Of the two films, I liked Wedding Crashers because it was fairly amusing for the first hour or so. When it stopped being funny, I had to at least give director David Dobkin credit for maintaining something like a visual style with some attractive tracking shots. The point is made of being location specific, in this case Washington D.C., with the Washington monument given appropriate Freudian attention. The main reason to watch Wedding Crashers is for the repartee between Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn. They seem to enjoy playing off each other to the point where the narrative gets in the way. What I also found satisfying is that even after the Wilson and Vaughn have their respective and obligatory "life lessons", they didn't totally change from the characters they were at the beginning of the film.

The 40-Year-Old Virgin had a couple moments of mild amusement, like the chest waxing scene, and a scene depicting speed dating. I was troubled by the way the film tried to simultaneously make a joke out of Steve Carell's virginity with the narrative lurching from one bad date after another, and scenes of misguided male bonding, and at the same time present the virginity as a badge of honor. That the film was less visually interesting may due to writer-director Judd Apatow's background in television. But back to my original questions, I know that there are people who find Michel Simon uproarious seventy-three years after he was filmed stumbling around the Left Bank. Will there be anyone as similary enthused about the virgin and the crashers seventy-three years from now?