolutely insurmountable obstacle. Not in real life, perhaps. But, if it had been Rogen with the 'beer goggles' that night in the bar, and he'd gotten a call a few weeks later from, say, a plump librarian instead of Katherine Heigl, would it be plausible for him to make the effort he does here? Or, as a more fair question, would that movie get made?

LF,

Someone upthread already mentioned My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Besides, why do so many posters need to see "themselves" on screen? What is the source of that hunger for validation?

I don't get it.

I see no reason why Apatow could not have replaced Katherine Heigl with a 30ish, 5'2 to 5'11, 120 to 175 pound, Irish-German-African-American, Lisa Loeb-glasses-wearing, pro-choice-yet-devout-Catholic, Wesleyan-graduating-with-a-major-in-business-finance-but-a-minor-in-European-cinema, single-yet-married, mother of 1.5 children -- adopted of course, or not -- so that all women may be properly represented in this comedy about a cute chick who gets knocked up by a chubby guy and then comedy ensues. The obtuse Mr. Apatow was obviously oblivious to the social ramifications of making movies about virginity and pregnancy as a vessel to make dick and booby jokes. How naive of him. Clearly, though, the real problem is Ms. Heigl herself, who has no business being an attractive actor, and certainly not one who has recently portrayed both a doctor and a TV personality. She should have demanded final cut, or at least demanded that Mr. Rogen be replaced by Mario Lopez to make this a more "real" and "true" movie experience. For shame, Ms. Heigl, for shame.

LF,

I don't see how it effects you personally. What is the agency of this effect? What is its nature? Is there any culture where the unattractive (by the standards of that culture) are not at a disadvantage?

Our external appearance is our first presentation to the world. Unless you're opting for arranged marriage where the spouses do not meet until the wedding, then appearance will always rear its ugly (sorry) head.

Let's also do away with the "unattractive man", construct, for it is a red herring, at least as far as the movies go. Most "schlubby" men in pop culture are basically good-looking guys with bad haircuts. Is Seth Rogen really ugly? No. Jason Segel may play a stoner, but he's not ugly.

What if I complained that this movie failed as a comedy because the Paul Rudd character had a high-paying job as a record executive and that, furthermore, movies often portray male characters as possessing jobs that pay tons of money while leaving them ample free time. This is dishonest and unfair, since most men work at jobs that provide low to moderate wages and take up great chunks of time. That may be true, but does it make the movie invalid as a comedy? At what point am I wilfully removing any possibility of enjoyment and is it right for me to blame Judd Apatow for that?

And if you let society suggest to you that your primary worth is in your appearance, then you've let them get too far into your head.

Oh, and to be clear: of course Seth Rogen isn't ugly. You're right about that, too. :)

Well, since Samantha T claimed LF...alone in the dark, will you be MY bff?

Hehe, thanks, Samantha T. :)

incubator,

Wow, have you misread this thread. No one that I can think of has claimed your movie shouldn't be made. It's the fundies claiming that it is unacceptable for Alison to decide to keep the baby, and that Knocked Up is therefore rendered unworthy as a creative work.

Oh, and the big scare's been used about, oh, a thousand million times. But if that's the movie you want to see, then I suggest that you write the script and go about trying to sell said script. Unleash your mighty imagination. It could be great. Heads won't explode. If it's funny, I'll laugh, if that's your intent.

For the "tubby schlub getting the gorgeous girl" formula to work, doesn't the girl have to be gorgeous first? I'm sorry, but Heigl isn't blow-out pretty in any sense. She IS pretty, but not ABSOLUTELY, FREAKING, AMAZING, TOTALLY AWEOSME gorgeous like everyone's going on and on about her being in this apparently outraging, anti-feminist formula. I could understand something like .. Topher Grace-Angelina Jolie or something of that caliber being unbelievable.

Also, people throw around that f-word (feminism) way too much. A high-powered career woman getting pregnant and basically going, "Hmm. I'm pregnant. Instead of years upon years of emotional and psychological trauma and bills for therapy, I'm going to keep the kid. I'm also not a loon and this isn't a drama, so I'm not going to disappear for five years and come back with a kid like in Forrest Gump, so I'm going to try and make this work." Yeah, that doesn't sound like "the man"-influenced decisions. It sounds like a woman is making a CHOICE. Her own choice.

For the "tubby schlub getting the gorgeous girl" formula to work, doesn't the girl have to be gorgeous first? I'm sorry, but Heigl isn't blow-out pretty in any sense. She IS pretty, but not ABSOLUTELY, FREAKING, AMAZING, TOTALLY AWEOSME gorgeous like everyone's going on and on about her being in this apparently outraging, anti-feminist formula. I could understand something like .. Topher Grace-Angelina Jolie or something of that caliber being unbelievable.

Also, people throw around that f-word (feminism) way too much. A high-powered career woman getting pregnant and basically going, "Hmm. I'm pregnant. Instead of years upon years of emotional and psychological trauma and bills for therapy, I'm going to keep the kid. I'm also not a loon and this isn't a drama, so I'm not going to disappear for five years and come back with a kid like in Forrest Gump, so I'm going to try and make this work." Yeah, that doesn't sound like "the man"-influenced decisions. It sounds like a woman is making a CHOICE. Her own choice.

PS-

I find Seth Rogan incredibly attractive. I mean, I don't mind Brad Pitt, either, but "accepted" standards of attractiveness are not necessarily "personal" standards of attractiveness.

One of the hottest girls in my highschool consistently dated schlubs a lot less good-looking than Rogan, AND she was a well-balanced individual.

"It sounds like a woman is making a CHOICE. Her own choice."

Not really. He made the guy's fantasy choice. Er, I mean the character the guy wrote made the guy's choice. Sure, she was reading a script, but even the director said in an interview that he thought they would be together two years tops after the birth. They're incompatible. And as for a baby. Really. Now. It's a stacked deck that the writer set up.

Let's see. All of the women around her are chased off. She has no friends. Not really. Except bitchy ones she comes to ignore. Really, this must be the guy's fantasy. That no friends who could possibly judge him as lacking is in her life. Her mother can't influence her either, in fact, the mother is given the hated one chore of talking to her about "taking care of it." Great. Forever more the mother and daughter will be a little separated. Then the sister is asked to leave the birthing room by the guy because she doesn't belong there. Great. There are no women allowed to have any positive influence or closeness to her, ultimately. In the end. The guy isolates her. This is not a woman's choice. It's a guy fantasy where no one is more powerful in her life.

TK, will your wife let me Pajiba marry you? My hubby says it's okay...

Psssst.

SPOILERS

Bruce Willis can't really fight off fifty terrorists to save the free world. That's not even really his daughter.

You cannot imbue pie with emotional qualities.

Your neighbor's probably not a serial killer.

It's not really easy to rob casinos.

/SPOILERS

I apologize for spoiling the life lessons of these movies.

Wow, sounds great. I'm really looking forward to seeing this when it comes out in Australia.

Yay! A Pajiba wedding! Where are you two kids Pajiba-registered?

TK/Theresa, I read of your Pajiba-nuptials with particular amusement, because Mrs. socalled wrinkled her nose the other day when I told her about how involved and fun the Dane Cook thread had become; her words, verbatim: "Do you have some nerdy Pajiba girlfriend now?"

So anyway, before this thing is official, doesn't Dustin have to wave his hands over it and mutter "pajiba-ca-dabra" or something? Can Seth or Daniel or litely perform such a ceremony, or does it have to be the big kahuna?

Sam-T: I'm pretty sure there was actually a faun in "Pan's Labyrinth" -- I saw it with my own eyes, so stop fucking with my head, man. First my bitch mom about Santa, and now you ....

Death of Thread: Call it: 9:24 a.m.; June 6, 2007.

Samantha,

How can you praise Pan's Labyrinth? The scene with the Pale Man is completely contrived! Ofelia is told not to eat anything. It's repeated. The walls of the banquet hall are covered with paintings of terrible things happening to people who disobeyed that order. Yet what does Ofelia do? She eats the grapes. This shattered my suspension of disbelief and rendered the movie unwatchable. In real life, the only choice would have been to leave the grapes untouched!

Okay, so let me get this straight: the guy doesn't have a job, smokes weed all day, lives off of a $14,000 settlement he got nine years ago, has $117 in the bank, and spends his time looking for "boobs and bush" in films

-- but what's remarkable about their relationship is that he is physically less attractive than the woman???

Riiiighhhtt....

I thought this movie was brilliant and special, and I hope Apatow does make some more like it. But, Ben Stone was a loser on the INSIDE, and the movie would have only been better if he hadn't been. Yeah, he sort of redeems himself toward the end, but there are plenty of available men out there who don't have to get a girl pregnant to figure out there's better things to do in life than smoke pot all day.

"You know there's a reason why planned parenthood and contraception is about the best thing that has happened to humanity in the last century.

Really? Really? "

Yes. Really. And I say that as a guy. I can't believe anyone would even argue that statement. I guess you can't imagine a time when people didn't have good contraception. Oh, let me, enjoy sex through my life or only have sex to procreate. That literally used to be the scary options. Living in a Dickens novel with another pregnancy threatening the existence of your existing family. I'm glad that women can have sex, lots of sex without the fear of pregnancy. Frankly, I like having lots of sex without marriage.

Yes. Really. It is an important invention of the last century. I'd rank it myself as number one.

It's about the worst thing in the movie for the guy to say he's glad he didn't use a condom. Some people are too stupid to have kids.

Hey, Reese Witherspoon is cute. She can't help it that her mother mated with The Joker and she inherited his chin.

Theresa and I were going to register at WalMart originally, but then we realized that no one would send us anything except righteous fury. And frankly, that could really spoil our special day.

"Also, Spader is not super hot...."

Bettylafea, I'm going to pretend I didn't read this in print. Ladies of the 80s, can I get a witness that Spader was one of the highlights of the decade? Susan Sarandon is beautiful, but so is Spader.

DR-

Congrats on the upcoming offspring. Now READ THE BOOKS, you mindless salmon. Sheesh. At the very least, peruse the tomes on breastfeeding, since you can likely muster a Freudian curiosity about the topic.

I am looking forward to seeing this movie. Sophmoric comedies are all we seem to see on our precious few post-baby date nights. Such a movie with a deeper aspect to it sounds refreshing.

Now GO READ!

While I think it's true that women police other women's looks more than men do (at least overtly), I think men police each others' DISINTEREST in looks just as fiercely.

It seems like there are a lot of guys who are a lot more worried about looking "gay" for caring about their appearance (the whole metrosexual thing) than they are about women's actual opinion of their appearance. It's something I've run across many times, and I find it hilarious and perplexing. You'd think adult men would care more about what the ladies thought of them, not just avoiding the homophobic ridicule of their friends.

Pardon me if I've offended anyone, it's just an onservation. IMHO, both genders have horribly fucked-up priorities at times...

I think that men and the man culture HOPES that women are all wrecked after having an abortion.

It's like their version of sex/love confusion that they say women have trouble with after sex. They have to be sure that women are punished if they plan their pregnancies or make sure they are disappointed not to be pregnant.

It's not like men want to BE parents, but they want you to be all torn up about removing their sperm.

In some fetish way they fantasize about women wanting to be the mother of their child. Not that they want to commit or be a parent, they just want that supernatural power of being able to and powerfully making women "knocked up." Not that the guy actually wants to change diapers, feed, and soothe a screaming baby, you know, be a parent.

Yeah, I have to say, Paula, fuck off. Jesus, can you imagine if a man used the phrase "women and woman culture"? Oh, Paula, you're all so clingy and emotional!!!! "Men and Man Culture," to the extent I have been around them re abortions (a few times), are confused, scared, and wanting in some small way a say in what happens ... kind of like women, but with less of a stake in the ultimate equity of the situation -- I'll be the first to admit, we don't have the right: your body, your decision, but we gets to pay, so we gets to comment. The guys I've known in the situation were torn up and reeling, and more looking for guidance from her about what she wanted than anything else. They may have been hoping what her guidance would be ....

Now: "White Palace" = super-fucking-awesome-hot-Susan-Sarandon-having-sex flick. James Spader might be on the "If I Had To" list.

And this thread was so serious, went light with the wedding, then back to this serious thing, which is way fucking with my buzz.

Dustin, are you going to bless this union, or not?

I'm glad to see that many people play devil's advocate....because there's always 2 sides to a story. But it seems like there are too many people that, based on their own personal experience, feel that there is nothing wrong with this movie.

Zygarch,

Thank you for eloquently verbalizing the niggling little doubts I had after laughing through this money. I thought it was funny, and I liked it, but it's been bothering me and nobody had exactly captured what was bugging me about it. Thank you.

you're a douche.

I have not seen the movie yet, so I will not comment on the its feasibility; however: I am average looking at best. Most of the men I have dated and the man I married) were all far more attractive than me. What did they see in me? I'm smart, funny and while no beauty, I am sexy. Go figure.
My point is that Jeanine Garolfolo is a beautiful woman (best eyebrows in Hollywood), but she's got brains and major attitude (good for her, I say) and wasn't and isn't willing to pimp herself out.

Great review. Really enjoyed the movie, but it was not bother-free for me.

I agree with what kat said:

"There's some real anti-man sentiment locked up in this. In the film, it's the MEN who are mess-ups, it's only the MEN who have to change. BEN has to change to become a decent boyfriend and dad. And PETE has to be more willing to be fawned over by Debbie so that their marriage to work. Debbie gains no insight into her own personality or what she brings to the marriage. Alison's character undergoes literally ZERO development (besides in her uterus). While her emotional outbursts and rejections towards Ben force him to look deeply at his life, there is no counterpart in the film that forces Alison to change from being a career-driven, selfish, living-with-her-sister control freak into an insightful, nurturing, compassionate, good listener. Did SHE read the baby books? We ASSUME so, but as an audience we don't know so. And are we to assume that even though we do not see her mature, as soon as her baby is born, she'll suddenly become a better human being, girlfriend and informed mother? Why are we to assume that?"

----

Granted, I agree that Ben Stone's life was such that he needed to change his ways in order to become a responsible father and presumably future-husband. I'm not approving of his lifestyle, even if I can appreciate its Gen-X slacker appeal. However, I dislike that the movie's message that the woman - Allison - shouldn't also adjust for the man. In fact, there's an overt rejection of mutual acceptance, adjustment, and understanding on her part.

Allison at first made an effort to be a part of his life, even watching movies with him to record the R-rated porn moments for his website, while he also made an effort to be a part of her life. That was great. I thought it was a really healthy and welcome message. But the earthquake (epiphany from a higher power!) changed her mind so that she stuck to a new hard-line standard for Ben, much like her uncompromising, demanding sister who advises Allison to "train" her man through "criticism" rather than accept him.

The rest of the movie reinforced a destructive message: the woman/mother/wife is right and the man/father/husband's responsibility is to conform to her standard. In the family unit, he is not her equal partner, he is a subordinate.

My concept of a good relationship is one in which both partners support each other and compromise, and build their relationship and family with both partners as cornerstones, not just the woman as the only cornerstone.

As a guy, I am more concerned about the message that evolving in a relationship is a one-way street where the woman is on a pedestal and a man must prove he is worthy of her. However, to be clear, I don't believe either the man or the woman should subvert themselves in a relationship. They should both be strengthened and enhanced by the other, adjust to the other, and both their lives enriched by the other.