33 of 38 people found the following review helpful
2nding the notion that the unrated version pales in comparison to the original,
This review is from: The 40-Year-Old Virgin (Unrated Widescreen Edition) (DVD)
This is one of the funniest movies I've had the pleasure of catching at a movie theater in a long time. I thought I was purchasing more laughs for my buck buying the UNRATED version, but much to my disappointment this is definitely a case of MORE is LESS. The added scenes do nothing to enhance the original; in fact, I'd say 90% of these added scenes should have been left as "deleted scenes." They hurt the comedic pacing of the original. If you thoroughly enjoyed the original at the theaters, stay away from this unrated version. In fact, I'm so disappointed in this unrated version, I'm tempted to buy the r-rated "original" version even though it only comes in full screen (why the original is unavailable in the widescreen format is also cause for this fan to roll his eyes in disbelief).
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Sep 18, 2011 8:43:42 AM PDT
Johnny Walker says:
I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking this. The "Unrated" version was a huge disappointment for me. Sure, it was nice not to have the nudity unnecessarily censored, but the added scenes really hurt the movie. The theatrical cut was the best comedy I'd seen in a decade, the "unrated" cut was just another average comedy. Very sad.
Posted on Mar 26, 2013 8:19:41 AM PDT
Posted on Aug 3, 2013 3:48:19 PM PDT
Tonstant Weader says:
This review is spot-on, exactly right. The theatrical version was rated R; yeah, it had raunchy parts, but it also had a kind of rare sweetness to it in Andy's character, his relationship Catherine Keener's character and children--and Paul Rudd's character was also good-hearted and well-intentioned. The unrated DVD means it's got the strictest rating, and a theater shouldn't admit anyone under 17--which would cut box office. The DVD unrated version states on the box it contains material cut before theatrical release "that was actually too dirty for the movie." It's 17 minutes longer, much bawdier, and so vulgar it ruins the balance and sympathy that made the theatrical version a hit. Good call, Ignatius!
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2014 6:03:29 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 24, 2014 6:04:26 PM PDT
You should have seen the original film as it was out in theaters in the fall of 2005. It was hysterical. Literally folks were ROFL. I kid you not. When I next saw the film, this time on DVD, it had been edited and was not as funny, though the end of the film played a little better.
Extra scenes, extra long: rarely a good idea. Films have editors, who job it is to trim and cut the film so it's paced well. "Added footage", etc, merely means they put back in the fat that they previously (and deliberately) cut away so they could get more people to buy the film in multiple versions.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›