Pajiba

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

I'm a huge fan of Freaks and Geeks and I liked Undeclared too so I am absolutley aching to see this - but it doesn't come out in the UK 'til AUGUST. Gah! I want to watch it now!
I hope it does well this weekend so both Judd Apatow and Seth Rogen become the stars they deserve to be.

"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.

Awesome! I'm not such a huge fan of recent comedies this past...decade, but I did like "40 Year Old Virgin" and this sound very promising. Can't wait to see it.

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 ;)

I honestly can't get over the whole "I've just gotten this major promotion in the career of my dreams, let's have drunken sex and NOT take a morning after pill, or whatever." Not because of any feminist leanings, but because, unless they provide a *really* good reason for it in the film, which I haven't seen evidence of yet, it would be seem to be such an enormous out-of-character act that I have a feeling I'd spend the whole movie asking, "WHY??"

Sorry for the overly long ramble...

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

Speaking as a fairly new mother, there is no way in hell I would want to raise a child by myself. Not that I couldn't, but damn it would be difficult. I can relate to her wanting to try a relationship. And why is it that being liberal and valuing the family unit are supposedly mutually exclusive? If that's what people think then the "terrorists" have truly won.

I become a blubbering idiot at any scene, real or pretend, of a woman giving birth. Glad to have been forewarned.

"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!

Hilarious, but stuck with some of the same dilemmas as Wedding Crashers - the transition from balls-out comedy to near-dramedy sort of makes the film seem longer than it really is. A little tightening here and there and it moves from classic to masterpiece.

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.

I'm afraid you have mistaken me for one of the other smartasses, socalledonlycousins. It's his birthday (or so he would have us believe--I wouldn't be surprised if this is how he spends every weekend).

But I'm sure he will be tickled anyway, when he sobers up and sees your remarks.

Yeah -- I caught that too late -- my apologies, and happy 40th to socalledcousins.

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.

Any argument that Seth Rogen's slacker character could not bag a hottie like Heigle goes out the shitter once you look at the latest gossip rag and see K-Fed on the cover. And if the story of Christina Aguilera and her hubby was made into a movie I would be calling "Bullshit", but Goddamn if that double-chinned gorilla isn't getting the hottest tail in music. Not to mention my personal experience over the last decade or so of seeing hot girl in club with tongue in mouth of douche-bag McGee. When you take Pretty But Insecure Girl and add Tequila all men have a shot.

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.

"he doesn't play up the childbirth for laughs, he mines the real emotions that flow out of it"

Um, did we see the same movie? Sure, he covered some good territory with the tension with the doctor, but the uh...crotch shot? How is that not like any other dumbass "guys can't deal with girly bits" moment in a million other movies?

I love Apatow, and I've long been a fan of the Freaks & Geeks crew. I'm also very excited by the geek trend in Hollywood. I enjoyed this movie very much, for all the reasons you listed.

But you know, I have to admit it made me a little nervous. It was just a liiiiittle too Duderific. Gals are complaining about the believability of Gorgeous Successful Girl falling for Shlubby Guy for a reason. The arc of trust and forgiveness in this movie just wasn't quite covered, and you're left feeling a little like this couple is going to turn out just like the other, married couple--surprised by who they thought they were in love with, and now they're just bitter about it.

Not *quite* the sweet feeling "Virgin" left us with.

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?

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.

It amazes me how many men (and women, apparently) assume that because a woman appears to have her shit together, she inherently must . Do you know how many of us chicks are "vogue" on the outside and "vague" on the inside? All sizzle and no steak? We are mostly faking the impenetrable strength and drive it takes to climb the corporate ladder anyway, so when something real happens to us (like an unplanned pregancy) we usually revert to our true nature: a emotional rationalization of the seemingly insane.
Abortion (despite what pro-lifers will tell you) is not an easy choice to make, and I could totally understand --being a career-driven superwoman myself-- why she chose to keep and baby AND try to make it work. We think we can be, do, and have it all, and gosh darn it, we're sure as hell going to try. Besides, it seemed that this burp in her plans was just another obstacle to conquer, and we superwomen LOVE a challenge. ;-)

Besides, if she had made a different choice, there'd be no movie, and I wouldn't have laughed so hard that soda came out my nose. And who doesn't want that?

"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...

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.

I hear you, Samantha, but don't forget they met in a club. Have you ever heard of a 'strobe-light honey'? In dim, intermittently-lit places they look fine but in the light of day... blecch! I've gone home with one or two, and alcohol doesn't help.

Unfortunately, because men write these flicks, we will always be subject to the hot girl/tubby schlub combo. It's a cinematic manifestation of their wishful thinking.

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.

Right on ciji. In fact, I think making the choice to have the baby, with the career and all, is the more feminist of the two. I guess just another example of how fanatic conservatives make us feminists look bad, and how the rest of society just laps that shit right up. The freedom is in the CHOICE. Yay freedom!

"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.

Oh, Slim...
Garafalo has stated that the reason she gave up on Hollywood is because she could not/would not conform to a casting director's demand that she adhere to the Hollywood idea of beauty, i.e., starving herself to near death. She was then and is now a truly beautiful woman with a million kilowatt smile. I have nothing against Katherine Heigl; she's gorgeous and talented but it is my sincere hope that directors will someday decide that acting ability should be the criteria for casting roles.
That said, I can't WAIT to see this movie!

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!!!

But, c'mon: Does the underlying conservative message of Knocked Up necessarily have to be hostile toward feminism? Can't the two co-exist in separate spheres? There's a certain humorlessness to that contention, especially when one is needlessly trying to commingle politics and comedy...

You mean people can't make criticisms of the political implications of a comedy? I know that's not really the kind of criticism you do here at Pajiba, but I don't think comedy magically gets to be exempt from ideology. (Especially not a comedy about an unplanned pregnancy in a time that contraception and abortion are kind of big political issues. I don't really have a problem with the premise myself, but how they deal with the issue doesn't get to be outside or above all the other stuff going on in the world.) Anyway, I don't think Apatow's conforming to the "men can be funny and ugly, but women have to be hot" doesn't mean that the movie is worthless (I haven't seen it yet, but I probably will go this weekend, the previews look awesome) but that doesn't mean that 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 -- don't get to call him on it. But yeah, I'm just saying that looking at the political implications of stuff that is generally considered to be entertaining and harmless is anything but needless.

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!)

Good review, but I've read (maybe) 3 reviews and I'm already tired of people complaining that the Rogen/Heigl hook-up stretches crediblity. Two words: Horse and shit.

Here's what I can tell you: I'm a chunky, schlubby movie geek, but I'm funny and interesting. My wife is driven, brilliant (currently a grad student at NYU), and a stone cold knockout. Looks-wise, I'm about a Rogen, and she's about a Heigl. And we didn't just hook up-- she MARRIED me.

And Samantha T, enjoy your life of shallow, empty pretty boys.

"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.

I'm so tingly over the prospect of seeing "Knocked Up," I can barely contain myself.

And thanks for the birthday wishes; I can't believe I got mentioned repeatedly -- it's a little dusty in here right now.

Evening recommendation: Combine two parts Boodles gin, one part Stoli, splash of Lillet blanc; shake well with ice and serve up in a chilled martini glass with a well-wrung lemon twist. Yes, it's the Vesper from Casino Royale (Bond used Gibson gin, whatever), and it's damn near the best thing I've ever had. I'm working on the second shaker right now. Also goes excellent with Vicodin. I feel ... no older than maybe 37 right now.

Melia: Thanks for bringing the frisky; Mrs. socalled is quite tolerant and hard to replace, but you make an ornery, cynical dog feel good.

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!

I didn't know there wee so many Calvin Klein models running around to meet the physical requirements of the broads who post here.

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.

"That squeaky-voiced girl from Mallrats and Chasing Amy." Joey Lauren Adams. As I'm sure the Arkansas-wise Pajiba staff is aware, she's from Arkansas. I went to high school with her, and she's (or was) a pretty cool chick.

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.

Ok. Now I'm even more psyched than I was before.

Still though... Seth? Look me up. 'Kay?

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!

I saw a preview of this movie a few weeks ago. I don't think I've ever laughed harder at a movie. There were times when you couldn't hear the movie because the whole theater was laughing. At the same time though, almost every conversation is relatable and familiar. Go see it!!!

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!

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

Fair warning, might be a wee uncomfortable to see with mom. It is still quite raunchy.

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.

Jen, I understand that and am anticipating a certain amount of discomfort. But my mom and I have a relationship where she bitches to me about her doctor refusing to refill her birth control perscription over the phone so she'll go in for a physical (true) so maybe that'll help. Some. I hope. At least it's not my dad.

Ranylt I enjoy the discussions too, it's really nice when intelligent people can have conversations about movies. And it's interesting to see all the takes on the hot girl/dumpy guy pairing, something that's been going on since the Flintstones at least.

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...

My husband and I just returned from seeing this movie. I can't yet describe how wonderful it truly was. I can honestly say that it was one of the most entertaining experiences I have had at the movies in a very long time. The theater was packed, with people from all backgrounds, couples, young & old folks,married & single...and everyone was laughing and having a great time. I have used the line, "I laughed & I cried" before, but this is the first time I actually DID laugh & cry, and heartily.

As far as the argument about her decision to have the baby goes, it's not really something I concentrated on. She thought about her situation, made her decision, and went on with life. I mean, that's what the theme of the movie was, after all: You can't plan your life, you just have to take what life gives you and be the best person you can be. And it's so true.

Another thing - I can honestly say that there wasn't a moment's pause when Alison & Ben hooked up. She waas obviously lonely, he was obviously a sweet guy, they were both drunk, things happen...it didn't matter at all that she was "out of his league."

I loved it. Dustin's right, one of the best in a long time.

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'.

My husband has this theory that most people pick people of equal attraction as their life mate. Also, scientists say that visually we are attracted to people with more symmetrical faces...maybe just because they look average, doesn't mean they're not symmetrical.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Hollywood makes what people are willing to see. I personally enjoy looking at an attractive female.

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.

I worry that we're not looking at a New Hollywood - we're just looking at the kind of quality movies certain film-makers, like Apatow, are making. Regardless, my husband and I will be rushing to the theaters this weekend!

One caveat: It begins more or less like the all the best night's shouldn't have an apostrophe in it. It's "nights" plural, not "night is." I'm an English teacher; I can't help but be a grammar Nazi. :)

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.

"Here's what I can tell you: I'm a chunky, schlubby movie geek, but I'm funny and interesting. My wife is driven, brilliant (currently a grad student at NYU), and a stone cold knockout. Looks-wise, I'm about a Rogen, and she's about a Heigl. And we didn't just hook up-- she MARRIED me.

And Samantha T, enjoy your life of shallow, empty pretty boys."

I'm married and pregs, so my fabulous high-flyin' days with the Don Juans are over - as evidenced by my midnight posting on a Friday! See, here's part of the Hollywood fallacy: these kinds of filmmakers want us to believe that there's some kind of moral/intellectual superiority to male frumpdom. No such forbearance for the ladies, of course. Hate to tell you, fellas, but there are guys who are intelligent AND good-looking AND funny out there.

I feel compelled to add that my husband is very handsome (tediously so, really), is a lawyer (not sure if that's an emblem of intellectualism, but I'll take it), and is hands-down the most intuitive, sensitive guy I've ever met. He was also in Teach for America and then the Peace Corps. As Bateman said on Arrested Development: I had to lock that shit down.

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.

I don't think the disparity in looks is very great between the two lead actors, they are both good looking people in their own unique ways. Perhaps Heigl in fact is less unique, being one among the great number of lovely looking blondes in movies, so great that I often find difficulty putting the right name to the right blonde.

It is realistic that a very good looking professional would pursue a romance with an ordinary looking slacker, male or female. I personally am an ordinary looking slacker married to a very good looking professional. I mean firstly, beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder and secondly, you don't choose who you fall in love with. And hell, if you're only with someone because they look good, and folks can be dazzled and deluded for years by good looks, then what happens when you get bored of looking and realize you don't actually give a shit about them? The Great Western Divorce Rate. A desert plain that lies somewhere between Bitter and Totally Fucked.

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. ;)

Just saw "Knocked Up" tonight and loved it... I agree with most of what you said in the review.

As a 20-something woman, I also agree that it was slightly unrealistic to have Allison so quickly and easily choose to keep the baby. However, I understand why they went that route, and I was actually impressed with the fact that they even mentioned abortion at all (and managed to make a pretty funny scene out of talking about it!)... In a world where abortion is often ignored entirely on TV and in movies, I was glad it was at least mentioned without them having to go all after-school-special on us.

The movie is, of course, unrealistically optimistic in other ways. Allison gets to keep her job, and even gets good advancement opportunities, rather than being discriminated against? Pfsh, if only that happened to women in the real world.

In regards to the comments about the supposed "attractiveness gap" between Katie Heigl and Seth Rogan... I agree with the above poster who pointed out that attractiveness is very subjective. saying that Seth isn't cute is buying into a pretty narrow Hollywood view of attractiveness. I, for instance, would totally do Seth Rogan... well, not unprotected. Heheh...

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.

This is just one of the cases where you have to see the movie before you can use it as a platform for whatever rants you have. I caught a pre-screening of this at my school and I was pleasantly surprised. The thing is, you can (and should) argue about the double standard in Hollywood. It's fucking horrible. But I honestly had difficulty finding fault with this movie.

Apatow's characters are so realistic and even though I don't remember the exact scene that causes Heigl to keep the baby, it made perfect sense. And not in a religious epiphany kind of way. From what I gathered, it was something her mother said about getting rid of it so that later on she could have a "real" baby. It might have been different (saw it a while ago and could've been changed), but there was something so understandable about why a "career woman" living in her married sister's pool house would be affected by a statement like that.

It's just so trivial to quibble over. Apatow does a hell of a lot of good here and it's so earnest that you understand each character's stupid mistakes and feel protective of them. I'm not going to tell you to appreciate the baby steps being taken here because Hollywood does need an appearance overhaul. But for god's sake, see the movie first.

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.

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.

Top ten reasons Heigl's character kept the baby:
1. Abortions are not funny;
2. Discussions about abortion are not funny;
3. Its hard to do a fucking comedy about being pregnant when there is no longer anyone in the movie who is pregnant.
4. Judd Apatow didn't want to put his wife and kids in an abortion movie.
5-10. ABORTIONS ARE NOT FUNNY.
Death can be funny. Drug use can be funny. Crime can be funny. But abortion is not funny, unless, of course, Laura Dern is involved.

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

Daphne: I don't think your premise applies in the case of 40 Year Old Virgin, the female lead was NOT the hottest woman in the joint. If I remember correctly, the hottie turned out to be a freak and Carell ended with Catherine whatsherface.
He was out of HER league.

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!

Finger slip! "merest detail," thanks. Unless perhaps some women bring this to mind:

http://www.meerkats.com/

Stranger things...

"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. :)

But I'm glad you read my blog. Or at least, I hope you did before you called me an idiot.

Yes, I did read the entry. I really shouldn't have called you an idiot since it wasn't really your writing that made me mad. I thought your remarks missed the point of the movie's plot by a country mile, but it was not really your remarks that irritated me--it was the apparent presumption by some of your commenters that abortion is the only "feminist" choice when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. That struck a nerve, and off I went.

Reading down, I think most commenters here are being way too generous to Seth Rogen as far as the "an unattractive schlub is the hero" idea. Seth Rogen may not be conventional-Hollywood pretty, but he is far from unattractive. He's above average. Face it. He's a little rounder and hairier than what we're used to seeing onscreen, that's all.

Yes, I suppose it's progress of a sort, but the man is not ugly. He's "Hollywood ugly." If he worked at my office he'd be the second-cutest guy in the place.

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.

Regarding this incredibly interesting discussion regarding the plausibility of Katherine Heigl and Seth Rogen getting together: my husband and I just returned from our honeymoon at a couples-only resort in Jamaica, and we pretty much made a game out of pointing out the hot girls with much less attractive men. Honestly, we saw at least 10 while we were there (and it triggered a great discussion between my new hubby and I as to which one of us was cuter! We diplomatically decided we were equal in cuteness). My point being, this really does happen in real life.

Of course, I'd do Seth Rogen in a second, though now that I'm married, I'm not sure he'd be on my Top 5. His friend Paul Rudd might be though!

Also, since I've had a crush on him since Freaks and Geeks, creepy Styx serenade notwithstanding, Jason Segal is actually spelled Jason Segel. His cuteness deserves proper spelling.

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

Oy - head.

Man, what a great thread of comments. Just a few things:

1) No stretch on Heigl's decision: Regardless of one's personal opinion about the desirability of pregnancy, one can always assume Heigl, as an adult professional woman, had already played this scenario out in her mind and decided, "If this ever happens, and it's at all workable, I'm keeping it." Easy and realistic potential plot point resolution.

2) One cannot have an objective "would-she-or-wouldn't-she" discussion about Rogen; he has too much goodwill built up. The question is, Out in the world, would this happen between two unknown persons of relatively similar physical attractiveness? Sorry Sam-T and ciji (and others), the objective reality is that I've it happen frequently, and many others here have as well.

3) WARNING: GENERALIZATIONS AHEAD -- NOT INTENDED TO APPLY TO EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD. Re the double standard of women's and men's taste for physical attractiveness: It's clearly there, and to deny it is puzzling to me. Women are generally far more forgiving than men about physical attractiveness (I GET IT, not all of you), and not just Christina Aguilera, though she is the Jesus Christ of this group. Is that always true? No. Is it usually true? Yes. Women usually are looking for something beyond just the hotness, and let us men thank whatever gods or monsters are out there for that.

4) Those initial inclinations on the part of men and women are why a two-hour film will more frequently cast a more-attractive female with an average or slightly-better-than-average male -- the initial impression with the audience is key, and women are more forgiving.

5) Can men overcome their unfortunate preoccupation with physical attractiveness to exalt an average-looking female who exhibits other qualities? Of course, and practice and maturity make it habitual. For me: Sarah Vowell (makes me howl); Samantha Bee (wheeee!); Mindy Kaling (we'd be wailing); Mary Lynn Rajskub (in the bathtub -- had you wondering about that one, n'est pas?).

6) Janeane -- I was there ten years ago; now I find her grating and self-righteous -- never an attractive package.

Wash, out.

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.

Damn it: That's "I've SEEN it happen frequently," not meaning to imply "I've HAD it happen frequently." I fucking wish.

And yes, I just analogized Christina Aguilera to Jesus Christ.

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).

FIREFLY/SERENITY CAST NOTE: I didn't see this pointed out anywhere else here: Alan Tudyk (Wash) plays Heigl's producer boss in "Knocked Up," the one who tells her they're putting her on-air -- I thought I saw him in the trailer and confirmed it at IMDB.

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

@Craig...there's not much you can do about Linda Fiorentino's career due to the fact that she's a major cunt, who has sabotaged her own career on more than one occasion.

she's hot though.

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.

And by the way, Wedding Crashers sucked HARD. I kept waiting for it to get to the funny parts, and it just...didn't. Vince Vaughan was intolerably shrill and manic (and not in a funny way), and the premise was just, well, fucking retarded. I do not get the hype over this movie. The other movies mentioned, yes. WC does not belong in a category with them, at least not one based on quality.

Pedro Almodovar

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

"And yes, I just analogized Christina Aguilera to Jesus Christ."

Just for the record, Ms. Aguilera can be very attractive...but have you seen her without makeup?? Gah.

Kidding aside, this is one of the best discussions I've seen on a comment board, and something that comes close to my heart. Beauty is not just a surface characteristic, as so many have pointed out here. It takes an inner integrity, I feel, to be truly beautiful. Example: media-gorgeous real women who think they are too fat. I can't tell you how many acquaintances I have heard talk about this. (I chose not to be TOO close with people who use this as a way to garner attention. "God I am so fat. I need to go on a diet. No, I can't eat that grape." To which the masses respond, "Oh, so-and-so, you are so skinny." Double gah.) I venture to say that insecurity (or perhaps feined insecurity in some cases) is incredibly unattractive, and makes those beautiful, skinny, would-be model women, disgusting. I have seen it in men, too, albeit through different word choice and physical obsessions.

I mean, what does it say that "They" use a beautiful woman to play the role of "Ugly" Betty?? I mean, geez, is the world so full of gorgeous people that we can't find one real ugly one? Boo!

I liken Seth Rogen and his apparently unattractive counterparts to 'geek chic'. If they are the geeks, then I'm happy to live in that world!

Keep on with the fantastic comments, peeps.
Oh, and happy belated, socalled :) The Vesper sounds like a good start to lunch today.

"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.

"God I am so fat. I need to go on a diet. No, I can't eat that grape." To which the masses respond, "Oh, so-and-so, you are so skinny." Double gah.

Man, I hear shit like that nearly every day. It almost always takes place when there are no men around to overhear, and it's almost always passive-aggressive fishing for a compliment, and the little bitch saying it is always slimmer than I am.

If you've read many of my comments here, you can probably imagine the kind if response I give to such compliment-fishing: "Oh my God yes, look at you, you are a revolting manatee and I just don't see how you can be so shameless as to appear in public looking like you do. If I were you I'd kill myself."*

Try it yourself. It's way fun.

*DISCLAIMER: Not to be used on women who actually are fat, of course.

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."

Jerce, if I had it to do all over again, I might go with Wash. But, as D-Carl did with "Rushmore," I finally had to admit that "Barcelona" is my favorite film -- nothing makes me feel like that movie. Ergo, socalledonlycousins. You may now pelt me with rocks and garbage.

I love, love, love Wash and Zoe for a reason that meshes with this thread -- they're non-traditional, and not just because they're interracial: She's the ultra-disciplined warrior, he's the one who stays back at the ship and tries not to get into fights. She's way hot, he's Mr. Average.

Off to see "Knocked Up," whoooooo-hoooooo!

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

"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."

Tinmo, boyfriend only said it because it's widely-known that nothing is supposed to hurt a woman's feelings more than criticizing her appearance. He couldn't Rogen you on his best day, and he knows it. Next time, comment on the dude's height or earning power to have the same effect.

"... 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.

wow!! i can only assume that was meant to start a shit storm?

Pedro Almodovar - consistently brings the best and most diverse female roles to the screen

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

i could continue but there are probably a few gays waiting to rip you a new one

"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.

I loved this movie! Rushed out to see it last night. As a big fan of Freaks and Geeks and Undeclared I was mighty stoked to see this and I wasn't disappointed. Lots of laughs, wonderful characters, and easy, natural dialogue. And as for the so-called implausibility of the Heigl-Rogen hook-up, no way! As a hot, intelligent and career-driven woman, I would totally go for Seth Rogen. You can't beat a man with a sense of humour, and heart. He's the new prince charming.

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.

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

Heh. Well, that's a theme for another thread hijacking.

There is one thing that I agree with Jerce on and disagree with Samantha T on: I don't think Seth Rogen is unattractive. He's not a bad looking guy at all. Where I stand firmly in Samantha T's corner is the aforementioned Hollywood fallacy she so succinctly summarized (alliteration alert!). BTW, congrats on the bun in the oven, Samantha T.

BarbadoSlim - I'm sure you're right about 40YV; I have only seen it once, when it first came out, and was going off memory. Personally, I think Catherine Keener is hot like fiya, so that's probably why I thought it analogous.

Vermillion - I can't speak for other women, but I don't have a dim view of the opposite sex. I have a dim view of stupid people, but that's cross-genderal (yes, I think I just created a new word), and not related to anyone on Pajiba. One of the reasons I frequent Pajiba are the witticisms of the men. It's nice to interact with hilarious men whose comedy isn't tied to potty humor and channeling frat boy behavior.

In other news, Alan Turdyk is in this? I may have to watch it just for him. I am still devastated by what happened to Wash in Serenity.

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.

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

Posted by: Jerce at June 2, 2007 11:04 AM-

Now Jerce, now you know if he did that, he might end up with a huge space stake shot though the chest and half a million fanboys screaming "What the f*ck?!!!!!"

Anyway, just one thing, to Bianca Reagan who mentioned reversing the roles and having males in movies only for their attractiveness: It is my understanding they do that already. How else do you explain having Johnny Lee Miller as a hacker, Ryan Phillipe as a open-source champion who works out of his garage, and so on? Hell, as it has been said in previous posts, even the guys who are supposed to look average look better than your average guy, and can definitely get more attention. Hollywood screws both sides over on true representation. If you really look at movies, you can see that the movies with schlubby guys are usually directed, written, or produced by those same guys. Same goes for television. Like those dumb ass Axe or Old Spice or whatever those stupid body sprays are. The dudes in those commercials are supposed to represent ME? What the hell is that?

It is even stronger in the infamous genre of romantic comedies, or really any movie supposedly skewed towards female audiences. Case in Point: Patrick Dempsey in Can't Buy Me Love vs. Nick "I really hate this motherf*cker" Cannon in the remake Love Don't Cost a Thing. Dempsey, with his cracking, nasal voice, bad posture, and overall dumpiness, I could believe as that kind of guy. He honestly looked like he saw the inside of a locker or two. Nick Cannon, on the other hand, wasn't convincing in the slightest. He just looked like he was doing his best Urkel impersonation, which was horrible because Nick Cannon sucks. And yet, the audience is supposed to buy that he is actually unlucky with the ladies. Riiiiight.

By the way, I really hate this motherf*cker.

Another example, a bit more personal: These female empowerment movies, but mostly ones focused on the black woman, especially that Tyler Perry abomination "Daddy's Little Girls". They constantly show these smart, successful women falling for handsome guys, being heartbroken by handsome guys, then finding hope and renewed faith in the human condition in the arms of....you guessed it....HANDSOME GUYS. Nice encouragement for the rest of us brothers, there, pal.

Then there is the collective careers of Hugh Grant, Colin Firth, Colin Farrell, Russell Crowe, and any number of overseas gents coming to sweep a woman into their arms. Even in the much-reference "Truth About Cats and Dogs" they have Ben Chaplin, who isn't going to be kicked out many a bed for eating crackers.

I must now make the point that I am not assuming that any of you commenters automatically find these men attractive, but that these are usually the men presented in film as the better option for any woman.

I will admit, the stunt-casting is more noticeable with women. Jessica Alba in Fantastic Four is my prime example of that. 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.

The very idea of this discussion proves my point. People were complaining that nobody that looked like Heigl, no matter how drunk they were, would give a guy who looked like Rogen a shot in hell. 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.

So maybe the day when Jon Lovitz plays James Bond, I could buy the double-standard argument. But until then, no go here. Yeah, he plays James Bond, and....gains superpowers! And ....punches the moon! Yeah, that's the ticket!

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. :)

Hah, Jon Lovitz, for some reason, and I might be the only one, but I find his Devil character from SNL to be one the funniest ones ever.

PS: Hi LadyJane!!

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.

I think Apatow should get cut slack for the Hollywoodized pairing because his female character in Freaks and Geeks (and even Keener in "Virgin") was so dead on. Linda Cardellini was a normal high school girl in every sense of the word (why is she not in more films?!); let's not forget that Apatow knows how to "do" believable women...

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 think Apatow should get cut slack for the Hollywoodized pairing because his female character in Freaks and Geeks (and even Keener in "Virgin") was so dead on. Linda Cardellini was a normal high school girl in every sense of the word (why is she not in more films?!); let's not forget that Apatow knows how to "do" believable women..."




Paul Feig was the writer/creator behind Lindsay, Millie and (the awesome) Kim Kelly. Apatow was the show's producer and wrote a handful of episodes. Just sayin'.




What strikes me most out of KU isn't the abortion angle or the hookup between Heigl and Rogan (which strikes me as more uneven not on a physical level, but a social/professional one) but the very bleak view of the marriage between the Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann characters- the message being: Too bad! You're stuck with each other even though you make each other miserable.




And that Apatow cast his own wife in the harpy role... I don't know but that says something to me. This movie seems more about Apatow working out that marriage (on screen and in life) isn't all that and it doesn't mean you're a better man/father/person for taking on that responsibility.

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.

Well...my expectations for this movie were in the negatives. I thought it was simply a lame reason to get a very well-endowed Heigl into a bra and panties scene. A fact that my 19 year old brother (who has seen the movie) says is not true. So, I'm already surprised and willing to see it. On the topic of cinematic not hot gals and hot guy pairings...My Big Fat Greek Wedding comes to mind. Totally random I know. I didn't and don't find John Corbett to be that attractive, but in comparison to Nia Vardalos (is it?) he was way out of her league. I've noticed that the not so attractive females have to have a larger than life personality to overcompensate for what they lack aesthetically...like being outrageously funny will take the focus off of being unattractive. The female can never "just be", there's always a catch.

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.

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

To reiterate on the tragic Cardellini-fugness:

http://www.imdb.com/gallery/granitz/5825/Events/5825/LindaCarde_Vespa_12885649_400.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Cardellini,%20Linda

Gaaah!

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.

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?

Here's a valuable rule of thumb for a brand-new parent (congratulations, by the way): Unless you are running indoors to take shelter from some deadly natural disaster, do not take a weeks-old infant into a movie theatre.

I believe you when you say she's good and usually quiet. Truly. But what if she happens not to be during the movie? What if the sound is really loud and hurts her ears? You'd be gambling with the enjoyment of the hundred or so other people sitting there with you. You'd be gambling on it without their permission to do so. In short, you'd be acting like an asshole.

You are a new parent (congratulations again, seriously; it's such a major joy) so perhaps you do not understand how very much theatregoers loathe, hate and despise people who come strolling into their movie experience with an infant. The bad karma is so strong it might stunt her growth.

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.

The writer never gets inside the girl's head on what she'd want. But, apparently, guy reviewers never wonder either.

Excerpt from a review from LA Times by female reviewer:

It's a promising premise, and Apatow takes it unexpected directions. But "Knocked Up" is so enamored of Ben and his insouciant charm that it fails to wonder what it must feel like for the girl. It's one thing to go with the idea that Ben and Alison dwell in different leagues, which after all is the point of the movie. It's another thing altogether for the heroine, who in true girl-on-pedestal form is beautiful, smart, successful, nice and pretty much cool with everything, never to get even the tiniest chance to wonder if maybe she might have done a little better. Alison's view of her future with Ben fluctuates according to what he does or doesn't do in a given situation, or how well or badly her sister and brother-in-law Pete (Paul Rudd) are getting along. But it's never measured up to her own hopes or dreams for a relationship. What her type is, we'll never know.

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.

Wow -- saw it yesterday, and it was awesome; even with high expectations, it was like two hours went by in about two minutes. I disagree that it was "uproarious," as some critics called it. There were parts that were 40YOV-esque in that way, but it was softer in its humor, I thought.

Seth Rogen is fantastic in this -- I think he's a good actor, not just a funny guy who can be in a movie without embarassing himself. Heigl came off really well, I thought, in a difficult role for all the reasons stated above. All the supporting actors were spot-on, especially (natch) Paul Rudd.

My biggest bone to pick -- as others have already pointed out here, it's implausible that she would automatically decide to have a romantic relationship with the father just because they're keeping the baby. There's no context for that decision; at the point where she makes it, there's no support for that heavy of a commitment. Yet there they are, holding hands and being a couple in the first weeks after they decide to work together to keep the baby.

I could see after a month or two, she might decide, "Hey, this guy is actually great, and we're going to be more than just co-parents." But the film just assumes those two things go together, which is a fallacy. And they could have worked it out in the script without much trouble, I think. In fact, Rogen's courting of Heigl during her pregnancy could have been a major source of laughs and story lines.

The other supposed flaws discussed above don't seem problematic to me. Women like Katherine Heigl do have one-nighters with guys like Seth Rogen; I've seen it happen with friends. Women like Heigl's character do find themselves pregnant and quickly decide, "Damn the consequences, I'm keeping this baby." It didn't feel false to me at all.

The movie rocks. Do yourself a favor and go see it. I'm going back next weekend.

Note to Daphne: Alan Tudyck (not "Turdyck," Daphne, which is amusing but juvenile) is in it for about 5 seconds, twice, so don't factor that in; I was just delighted to see him at all.

And, thanks, Jerce, for the sanity on small children in theatres for adult-oriented films. The answer is no, no, no. No. You made your choice, parent, and good on you. That doesn't entitle you to make choices for me.

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 problem with the argument that beautiful women often date less-attractive men, is that that assumes the unattractive men are interesting, smart, driven, funny, whatever. My problem with Rogen's character was not so much his looks and more the fact that he's a juvenile, unemployed stoner slob with nothing to bring to the table. I don't find it hard to believe that she'd be attracted to someone who LOOKS like him--the real problem for me is that they're not in the same league in terms of maturity, intelligence, ambition, experience, accomplishment, education, etc. I don't think a woman like her would respect a guy like that (I know I wouldn't), so why on earth would she want to raise a child with him?

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 saw the movie yesterday 6/2/07 and was very disappointed with the language. I would have enjoyed the movie much more if the f word had not been used so much. There was some very funny parts, but I was very uncomfortable with the language, so consequently did not truly enjoy the movie. I will wait to see it again when it plays on TV as I know that word will be eliminated.

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.

I just wanted to point out, and nobody may see this, but

THERE IS NO R OR C IN TUDYK. LOOK IT UP.

I had to triple-check before I laminated my list.

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.

And, anyway, I spelt it right the first time, to Jerce. Daphne had me all confused with the "turd," and of course her sexiness.

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.

Pretty much, the guy who wrote this movie hates women, except to be pretty, to have sex, with and make babies. The girl's mother is set up to be the countercount to the abortion decision by suggesting she have one. And by-gum, that's all the girl needs to hear in rebellion to her mom! Score one for hating the mother in law to be! And then there is that scene at the birth where the guy yells at the girl's sister to leave the birth, saying she didn't belong there! Score two for hating sister bonding! And, pretty much, the girl has no friends, except for the bitches that guys imagine a girls' friends are! Score three for hating friends who might possibly find you lacking! Gee, there aren't any women allowed to get close to the girl. The deck is stacked!

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 hadn't really responded to the milliseconds of promo I've managed to see of this film (thanks to my dictatorial, toddling daughter and machiavellian preschooler boy), but I think I'll insist that I get my annual mom's night out and go see it. The above comment also essentially addresses my assertion that it is not out of the realm of possibility that a cool chick would make those choices upon finding out that she's pregnant, and make it happen if she's so inclined. You never can tell what you are going to do, and so I'm interested to see how it plays out in a film that doesn't (reportedly, and I do have high hopes) insult the concept, the performers and its potential.

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.

Once upon a time, BarbadoSlim wrote:



"I think making the choice to have the baby, with the career and all, is the more feminist of the two."



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



"I guess just another example of how fanatic conservatives make us feminists look bad, and how the rest of society just laps that shit right up. The freedom is in the CHOICE. Yay freedom!"



Freedom without reason usually ends in slavery. It's not (just) about being able to choose, it's about making the right choices. Basically, Knocked Up is just a dumb movie about a bunch of dumb people making dumb choices.

"projectile ejaculating Icee from my nostrils"

HA!! And ouch.

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

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. That is the beauty of diversity, and it is what I vehemently support. Your right, my right, anyone's right, no matter how flawed their logic may be.

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.

Well said nexus 6, although I think your response will be lost on that commenter, considering the link they put up.

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.

Ouch. Does this mean you are not also "smokin' hot"? Because that is what I get from your statement. No joke. And so what if you aren't? I'm neither a pot freak nor all that skinny and handsome, but I still want to see this movie because I feel it will entertain me. Honestly, if you can complain about Heigl being in this movie, then I can retroactively complain that nobody in the myriad of movies I have seen looked like me. Yes, there are women who are pretty, and yes, some of them will in up in a movie. That doesn't mean you somehow count less because of it. And when did being a "pudgy, dweeby pot freak" become ideal for men? Do you honestly think we all want to be like that, just like we obviously assume that all women have to look like Katherine Heigl? Never considered that they are like that because pot freaks are usually funny?

Pretty much, the guy who wrote this movie hates women, except to be pretty, to have sex, with and make babies.

Now that is a bit much, don't you think? If he really hates women, why bother having any other female characters involved? He could simply have Allison say she had a baby and was keeping it, then conveniently forgot her. Don't confuse "hatred of women" with "misunderstanding women". I point out again that Apatow is writing from his own experience and is voicing his own fears. Exorcising his demons in this movi