Me & my sister have a friendly debate about this one ... curious what others think.
2007-05-16 10:04:05 · 20 answers · asked by MikeTX 3 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
Its a tough call, both pretty good I liked the 40 YOV better because it was probably easier for most guys to related to a guy like Steve Carell's character. I believe there were more funny moments associated to all the characters through the movie as well. Wedding Crashers was mostly only funny when Vince Vaughn was integrated, the rest was basically the romance with Owen Wilson and Rachel McAdams.
2007-05-16 10:41:17 · answer #1 · answered by mundawgs 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wedding Crashers
2007-05-16 10:17:04 · answer #2 · answered by momof3 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I liked both, but I liked The 40 Year Old Virgin better. I thought Wedding Crashers was somewhat boring.
2007-05-16 10:12:52 · answer #3 · answered by Breinn 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I personally preferred 'The 40-Year Old Virgin'... and I will tell you why... even though I think Vince Vaughn is a great actor, I can't really abide Owen Wilson too much... I don't get his appeal. The other thing that bothered me about 'Wedding Crashers' was the comedy cliches... like the gay guy... so overdone. Having said that... it had some funny moments. The thing I like most about '40' was the extras on the DVD. Specifically when that older Indian guy was going through the things about life: "It's about love, passion, children..." then he rattles off all these different slang terms for sexual positions and stuff... I was rolling on the floor... they should have expanded his role in the actual film. Thanks for allowing me to express my opinion!
By the way... every thumbs-down rating I get is people agreeing with me that 'Wedding Crashers' deserves a thumbs-down rating from Ebert and Roeper...
2007-05-16 10:19:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The style of humor is similar in both of them, so I think the question of "which is better" is a matter of taste.
*I* liked "40" better because it's about a socially inept but basically honest guy (Andy) getting his personal issues sorted out so he can finally grow up and decide what kind of life he wants to have - doing "the deed" is only ONE of the issues on his plate.
"Wedding Crashers," by contrast, is about two guys who make an avocation of worming their way into other people's lives and seeing how much food, drink, and/or fooling around they can get out of the deal. Dishonesty is one of my pet peeves, so I didn't care all that much for the concept behind the story. But they did tell the story well and the guys DID get their comeuppance (sort of).
I liked "40" better, but if someone says that it sucked and they loved "Wedding Crashers," I'm not going to start a fight over it. Like I said, it's a matter of taste.
2007-05-16 10:13:25 · answer #5 · answered by Navigator 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Between the two, I've only seen Wedding Crashers
2007-05-16 14:40:37 · answer #6 · answered by Sharon Newman (YR) Must Die 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
40 Year Old Virgin. Easily.
2007-05-16 10:13:17 · answer #7 · answered by aaronwfv 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wedding Crashers... too funny
2007-05-16 10:11:37 · answer #8 · answered by megan v 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
40YOV. The ending of wedding crashers was way too sappy. Not cool in a comedy.
2007-05-16 10:12:04 · answer #9 · answered by trustme_imascientist 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The 40-year-old Virgin is the funnier film. Steve Carrel (sp?)is hilarious. That guy with the goatee who's in "Knocked Up" is the best.
2007-05-16 10:30:30 · answer #10 · answered by vdrive_60 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋