We See Chick Flicks: Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Posted by: Lesley Savage
Filed in:
news
1:30PM, Thursday April 24th 2008
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Starring Jason Segel, Mila Kunis, Kristen Bell
Okay, ladies this is a very special addition of “We See Chick Flicks”. Both because I loved, loved, loved this movie and for the PENIS factor. Yup, you’ve probably heard about it, and maybe some of you have already seen it, but this movie is very, how shall I put it, frontally loaded. And we’re not talking a little peek, we’re talking the WHOLE pecker (and might we add, the 6-foot-something actor shows his…height). We’re talking full view, slightly hard schlong. Most movies who deign to show the whole male form, wimp out with a little glimpse of the turtle head, but Jason worked hard (pun intended) to show us his full potential. While getting fully hard would have warranted an X-rating, he got right up to that point, a point which we will refer to as “getting long” [Meaty!—Editor], and let me tell you, he’s got nothing to be ashamed of. Now. Moving on.
The Lowdown: Written by Apatow-staple and Freaks and Geeks alum Jason Segel, Forgetting Sarah Marshall begins with an excited Peter Bretter (Segel) eagerly awaiting the return of his actress girlfriend Sarah Marshall (Kristen Bell). In anticipation of their “steamy reunion,” he removes his clothes, and is ready to get busy. Little does he know, he is actually about to get dumped. Now, this is a very funny premise for a movie, getting broken up with while naked, but it’s even funnier (and slightly sadder) when you know that it actually happened to the actor in real life (rumors are it was with Freaks costar Linda Cardellini). Though in real life he got dressed halfway through the breakup, a fact that the moviemakers thought was too depressing to include. The rest of the film is pretty formulaic. Peter is devastated, so he goes on a vacation to Hawaii in an effort to forget about her; instead he ends up vacationing with her and the priceless British rocker she left him for. And hilarity ensues. Of course he meets someone to distract him, Rachel (Mila Kunis), the hotel hostess who is gorgeous, easy-going, and of course perfect for Peter, and with a few stumbles here and there, life goes on. Though, however obvious the plot may seem, the execution is fresh and funny, and has heart—without getting cheesy. It’s refreshingly different from other Apatow hits like Knocked Up and Superbad in that it doesn’t rely on the gross out factor for laughs, and everyone will leave with a little more love and respect for Jason Segel. The usual Apatow suspects make cameos: Jonah Hill as a slightly homosexual hotel worker, and Paul Rudd as the stoned surf pro. But two people really steal the show, and that’s Russell Brand, who plays Aldous Snow, the ridiculous, sensitive, and sexually motivated rocker Sarah left Peter for, and Kenneth from 30 Rock, aka Jack McBrayer, who plays a pious virgin having trouble with sex while on his honeymoon.
The Verdict: Take your man, take your best friend, just don’t take your mom, as looking at penises with parents is always awkward. This is one of those unique romantic comedies that’s appealing to both men and women. Everyone will love this movie, because it is uniquely human and real, but also hysterical. I saw it by myself and was guffawing to no one in particular in my solo chair (you know, the one that has its own row), and I’d do it again!
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
theothergyllenhaal
wrote on April 24 2008 @ 03:08 pm: [report]
Good review. One note: As a practicing guy, I feel I should point out that “turtle head” is the wrong term for the tip o’ the man ham. I won’t say what a turtle head actually is, but google it and click the first link if you’re interested.
Amelia
wrote on April 24 2008 @ 03:10 pm: [report]
Technically, I think the tip of the man ham comin’ out of its sleeve looks more like a turtle head than what you’re thinking of. What you’re thinking of, I call “touching cloth.”
rachelkramerbussel
wrote on April 24 2008 @ 04:10 pm: [report]
I thought it was hilarious, and to me the male nudity wasn’t that big of a deal either way (though I loved the first scene). I was a little concerned that it wouldn’t be a good date movie in that it’s about a breakup but I highly recommend it as a date movie. Russell Brand was extra hilarious and Mila Kunis was adorable.
I think it’s fascinating that a hard cock gets an X rating but a soft cock gets R. Am I the only one that thinks that’s odd? (I will say that my date complained that there wasn’t any female nudity once they flashed his dick so many times at the beginning.)
Elle
wrote on April 24 2008 @ 07:45 pm: [report]
Awesome review! Now I have an excuse to drag the boy to see it.
Alex
wrote on April 25 2008 @ 06:55 pm: [report]
How would all you women feel if this was a female completely naked showing her pussy. I don’t think yous would be talking the same way. Funny how women objectify and degrade men, yet get angry when men do it to them. I can’t even believe that the MPAA is allowing such graphic nudity in mainstream movies in the last year-and-a-half. Why don’t they allow full frontal with women. Pubic hair does not count and breasts are not genitals, I’m talking about a graphic shot of the pussy. I can name at least 15 movies recently that show graphic male nudity. There is such a double standard, yet it is the women who complain because they show a breast. Big deal! They also show men nude from behind often and also a male chest, which is the equvalent to a women’s chest. Not sexual, but still appealing to the opposite sex.
I am not calling for pussy in movies, but i am sick and tired of being appalled at the movies with male nudity. It is degrading and uncomfortable. If I wanted to watch that stuff, I’ll rent a porn. The MPAA needs to do something about this. Genitals do not belong in mainstream movies, male or female. Now Sex and the City and Harold and Kumar in the next month, along with other movies, have very graphic male full frontal, yet Harold and Kumar was forced to get rid of a pussy shot in the movie because the MPAA would not allow it. How could this double standard be allowed and how do your husbands and boyfriends feel about you women writing about and loving this male frontal nudity?
Amelia
wrote on April 25 2008 @ 09:15 pm: [report]
First, I don’t know which women you’re referring to that complain about breasts in movies. I don’t, in general. I do when it’s gratuitous and because women are tend to be objectified far more than men. But that is neither here nor there—the scene in this movie shows a penis for comedic effect, which is not gratuitous from my perspective.
Second, there is tons of full frontal female nudity in the movies. I just finished watching Atonement, an Oscar nominated movie and there was full-frontal in that. It was totally appropriate in that context as well. But in your view it sounds like the only vagina that would match that of a full-frontal penis shot is a vagina that’s spread. That’s ridiculous. Men were born with their genitals on full display and clearly the MPAA has decided that a penis garners an NC-17 rating only when it’s hard. Take that up with them if you think it’s unfair.
Third, women certainly objectify men, and we do on this site, in a very tongue in cheek way. Getting psyched about a comedy featuring an entire scene where a dude is naked is just plain funny and every guy I know who has seen this movie too has laughed hysterically as well. My fiance reads this site every day—I can assure you he doesn’t feel the least bit offended or insecure about me thinking the full frontal in Forgetting Sarah Marshall is hilarious and awesome.
Fourth, I challenge you to name the 15 movies in the last year and a half that had full frontal male nudity. Cause I see a lot of movies and I haven’t seen a penis on the big screen in FOREVER!
Lastly, penises are just funnier looking than vaginas. It’s not a bad thing. They just are! That’s why they’re always good for a cheap laugh.
Alex
wrote on April 26 2008 @ 08:41 am: [report]
I don’t consider pubic hair full frontal, and no I’m not suggesting a spread leg shot. 90% of women shave their pubic hair, yet 100% of women in movies have a bush that you need a lawnmower to get through. It’s not realistically represented because the MPAA has a double standard when it comes to showing a pussy. There have been movies that have tried and they are continually rejected. I find it uncomfortable to see any genitals in a movie so I would rather not see it from either gender, but if its going to be allowed for male full frontal then a graphic shot of a female should not be forbidden.
I don’t know if you watch much t.v. or read a lot, but women are constantly complaining about being objectified by all types of media. I get sick of hearing about it. Men are objectified just as much, if not more, by soap operas, bachellorette parties, strip clubs, and many other ways, but women just find that all in good fun and men are just jerks for doing it. Even you said that the objectifying of men on this site is tongue-and-cheek. My sister, her friends and many of my female friends have all admitted that women are FAR more piggish than men are and we would be shocked to know the things women do and talk about, so I get it that women like to do that sort of stuff, but women need to stop criticizing men when we have a little fun.
Lastly, I said in my post that I can name 15 movies recently that have shown male full frontal nudity. I meant that movies I have seen or heard about recently, and it’s not just movies, but shows on cable, also.
Jackass movie (in fact all 4 of them), King Lear, Hostel part 2, Eastern Promises, 28 Days Later, The Last King of Scotland, Into the Wild, Sex and the City, Harold and Kumar, Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, Borat, Saw IV, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, The Dreamers, American Psycho, Sideways, Kinsey, John Adams, Deadwood, Weeds, Lucky Louie, Tell Me You Love Me, Rome, Get Rich or Die Tryin, Shadowboxer, Queer as Folk, Six Feet Under, Big Love, Brokeback Mountain, Boogie Nights. There are more, but this is off the top of my head.
The thing I am trying to get across is women need to stop male bashing when men have some fun, we are not jerks, we just admire the female form. At least we’re not laughing at you. Women are just as guilty of objectifying men. I like some of the comments from some of the articles on this site. It is actually one of the few sites or any media outlet, including t.v., that has some good things to say about men for once instead of bashing us constantly.
Catherine
wrote on May 3 2008 @ 05:43 pm: [report]
Am I the only person who thought this movie sucked? There were approximately five funny lines in the entire thing, and the best part was the Dracula puppet musical.
Lex
wrote on September 30 2008 @ 04:12 pm: [report]
Amelia—chill! You are not making any sense and Alex is actually. I am a woman and frankly you did hit the nail on the head with one comment, namely, “it’s is for humor when a male is naked”. The fact is Alex is 110% right and instead of defending it by naming how many BUSHY vaginas have been shown let’s get real! Even the millisecond Basic Instinct view, which was MUCH more in line with the film than this gratuitous and rather nasty view of Jason Segal, was moaned about despite showing full male frontal nudity in the corpse which NOBODY notices—TO THIS DAY! The MPAA is perpetuating “paternalism” and patriarchy by perpetuating the opinion of a patriarchal society in saying male nudity=humor female=porn. Alex is also right that NOBODY has a bush anymore so how realistic is it and why did Harold and Kumar have to cut a vagina out when they are allowed to go forward with a clear view of male genitals yet again? Who is sitting there in that room with the MPAA? Are they seeing something the rest of us do not or being protective of women’s “vulnarability”? I am a feminist and I must say it is scary that so many other women are pro anti-male bias. We can never attain equality until we are equal. This goes for the ability to dish out and take what we dish out. I LOVE Sex and the City but there too the film went too far. It had always straddled the border of where to push but the male frontal was completely gratuitous AND unoriginal (the scene is taken directly from the series when Samantha again was in a relationship with the “endowment-challnged” man and went to the Yankees game with the girls and snuck a peak into the lockerroom). We always got the innuendo and this was gratuitous but not as gratuitous as this wack job Judd Apatow who has vowed “to put a penis in every movie I make”! The man is on a one person crusade to act like a 2 year old with a phallic fixation. He contends, as so many women have, that we have a phobia of “the penis” in this country. How many vaginas has he shown in his movies or seen in any other than porn? The fact is we sooner have vaginophobia and it is something that needs to be addressed with the MPAA as well as the general public. I can imagine if the scene in this, or any other film, were reversed, there would not be men allowed to write about it, nor women, and if women did it would be to proclaim it sexist and further, the films would be picketed, boycotted and pulled. The only way to equality is to stop all double standards.
Tim1974
wrote on October 6 2008 @ 05:57 am: [report]
It is nice to finally see a comment from a female about the existence of a double standard bias towards men in reference to exposing genitalia and the need for equality nudity in movies. Well stated Lex !!!!!!!!
JAMES LEE
wrote on October 28 2008 @ 12:39 pm: [report]
By keeping the pressure on male nudity women have virtually ensured that the vulva is not shown. When it is shown there is usually a lot of touch up with a stand in double, as in the case of the movie “Anatomy from Hell”. The title tells it all, the leading women’s vagina was deemed so ugly that they had to use a substitute. So we arrive at the why, the vulva is anatomically ugly and visually repulsive by comparison to the penis et al! Add the fact that the vulva stinks of smelly putrid fish, plus it leaks blood, dribbles urine, oozes cum, produces vaginal farts, and ejaculates, the latter serving no biological purpose but to drench the occupants of the bed in a foul smelly liquid. Why do you think women constantly spray, wash, douche etc their private parts – because they stink and women are embarrassed by this.