The Tom & Lorenzo Archives: 2006 -2011
Our current site is here: www.tomandlorenzo.com

Sex and the City 2 Trailer

Darlings. The SATC2 trailer. It is here.




Kittens, our fortunes may wax and wane over time, but there has always been one thing of which T Lo has never been in short supply: OPINIONS. And lucky you, we're going to give them to you for free.

Here's the thing: Like so many urban gays of a certain age, we shared the love with our urban straight sisters for Carrie and her backup singers. Because we occasionally lapse into stereotype, our place was THE place to go back in the late '90s/early aughties on Sunday nights. Yes, it's true. You could often find us whipping up a batch of Cosmos with some gal pals and sitting on the couch to discuss Carrie's latest cracktacular ensemble or her latest attempt to fuck up her life. It was fun and we truly loved the show, despite the tendency in later seasons to morph Carrie from quirky, vintage-wearing party girl into a couture princess fantasy. When it ended, we felt they (mostly) ended it well (Did EVERY ONE of them have to wind up with a man in the end after six seasons of driving home the point that women could be happy without the fairy tale?). We were hesitant about the first movie, but dutifully bought our tickets and (mostly) didn't like it.

But something happened in the zeitgeist when the show transitioned from HBO to the silver screen. It became very fashionable to hate on the show and especially to hate on Sarah Jessica Parker. Granted, in the years following the show finale, SJP apparently never met an endorsement she didn't like and from the Gap to Garnier to her own fragrance, she was out shilling like her life depended on it. That's a great way to make some big money for an actor, but it's also a great way to get the public to turn on you. Still, the vehemence with which many criticized her was a bit jarring, not least of which because so much criticism centered on her looks. Suddenly, it had been decided that SJP wasn't an actress with quirky good looks; now it was decided that she was downright ugly, a charge we find to be more than a little ridiculous. Sure, we've criticized some of her fashion choices, but we've always maintained that if SJP wasn't famous and she walked into a party, many if not all of the straight male heads in the room would turn in her direction, if for no other reason than she's still got a killer body, striking blue eyes and a sexy mane of blonde hair.

But it was the criticism of the show and the quality of the criticisms of the first movie that really got our backs up. Look, we criticized it too, but we criticized it on the merits, not on the fact that they're all in their 40s and sexually active, which is what so much of the bitching revolved around. That's a charge that really stuck in our craw because on any given day in any given year, you can check the movie listings and somewhere there's a big budget mainstream release wherein the male romantic lead is in his mid-40s AT LEAST and no one bats an eye, even when he's paired with a female a good ten to twenty years younger than he is. All this managed to prove to us is that the film critic industry is dominated by men. Seriously. Outside of Manohla Dargis in the NYT, we can't think of one leading film critic sans penis. What most of those male critics couldn't understand was that the very concept of Sex and the City was designed to make most straight men deeply uncomfortable. Instead of realizing that and owning their own reactions to it, many (most) of them simply wrote it off as a silly chick flick about sexually voracious middle-aged women who spend too much money. And when you think about it, that's a concept that really hits all the major areas of male entitlement and insecurity.

This is a very long-winded way of saying that even though we think the show's time has passed and the transition into movies wasn't a great idea from an aesthetic point of view, we will still defend those girls from what we think are unfair criticisms from people who never bothered to see the world past their noses. Of course they're shallow. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. It was never meant to be a show about the experiences of all women. It was a show about a very narrow sliver of the female experience: single, educated, financially secure urban white women over thirty. We don't know about you, but for our crowd, built in to the viewing experience of each show was the post-game wrapup, wherein a bunch of us, lubricated on Cosmos, sat around and talked about what a smacked ass Carrie is for mistreating Aiden, or for spending $40,000 on shoes without realizing it, or for constantly making everything about her. That wasn't a bug of the show; it was a feature. Pardon us for saying so, but (some) women like to judge other women. A simple check of our comments section bears this out on an almost daily basis. As an audience member, you weren't supposed to cheer on every decision or action the characters made; you were supposed to discuss them, as if you were all sitting around talking about the friends that weren't in the room; their fashion choices, their relationship choices, and even their career choices.

Now, having said all that...kittens, this trailer pains us. Obviously it's only a couple of minutes from a much longer movie, but it looks to us like the mistakes of the first film have only been magnified in the second. Gone are the complex, infuriating, quirky (there's that word again) women of the TV series and in their place are a bunch of over-the-top drag queens parading around in increasingly silly outfits. And the Morocco setting only makes us think of the AbFab episode where Patsy sold Saffy into white slavery.

Are we going to see it? Of course we are. But to be honest, we can practically guarantee that this movie isn't going to provide nearly the entertainment that sitting down with the DVDs from the first 4 seasons of the show does.









[Video: YouTube - Screencaps: Projectrungay.blogspot.com]



Post a Comment
113 comments:

I'm sorry but the trailer reminds me nothing more then Miss Piggy's song and dance in the pool in Muppet's take Manhattan.

This is terrible. I'm a staunch feminist and I think this so simplifies women to voracious sex fiends who love shopping and men that I can't deal with it. Escapism is great and I wouldn't really mind if we had great roles for females. But this friends is the show. This is it. This is the highlight most female actresses can aspire too.

That's just sad.


you must be kidding

Did someone just have a bag of money burning a hole in his pocket that he just had to spend on making a bad trailer for the sequel to a really, really, really bad movie? Further:

* SJP is too old for that hair
* Kim Cattrall is too old for that dress (any of them)
* Cynthia Nixon needs to eat, and
* Is Kristin Davis even in the movie?

The AbFab reference was right on, too. So true. Let the camel toe jokes begin.


Not much to say about the movie...The wit has been gone for a long time.

I'd rather watch the AbFab ep. "What's that honey, yogurty smell?"


bitchybitchybitchy

I loved the series, enjoyed the movie-because I always wanted to see Carrie settle down with Mr. Big (I have a definite crush on Chris Noth), but I hope, hope that this second movie will be the end of it all. I think they've done everything they can do with these characters, and they should let them go.

And, a big thank you to TLo for standing up for the gals and their right to be just who they are.

MWAHHH!!


i appreciate your thoughts boys.

i am looking forward to the 2nd movie & i liked the trailer.

sometimes i feel that people just want to bad mouth it/them just to be bad mouthing it. you know what i mean?


Where are they, Mesopotamia?


Amen to all your comments. The TV series itself used to bug because of the stereotypes and Carrie's self-absorbness, but you get over it and enjoy it for the guilty pleasure that it is.

Still, it does look a little like Ishtar near the end.


Who's playing Samantha's new man?
And. . . is that Big Carrie's smooching with in the car. . . or someone else??

Shit, I can't believe I even care.


I had to rewind the trailer because when I first saw the line, "Carrie On," I didn't think "carry on"....... I thought "carrion". That's no good, people who make trailers and film posters.


I really wish they hadn't made a second movie. I wasn't a big fan of the first movie, but it was still fun to go see it w/ girlfriends and reminise about how much we loved the show (esp the first 4 seasons as you boys cleverly pointed out). But the second one just looks awful. Like you said, I'll still see it but I hope it doesn't ruin the show for me.


Oh I Love that Ab Fab episode!!!!

m'eh I'll see the movie when it comes on cable.


"Outside of Manohla Dargis in the NYT, we can't think of one leading film critic sans penis."

Lisa Schwartzbaum writes excellent, insightful reviews for Entertainment Weekly.


Dead on. and thanks for that.

Also a staunch feminist, but for me that means this shallow shit is alright, too. It's not for ME, I never even saw the first movie b/c I liked the way the series ended, I was done and satisfied, but I can't see how it harms women. I'm pretty certain there are still meaty roles out there--just no one goes to see those movies.


I'll just pretend the movies never happened and watch my DVDs.


Amen! Great points, agree wholeheartedly.

Tiny side point: most straight men I know say they think SJP is unattractive. I think compared to the cookie cutter actresses out there, her quirky looks don't appeal to men on the hollywood level. She has the kind of style and looks that women, more than straight men, appreciate. But I'm sure they wouldn't kick her out of bed should the opportunity in the real world present itself.


Well, I just re-watched the movie for the first time since seeing it and I have to say -- it's better the second time.


I'll watch anything that has fashion and handsome Arab men. I'm shallow that way.


I have to say I enjoyed the movie and am looking forward to the the second one. To each his own I guess.


I am a shallow person. I spend too much money on shoes, clothes, vintage jewelry and handbags. I will go and see this movie with my mother. We will enjoy it. We will go and have a nice long lunch at an over-priced restaurant. We will have good time at lunch discussing all the "shallow" things in the movie. We will then go home and check back into the real world motel. It will be a great afternoon. There is no way my mother and I would have as much fun if we went to see Avatar or any other "10,000dudes get killed in the first ten minutes and the girl has big Kahunas" movie. I am already looking forward to the third Sex and the City movie. Bring It On!

TampaBay


That splashing sound you hear is the shark jumping.

~~JuliannK


You guys hit on so many great points (as always), much in the way the original HBO show did: Regardless of how over-the-top some of it became, there were basic truths in there for single, independent, urban woman over 30 (The episode that most readily comes to mind is the one where Tatum O'Neill plays the self-righteous Mommy - that was a classic in soooo many ways; that could only be fully understood by those whose lifestyle choices are not automatically, societally validated, as the entitled marriage/mommy track is). No other show EVER understood like SATC did. Ever. The original TV show rang true in at least parts every episode.

But I hated the movie from the very first line that was something like, 'women come to NYC for 2 things, labels and love'. Ugh.

Also, not for nothing, one of the best things about the original show was (as I've said before) its Gay Heart. In the movie, that was gone. It was as if they had made the conscious decision to dumb down for the mass market (conservative) audience that watched it on basic cable and they forgot all about the original, smarter audience. And it wasn't just because Anthony & Stanford were, in the movie, merely window dressing. Again, back to the Tatum episode (because it so exemplified the best of the original), it was a parable that could only have been written by people who, also, have to live in this society with those self-righteous mommies (& daddies) who have this sense of entitlement that THEIR lifestyle choices be validated by all, when all the while, their OWN lifestyle (or more accurately, their own very BEING) is off-handedly dismissed as being Less Than by that same society. That is the Gay Heart, that is so relatable to older, independent, urban women, that was missing from the movie. It couldn't be heard over the volume of all the designer crap.

At their best, those four women were gay men. The clothes were always background noise/flavor in the show, but the producers drove off into a ditch when they allowed the labels to become so loud it drowned out the soul of the show.

And I completely agree about all the unfair criticisms that SJP has gotten. There is a subtext to it all, and not just a sexist one. A lot of people are dancing around, pretty much saying that she doesn't deserve her success because she isn't a button-nosed, all-American girl (ie; she's too ethnic). It is the same kind of sense of societal entitlement working: That certain kinds of people are deserving and certain kinds of people are not.

Regardless of my dislike for the first movie, and despite the fact that what I REALLY dislike the most about how popular the franchise has become, is the fact that my neighborhood is continually over-run by bridge & tunnel Carrie wannabes, I'll probably go see it. How can I not?

But I also have to mention -- Talk about bad timing...in that poster, with that expression and those glasses, Carrie looks a lot like that Tiger Woods escort who broke the tabloid story. That's unfortunate.

--GothamTomato


Ha! Maybe somebody will pull a bag of weed out of their hair too!

You guys are dead wrong about straight guys finding her attractive. I cant speak for all straight guys obvs, but I've never met one that liked her. Sure they'd look at her boobs for a few seconds, but thats about it.


so much to digest, haven't even gotten to all the comments... but don't forget the wonderful Ann Hornaday who reviews for the Washington Post!


i really don't understand the point tlo tried to make

i do remember though, that the show morphed from season 1 onto season 2 into something completely different

i think the format of the show does not fit a movie format, at all...


As I sit here in my target jeans and sweatshirt, a feminist with a PhD, no desire to own a pair of $400 shoes, and opinions of my own, I will state that
1) I actually liked the first movie (so kill me), probably because I went to see it alone as a "chick flick" respite from Dad and a 6 month old, and I also have a crush on Chris Noth
2) Mommies with senses of entitlement, or who run around suggesting a female is incomplete without man or baby, should be sent to an island so the rest of us don't get a bad rap
3) SJP, who I have never found particularly attractive in print, always gets measurably more attractive the minute she smiles and speaks, because she always comes across as decent, likable and lacking in arrogance.

Having said that, I'll probably wait until it is on video.

Ms_flyover


I'm going to watch some AbFab right now. Excellent palette cleanser.


Agree, AGREE. I love that the setting is New York. I am not bored with that, and yet, the ladies head to Dubai?! Huh??

I WILL go see it. I am a sucker. But, I think S&C is way past its expiration date.

Also, SJP is a stunner. And her hair is still to die for.


I can't frickin' wait for this movie! I hadn't seen the trailer, so thanks for the post. I can see the criticisms, but I'm going to be there as soon as it hits the screen!


Tiny side point: most straight men I know say they think SJP is unattractive. I think compared to the cookie cutter actresses out there, her quirky looks don't appeal to men on the hollywood level. She has the kind of style and looks that women, more than straight men, appreciate. But I'm sure they wouldn't kick her out of bed should the opportunity in the real world present itself.
Agree with a lot of this. Most men I know think SJP is TOO skinny, and is trying to still look young with her clothes and her overly done make-up. She wears so much eyeliner, it overwhelms her blue eyes!! And the only role I liked her in was Square Pegs, nothing since then. I don't think she is talented, and don't see why she is so admired. And she has sold herself to so many things, it doesn't mean anything!

I don't think this means I am a mean, nasty woman who hates other women. I love Drew Barrymore, Meryl Streep, Diane Keaton, I even like Sandra Bullock. SJP just rubs me the wrong way.


I think one thing that has been missed by the critics and some of the public is what has been the most important part of the show to me, and to many other women, I suspect.

The friendship, folks, the friendship of these four women. No other show, ever, has portrayed the depth, yes I said depth, because it is consistent throughout the series, of the relationships maintained with all the drama, the conflicts, the fights, the affairs, the ordinary bits of life, the health crises, the silliness of plotlines, the fashion—finally coming back to the love and respect they all have for one another, whatever choices have been made that a character may or may not agree with.

And the showcasing of New York has also been a character, an enveloping fifth character, hovering over everyone, and, at times, directly influencing their actions.

There are many things to be witty and catty about with SATC, if one concentrates on the often shallow subject matter of an individual show. But examine the series as a whole under the umbrella of deep and abiding friendship, it seems true to me, that the television landscape is all the better for this unique show having existed.

Thanks, Tom and Lorenzo, for your thoughtful commentary. I agree with almost all of it.





um, hum...stepping down off my soapbox, now...love to everyone...

MaryLu


Mary Lu- You took the words right out of my mouth! SATC was NOT about the guys or clothes or jobs, but the relationships between these women. I will be seeing SATC with a group of my women friends, we will eat, drink and laugh at this movie in May.


I think SATC's expiration date has passed. That said, I'll probably see the movie. Why not? I know what to expect!

I have to admit I'm a little baffled by many of the negative comments (here and elsewhere) along the lines of what TLo said. I certainly consider myself a feminist and I know I'm not offended by the show, movies, or characters. When watching it, it becomes clear that the show is more than just its title (which I personally don't find offensive either).


AMEN to Sunshine who said, "The friendship, folks, the friendship of these four women. No other show, ever, has portrayed the depth, yes I said depth, because it is consistent throughout the series, of the relationships maintained with all the drama, the conflicts, the fights, the affairs, the ordinary bits of life, the health crises, the silliness of plotlines, the fashion—finally coming back to the love and respect they all have for one another, whatever choices have been made that a character may or may not agree with."

The friendships were why I watched this show and loved every minute of it. They were real! As an adult woman, you worry about the choices your friends make, etc. You fight with your friends. You get pissed off at them, but at the end of the day you stand by them through it all.

I was THRILLED they were making a movie when the first one came out, and I loved every over-the-top moment even the happily-ever-after ending. However, I did think it strayed from the show.

I have been a naysayer of the second movie the entire time, but after the trailer came out, I couldn't help but get a little excited about the girls being back! I know it will be trite and tacky and over-the-top, but I will enjoy every minute of it and pray they don't make a 3rd! ;)


I too loved the series and did not like the first movie. My only problem with SATC is the effect it had on misguided 20-something girls who aspired to be like these characters. As a 40-something women living in the big city, these girls are annoying. They think their dreams will come true if they shop till they drop, drink expensive cocktails in trendy bars every night and sleep with every guy they see.


Minor opinion here. Hated Big. I so wanted Carrie to come back from Europe when the series ended all on her own and happy about it. When the wedding plans stalled in the first movie I again cheered fro her to kick him to the curb.

The show is pretty much mindless escapism at this point, so despite my hatred of Big I'll probably go see this.


I TOTALLY agree! The first movie really sucked. All of my friends were talking about how fabulous it was afterwards and I was like...uh...accue me?

I will undoubtedly see this one too. But, I'm going to go into it not expecting much, so I don't set myself up for disappointment.


"I'm pretty certain there are still meaty roles out there--just no one goes to see those movies."

Yes, but could SJP pull off the different things that Meryl Streep has done during the last 5-10 years? She could never, ever, be sinister in "The Devil Wears Prada"; I can't imagine her eating enough to even think about playing Julia Child; and she'd simper her way through "It's Complicated" the same way she did through her menage a trois with Aiden and Big. She hasn't even managed to bring a Hugh Grant movie to the same level that Sandra Bullock can achieve fairly easily.

There are meaty roles for women out there. It's just that Meryl (deservedly) gets there first. Maybe SJP needs to pair up with some meaty people instead of those same three dreary New York stereotypes.


"Sunshine said: The friendship, folks, the friendship of these four women.

—finally coming back to the love and respect they all have for one another, whatever choices have been made that a character may or may not agree with."




I second that emotion.

--GothamTomato


WHAT A TESTAMENT! AMEN!

And as the first movie was entertaining (NOT in a SATC way) and occasionally painful to watch, something tells me the second will be a LOT of pain and very little entertainment.


What a great post! It's nice to see someone standing up for the ladies.

Along the lines of what Sunshine said, the friendships are the star of the show. As different as my life may look from theirs, my friendships look very similar. And the older I get (I'm approaching 30) the more similar they get. The friendships between the four women are the primary relationships in each of their lives, and that's how life is for me, my friends, my aunts, my mom.

I liked the first movie, or parts of it, because of the realistic way it portrayed Carrie's heartbreak and eventual recovery with the aid of her girlfriends. I have been her in that scene when she looks in the mirror after arriving in Mexico, totally devastated. Every woman I know has been her in that scene.

Obviously they're just making the second movie because the first one was so profitable. Eh, whatever. I'll see it, take what I can from it, and laugh at the now-ludicrous outfits. My BFF's and I will sit around getting wasted and talking about the characters as if they were real, hoping we look even a tenth as amazing as SJP does when we're in our 40s.


What an insightful, astute and profound analysis of SATC and the phenomenon surrounding the show and it's characters & actresses. I've had a love/hate thing going on with SJP since Square Pegs(yeah, I'm like, that old!), but have noticed over the years as her career has progressed and her work has gone from intelligent to froth (case in point, LA Story), it's been open season on the woman --- especially since the series ended. Personally, I really enjoyed SATC, the film, and although I had my share of snark to vent over it, overall I thought that it wasn't that bad for a big, budget, feature-length comedy.

Now, as far as a second film goes, it makes me wonder what else is there to say about these characters and their lives? I'll definitely see the film (first-run), but when I saw sand dunes and Morocco, I thought that I was watching a SNL Digital Short and looked for Andy Samberg. A bit over the top and excessive on many levels. Anway, thanks for another excellent post. I can't say that I cannot.wait, but my expectations of present day, big-budget, mainstream entertainment is pretty low.

edina

P.S. Thanks for pointing out the AbFab comparison. Morocco was my all-time fave epi. Which SATC character do you think will be sold into the white-slavery trade?


I do appreciate your take on the show and the films, but you also have to realize that what made them so fun and lovable in the '90s is very dated now. The actresses and the characters have chronologically aged and both the actresses and the characters need to reflect that. I think the reason for so much of the criticism is that they haven't changed with the times. SJP dresses and acts like she's still Carrie, even in her real life. Between that and whoring herself out to anyone with a checkbook, she's lost that lovable appeal she once had. You can only be relatable as the lovable underdog for so long. After that it becomes annoying. The audience is growing and changing changing and the characters are not. That's what I see as the biggest problem with SATC.


This was a fun series for its time with lots of eye candy and escapism (for most of us that can't afford a 3-martini lunch every day). But please--JUST LET IT GO ALREADY. The characters are done. The first movie blew...just let it die.


so when are we going to get TLo's rundown of the Top Ten Best and Top Ten Worst Outfits of Sex and the City (or maybe top 40?- 10 per...)


Gotham Tomato said: "The clothes were always background noise/flavor in the show, but the producers drove off into a ditch when they allowed the labels to become so loud it drowned out the soul of the show."

Thank you boys and GT and all the other minions for such a thoughtful discussion of what worked about the series and where the SATC movie went off the rails.

I was particularly irritated as it seemed like the product placement in the movie was a bit much, not at all what I'd remembered from the series. Yes, I know there was always a certain degree of that on the show (Manolo B. could give much thanks to that) but the movie seemed to take it down to the next level.

Yes, the friendships and attitude (as GT so aptly observed) were at the heart of this show. I can't say i'm up for round 2 but will probably wind up seeing it.

srq


Great post! I agree with the people who wrote to say that what drew them in was the relationships between the women on the show. I also think that it was one of the few TV comedies at the time that really felt like it was made for adults and addressed issues that real adults deal with today(in addition to all of the throwaway fun and amusing ones).

By the way, another great female movie reviewer is Stephanie Zacharek on Salon.com. I think she is the best writer on movies today - male or female.

Thanks guys!


TLo, that was a great analysis of the series, the first movie, and of why SATC has always gotten so much criticism.

I have to say, though, that I've never liked the show. Not because of the concept, but rather it just never grew on me. BUT, as a single, 30-something woman living in the city (Philadelphia), I can absolutely appreciate what Carrie & Co. represent(ed).

Just from that angle, I think the show has "jumped the shark" precisely because now they're all married off, with babies, etc. Their characters have evolved and changed, and are no longer the women that their fans loved and admired, and that made the show such a success 10 years ago.


I think I must be missing a gene or something, but I never really liked SATC. I didn't like Ally McBeal either.
But certainly don't have anything against Sarah Jessica Parker's looks or age. And I enjoy the way she dresses most of the time


la aterciopelada

Don't think it's such a hot idea to evoke "Ishtar", one of the most expensive flops ever.

Nevertheless, I'll probably still get together with friends for cocktails and viewing. It might have to wait until DVD this time, though.


Who the fuck cares if most straight men "wouldn't find SJP attractive"? I mean, really. What possible meaning can be found in such a statement?


Wow, I am totally stunned by the negative tone of the posts. Why should women who still look fabulous in their 40s and 50s dress like old ladies and change their affluent life styles when purportedly they have money?? Miranda is a lawyer, Carrie married a self-made millionaire and is a successful writer and journalist, Charlotte is married to a highly successful lawyer, and Samantha is an artist's representative and agent with beaucoup bucks of her own! What, suddenly the characters are supposed to stop coloring their hair and shop at Target before they meet at the corner bodega for 99 cent hot dogs and giant slushies?

We love SATC BECAUSE the women are glamorous and wealthy and BFFL. Buy a clue and quit being jealous. Their life style is completely removed from my own, but who hasn't been self-absorbed, completely broken hearted over a man, faced a huge public embarassment, fought with and been estranged from their best friend for a time, endured betrayal, worried about getting older, etc. The themes of the show and the film are universal, old or young, straight or gay.

I have seen the first movie at least a half dozen times and enjoy it more every time I watch it. By the way, didn't anybody else pick up on the sly homage to Tim Gunn & New York in the poster's play on words 'Carrie On..'? I can't wait for the second movie. I hope these gals are still evolving into their 60s and 70s. I will be right in the front row, cheering them on.


And the Morocco setting only makes us think of the AbFab episode where Patsy sold Saffy into white slavery

One of my favorite episodes ever! Second only to "Doorknob", which is how I got the name Gorgeous Things in the first place.


"the friendship, the fun, the fashion"....real clever copy.
terrible trailer, another terrible sequel to a great series.
These women haven't changed but become caricatures of their former fabulous characters on the series.

it looks like the only star of this will be, and as should be New York City.


Two thoughts--

One, why is everyone so hard on SJP for making some money through endorsements, be it perfume or Garnier or whatever? Did she ever promise all of us that she wouldn't make money outside of acting? Do we say that sports figures are "whoring" themselves out when they endorse various products? Hey, if someone would pay me to put my name on a perfume, I'd do it in a second and stop this government lawyer gig. We all have to make our money when people are still willing to hire us, and she's on record as stating that she feels financially responsible for her large family (siblings and parents, I mean). And it's not like she's starring in pornos on the side or something. Geez.

Two, I'm 41 with a husband and a toddler, but when I was in my mid-30s and single and sitting and watching SATC with my sister, we loved it. No, we never wore those clothes (it was too funny when they finally came up with an explanation as to how Carrie lived in such a huge Manhattan apartment) or slept with the laundry list of guys they did, but the friendships, the terrible dates, the general happiness tinged with the desire to find a decent mate in life, hey, that was us....and the movie WAS lame, but my sister and I went as a lovely escape from work, husbands and kids, etc., and she loved it all over again. Truth be told, she and I will probably go to as many of these movies as they crank out.


I loved the series, but didn't really like the movie. It just annoyed me how everything had a nice neat bow on it at the end. I don't think I'll watch the sequel.

BTW, my hubby LOVES SJP and thinks she's still hot.


Granted,I was never a fan of SATC but in regards to SJP's looks,I recall a couple of conversations with my dad(who passed away a few years ago),who didn't understand why she was considered to be such a sex magnet on the show. I tried to explain to him that she was supposed to be the brains(her character is a writer,IIRC)and not necessarily the babe of the bunch.

To me,there's always a Little Women paradigm whenever you have a story with four females in it-one is the Jo(smart),another is the Meg(heart)and the others are either a Beth(sweetly innocent) or an Amy(sassy). Golden Girls,The Facts of Life,Designing Women-this standard pretty much holds up over time. Carrie seemed to be the Jo of the group to me.

As I said,not into the SATC scene at all but that doesn't mean I'm too good for shallow. One of my major guilty pleasures is the Rachel Zoe Project(Brad is a sweetheart)and the guy who plays Damon on The Vampire Diaries is tre sexy in my book,so there you go:)

The only reason they even made a sequel is because men in Hollywood were shocked that women would pay big money at the box office to see something to go to a movie without needing their boyfriend/husband to take them:( Try to think more outside of the box there,fellas and give us something better than a Spenderella story,okay?


Funny you mention "over the top drag queens" because my first thought in relation to that next to last picture was "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" - a fabulous movie, by the way.


I love you T Lo, I totally agree with alllllll of your comments about the first movie and its backlash.

I, too, wish for the days of SATC yore: the complications, the silliness, and the honesty. The show was so damn honest. And this movie is not honest. Maybe it's rough to judge a trailer, but I'm going to do it anyway.

From the moment I saw the HBO logo in crystals, I knew what we were in for: Priscilla Queen of the Desert. Minus all of the fun.


Brooklyn Bomber said...

"Who the fuck cares if most straight men "wouldn't find SJP attractive"? I mean, really. What possible meaning can be found in such a statement?"
***********************************

(LOL) Thank you, BB! I, too, wondered what the relevance was in that statement. I've always assumed that straight men weren't exactly part of the target audience of SATC. And if they were, must they be sexually attracted to SJP & Co. to enjoy the program and buy the endorsed products?

Now, let's all talk about the awesomeness and brilliance of AbFab, shall we?


edina


I'm a little scared, but I'll see it. Just like I watched the Dynasty reunion and many other shows reuniting the casts of favorite series. I want to see what my old 'friends' are up to.

The critical fuss by the predominantly male critics over SATC reminded me of the similar outcry over Thelma and Louise. How dare women be self-empowered and not need men, or god forbid, be more powerful than men!

And you Boys are dead on about the unfair attacks on Ms. Parker.

I met SJP after a screening of The Family Stone and was shocked by how tiny, cute and just plain normal she was. The features that are often pointed out and ridiculed - the chin and nose - were completely normal in person. She was quite attractive and a really lovely person.

The movie - if the SATC ladies have a chance to cash in once last time and pad their nest eggs, more power to them.


There is absolutely no reason, whatsoever, to have made this film. Granted, there are a ridiculous number of films like that released every year (did anyone harbor deep and burning questions that could only be answered by a "Transformers" sequel? Anyone? Bueller?), but there's something offensive about SATC, a flawed but fun half-hour program with friendship at the heart of it, being turned into yet another empty and soulless filmmakers' exercise in attempting to rake in cash. I will not be going to see this film, nor will I rent it. I might stop while flipping channels to see a bit of it, but I have absolutely no plans to spend my money on it. I'll just watch the reruns, thank you.


Just checking in to agree with TLo. Again!

Series was a must-see, the movie a disappointment for many of the reasons stated by others. I'll wait for it on cable.

Pop-Specs for all! I'm going home to watch some AbFab.


I agree TLo with all you say about the strange mean-spirited backlash and the flaws of the movie, which I found boring and without the snap of the TV series.

But, I liked the trailer. It capitalizes on the fun and the fashion and the friendship, which is understandable. And I liked all that.

Hope #2 is good!


You said it, Edina. I'm peeling the gold foil of a Bolly's as we speak!


I love this series because, no matter how bad my romantic life and choices have been, these girls' were so much worse.

I mean, I never dated a guy who was in a mental institution. I never had somebody break up with me on a post-it note. I never kept going back to a guy who repeatedly humiliated me, even ditching me to marry someone else. And that's not even getting into the fashion disasters!

I have also really hated the comments and treatment of SJP. One men's magazine even named her the least sexy woman! She seems to me to be a nice, funny gal and has said that these comments about her appearance hurt her feelings. If I hear that she has a horse face or is too thin ONE MORE TIME, y'all are going to hear me scream no matter where you live. Oh, how original. And maybe fashion models are too thin? Nobody ever thought of that before, either.


I love when TLo gets their feminist on! Yes these movies are crap but they are no more crap than whatever comic book gore fest teenage boy blockbuster got released this week. The sad fact is it will be one of the few female centered splashy blockbuster films of 2010. You guys are spot on as to why that makes people uncomfortable.

One thing I will criticize SJP for is centering herself too much in both the series and the film. It worked as an ensemble, no so much as Princess Carrie and her acolytes. The character isn't likable enough for that to work.


Funny, I always assumed that SJP got a pass on her looks because she is blond and skinny, and that's seems to be all you need to be considered "attractive" in this country. It doesn't matter how your face looks, and boobs are a bonus.

I loved the show, was excited about the first movie, didn't care enough to actually watch it, and will spend no more time thinking about the sequel.


And the Morocco setting only makes us think of the AbFab episode where Patsy sold Saffy into white slavery.

OMFG, you guys are soooo right, as usual.

IMO, SATC was very of its time, and that time is not now (despite all the $$$ it made last year). That being said, I appreciate your defense of it, and I agree that I saw a lot of sexism in the reviews of the previous movie, and in all the shock over how a "chick flick" could've made so much money.

But OMG. A turban, Carrie? WTF?


First of all, boys, nice right hook to the chauvinistic tendencies still alive in the American entertainment industry.

In terms Sex and the City itself, I genuinely enjoyed all six seasons and the first movie. There were a lot of flaws, but SatC always came into my life in the form of DVDs or the movie when I needed to recover from a failed relationship. Watching four confident, if crazy, women get through the ups and downs of life together always made me feel better. So for that, the show will always hold a special place for me. I know it won't be very good, but I'm looking forward to the new movie.


Straight men are downright antagonistic towards SATC, and SJP in particular. It's like they're offended by the existence of a show that is just not for them on any level. They resent the idea that a woman over a certain age, or a woman with non-standard looks, could be portrayed as sexually active or desirable. Seriously, the hostility I've encountered in discussions of this show on other internet forums has been downright shocking, and at it's root is sexism. Straight men feel like they must give their imprimatur to a woman if she is to be deemed a sex symbol, not realizing that SJP is sort of a platonic sex symbol for straight women and gay men. All they can say is "she has a big nose" or "her face is shaped like a foot" (thanks, Family Guy). They're missing the point. The show is about a love affair between four women, and with NYC. Straight men have almost all of Hollywood catering to their tastes; why can't they just accept that they don't get SATC and ignore it? Why the hate? Is their sense of entitlement so great? This is why I love this blog; none of that nonsense here.


You are so right on so many counts. But stop a minute -- film and tv are different mediums. Movies have to be cinematic. And SATC, lovely period piece though it is, was a small show about small, intimate, interesting moments. So, yes, Morocco. It may turn out awful, but truth is they need to make the whole concept broader (so to speak) in order to make it translate. That said, I think Kim, especially, looks magnificent.


SATC is missing so many opportunities to find the poignancy and relevance the HBO series enjoyed for so many years.

- Morocco? What's the point of Morocco? When did this become a Hope/Cosby "On the Road to" movie? And where is Dorothy Lamour?

- Bernie Madoff should be all over SATC 2. He should be the poster boy that ruins all the glamorous glitzy dreams of SATC 1 and forces the girls to finally get real.

- PR is Samatha's gig and in the aughts, PR was king. Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan and more recently, certain CEOs of major Wall Street companies have had major PR snafus and had to call in reinforcements. Hell, SATC 2, if properly written, could have foretold the downfall of Tiger Woods! Missed opportunity!

- Death of Journalism and Publishing. Newspapers and books buttered Carrie's bread. Imagine if she, like Tina Brown, had to turn to the blogosphere and start from scratch?

- Gay marriage. SATC could have moved the gays out of the "Stepin' Fetchit" roles they previously had into a plotline that directly and pointedly explained why "domestic partnerships" fall short of bona fide marriages. To dramatize a couple not being able to make medical decisions, share property, or adopt a child would have been so iconic. It wouldn't have to be heavy. When Samantha pulled her wig off, everyone who ever had chemo could instantly relate. It was a funny moment, but touching all the same.

It takes good writers to do this. Unfortunately, in SATC, everyone plays to type.

Hope and Crosby did it better. So did Dorothy Lamour.


Thank you thank you THANK YOU for mentioning Ab Fab! That's what I thought too!


"Bill said: I met SJP after a screening of The Family Stone and was shocked by how tiny, cute and just plain normal she was. The features that are often pointed out and ridiculed - the chin and nose - were completely normal in person. She was quite attractive and a really lovely person."




Agreed. I sometimes see her walking her son to school, no make-up, and absolutely gorgeous.

--GothamTomato


That's a charge that really stuck in our craw because on any given day in any given year, you can check the movie listings and somewhere there's a big budget mainstream release wherein the male romantic lead is in his mid-40s AT LEAST and no one bats an eye, even when he's paired with a female a good ten to twenty years younger than he is. All this managed to prove to us is that the film critic industry is dominated by men. Seriously.

I've never been big on the comment section love-fests, because when I say it, I want it to count. I love you guys. Seriously.


GothamTomato, you nailed it with the Gay Heart. I remember watching my SATC DVDs (especially when dealing with Mommy and Daddy Entitlement) and being like "Yes, someone finally gets it!"


I don't think that the whole friendship angle was that original. In fact, I think female friendships were better portrayed in Designing Women and The Golden Girls.
truth be told, if I knew the four ladies in real life, I wouldn't want to spend much time with them.

I think what the show did was show women that embraced their sexuality - and on occasion I think it on occasion made some interesting social commentary

Hated Carrie and Big.

And SJP will always be Patty Greene to me - and for that I will always love her.


i'm not dorothy gale

You are SO right about thinking about the AbFab episode! I thought "Carrie, the Queen of the Desert". And yeah, we'll probably go see it too.


Wannabe, Woody Allen made an entire career out of making small, intimate movies in NYC. Granted, not big blockbusters but I read that they always have made money. Besides, NYC is a fantastically cinematic city.

It's called "Sex and THE CITY" NOT "Sex and THE DESERT." I have a feeling that whoever the hotelier in Morocco gave Gwyneth Paltrow and all those other stars huge sums to promote his hotel during Thanksgiving is involved in this somehow.

Someone also said that the women in "Sex and the City" really weren't women, but gay men. I don't know if that's true--being a woman, they seemed pretty accurate to me in many respects. But they have a strong appeal for both straight women and gay men, that I know. Te friendships had a lot to do with it, along with the fashion and just the whole feel of the show. The frank talk about sex from a woman's viewpoint definitely raised some eyebrows, and some people (i.e. MEN) really don't like it.

I know a straight, married guy who loves the show. And he loves, loves, loves Kim Cattrall!


I don't think the characters in SATC are any more significant to feminism and the view/image of women than the characters in "The Hangover" or "Superbad" are significant to the image of men. It's funny and exaggerated and, in its day, it was shocking and groundbreaking. (SATC, not the others.)

It IS troubling, however, that the movies put so much emphasis on romance. In the series, it WAS the friendship that was most important, and even Mr. Big recognized that at the end.


Real Housewives of Local Drivel. Same girl drama, same cleavage baring fashions, different locale. Ho Hum.


I've never seen so much hypocrisy on this site. You people really need to take a hard long look @ yourselves, your own prejudices then maybe you'll have the right to talk this kind of disparaging shit. TLo, how many ads do you have on your blog? But SJP "never saw an endorsement she didn't like?" I'm sure given her popularity she's turned down a lot. What have you turned down lately?
Why no discussion about the lack of diversity in the series or the movies? W/ the exception of Blair Underwood's character (who was himself a racist stereotype of "the good kind"), every person of color in the series was depicted negatively (note: only being superficially portrayed as helpful to whites is not positive). Jennifer Hudson's "magic negro" role in the 1st film is not diversity. Nor is a 4 year old Chinese girl.
Obviously the lot of you are guilty of what you constantly blame the character Carrie (& by ridiculous association SJP) for-- being myopically self centered.

SJP should be lauded for @ least trying to depict women in their 40's (& beyond) in the film positively through a shit storm of opposition from Warner Bros who fought the making of the 1st movie tooth & nail (which is why it took more than 4 years to make).

& keep in mind, the trailer was approximately a minute 15 & still we're discussing it like we've seen the whole thing!
You may sneer @ Michael Patrick King's (who, like it or not, has taken a very insular pay cable show--face it, that's all it was until word of mouth & the critics began talking about it as award worthy-- & turned it into a half a billion dollar franchise empire) writing ability, but that's talent.

TLo, You can guarantee a film's value after seeing a little more than a minute? Really? You certainly missed your calling. If you can do that by reading a page & a half of a screenplay (scripts roughly run a page a minute) you'd save Hollywood (& make) billions!

@FotoVerite:
"This is the highlight most female actresses can aspire too. "
Are you kidding?
Meryl Streep had several in the last few years.
So did Cate Blanchett.
Sandra Bullock.
Hilary Swank.
Where are the mainstream lead roles for Penelope Cruz? Halle Barry? Zhang Ziyi et al? I don't hear any complaints about their absolute lack of substantial roles.
You people slay me.


This looks almost retardedly bad, but who is the guy flirting with Kim Cattrall? He looks really hot.


That was a great post! =) I was never a huge fan, but reading that made me want to be! It gave me an idea of the experience of watching it and makes me realize why it was always so popular. And that whole 40-something male lead getting with a 10-20 year younger females thing made me go, "right on!" I'm so sick and tired of double standards. Even though this isn't the type of movie that makes me proud to be a feminist, the world definitely needs more movies like this that smash expectations of over 40 = celibate. Good woman = chaste.

But the movie itself? I don't really go see movies in the theater and doubt I'd make an exception for this one. However, I do hope it surprises everybody in a good way, makes a sh*tload of money and forces the industry to make more woman-centric films. Although a non-romantic comedy once in a while would be awesome.


I just don't understand the Dubai thing. Dubai? Why? I get that they go on vacation, but why there?


Whoops, I mean Morocco, not Dubai. I think Dubai was the original choice though.


I second the sentiments about SATC breaking down the old virgin/whore dichotomy.

I remember entering college at UCLA after living in a somewhat sheltered suburb and my roommate introduced me to SATC and I was shocked to learn that masturbation and sexual fantasy were *NOT* abnormal for women. This was a revelation for me because I had engaged in both in high school and felt *ashamed.* SATC helped me realize that you don't have to be chaste to be a "good" girl.

Sorry for the mushfest.


I loved the show, most definitely did not love the movie. But I went to see it knowing its flaws, bc I want hollywood and the movie industry to know that I support projects with women over 40, and I will spend my money saying so.

I would rather watch the quiet but well drawn characters and portrayal of women over 40 in Then She Found me which Helen Hunt (no plastic surgery, hardly any make-up and looking real and lovely) wrote, starred in and directed (SJP's husband played Helen Hunt's husband but not love interest in this film).

I also appplaud the sexing up of these sexy, accomplished women. The comment I heard most about Meryl Streep's portrayal of Julia Child was that her marriage and sexual relationship with her husband Paul was juicy, delicious OR, she is too old to have sex and enjoy it.

That is a ridiculous sentiment. All that said, SATC is still a silly movie, most likely a waste of $12 and a couple of hours. Will I see it? yes.


You guys are right on about EVERYTHING! I was really saddened and repulsed by the first SATC movie but not because I was grossed out by the concept of superficial, materialistic, money-obsessed middle aged women trying to have their last hurrah, but because of the charms and flaws and quirks and idiosyncratic weird bits of all the characters were gone and replaced by over the top, immediately identifiable caricatures and tropes (narratives threads that you can predict within two seconds of being introduced.) And it horrified and disgusted me to realize how many male movie critics were critiquing the movie on terms that they would never critique say a pure action film (full of expensive gadgets and technology constantly on display that all of the male leads use but a woman over 40 who still dares to waste money on a cute dress? Disgusting!) The reviews were so so so clearly rooted in basic, sexist beliefs & you're totally right about it tapping into so many male fears.

My heart swelled after reading this sentence: "Instead of realizing that and owning their own reactions to it, many (most) of them simply wrote it off as a silly chick flick about sexually voracious middle-aged women who spend too much money. And when you think about it, that's a concept that really hits all the major areas of male entitlement and insecurity."

Thank you for the best, smartest post ever!!

xx Jenny


"Nancee said: There are meaty roles for women out there. It's just that Meryl (deservedly) gets there first."





SJP & Meryl Streep would never be going up for the same roles. Meryl is about 20 years older (for starters) and has always been a character actress - never an ingenue. SJP has always been an ingenue - a quirky ingenue, but an ingenue all the same.

All casting starts with 'typing', no matter how high up the food chain you go. Actors are 'typed' based , almost entirely, on the way they look: Casting directors, producers, etc decide what the actor will be believable as (to them). SJP would never be typed for any of those roles you mentioned (especially not Julia Child who was about a foot taller than SJP).

You try to make it a knock on SJP that she wouldn't be believable in the same roles as Meryl Streep, but by the same token, would Meryl Streep be believable as Carrie Bradshaw? The reality is they each have their own, equally valuable, niche and career strategy. And both have been lucky enough to be successful, over a long period, in an industry where the unemployment rate is about 96%.

--GothamTomato


"we've always maintained that if SJP wasn't famous and she walked into a party, many if not all of the straight male heads in the room would turn in her direction,"

Spoken like a couple of gay guys.

The problem with SJP/Carrie is that the Carrie character got seriously annoying by the end of the series. I'm all for 40 yo women having sex - just stop dressing like your 19, batting your eyelashes and putting on a fake baby voice when you talk to a man. I watched the series to the end despite Carrie, not because of her. And then the movie she turns into a bridezilla? Not really in character with who she was throughout the series.

It just got sillier and sillier and this new trailer is not promising to reverse the trend.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"we've always maintained that if SJP wasn't famous and she walked into a party, many if not all of the straight male heads in the room would turn in her direction,"

Spoken like a couple of gay guys.


On what planet do straight men NOT check out the skinny girl with the big tits and the long blonde hair?


"Anonymous said...

I've never seen so much hypocrisy on this site. You people really need to take a hard long look @ yourselves, your own prejudices then maybe you'll have the right to talk this kind of disparaging shit. TLo, how many ads do you have on your blog? But SJP "never saw an endorsement she didn't like?" I'm sure given her popularity she's turned down a lot. What have you turned down lately?
Why no discussion about the lack of diversity in the series or the movies? W/ the exception of Blair Underwood's character (who was himself a racist stereotype of "the good kind"), every person of color in the series was depicted negatively (note: only being superficially portrayed as helpful to whites is not positive). Jennifer Hudson's "magic negro" role in the 1st film is not diversity. Nor is a 4 year old Chinese girl.
Obviously the lot of you are guilty of what you constantly blame the character Carrie (& by ridiculous association SJP) for-- being myopically self centered.

SJP should be lauded for @ least trying to depict women in their 40's (& beyond) in the film positively through a shit storm of opposition from Warner Bros who fought the making of the 1st movie tooth & nail (which is why it took more than 4 years to make).

& keep in mind, the trailer was approximately a minute 15 & still we're discussing it like we've seen the whole thing!
You may sneer @ Michael Patrick King's (who, like it or not, has taken a very insular pay cable show--face it, that's all it was until word of mouth & the critics began talking about it as award worthy-- & turned it into a half a billion dollar franchise empire) writing ability, but that's talent.

TLo, You can guarantee a film's value after seeing a little more than a minute? Really? You certainly missed your calling. If you can do that by reading a page & a half of a screenplay (scripts roughly run a page a minute) you'd save Hollywood (& make) billions!

@FotoVerite:
"This is the highlight most female actresses can aspire too. "
Are you kidding?
Meryl Streep had several in the last few years.
So did Cate Blanchett.
Sandra Bullock.
Hilary Swank.
Where are the mainstream lead roles for Penelope Cruz? Halle Barry? Zhang Ziyi et al? I don't hear any complaints about their absolute lack of substantial roles.
You people slay me."


Someone needs to switch to decaf. Or Ativan.


Just wanted to second the Lisa Schwartzbaum mention. She's been at EW for years, is in the New York Critics Film Circle, etc. I'd say she's a leading film critic.

That I can only think of her and Dargis proves your point anyway.


you must be kidding

"SATC breaking down the old virgin/whore dichotomy."

Surely you jest. These women sleep with anyone; I recall one estimate that each had had at least 15 partners per season (14 for Charlotte).

Believe me, there are plenty of virgins out there (or at least those whose total number of sexual partners is in the single digits).

There's no dichotomy at all here.


I never loved the series, though I liked to watch fore the style & clothes sometimes. I didn't bother to see the movie in the theaters, and I probably won't see this one till it hits DVD.

BUT. I want them to wait 5-10 years (or, exaggerate rather than minimize the effects of time on the actresses to simulate 10 years) and show the band of sister-friends really grown up. As materially spoiled urbanites who've discovered the hard parts of life (parents with dementia, ill children, increasing numbers of friends who die - and it only feels like it's too soon, marriages that end, leaving children and grandchildren to share, etc.) And who are still bonded, still there for each other, and still able to enjoy life in the face of a mature reality.

Maybe that's too much melodrama, but I'd love to see these actresses showing the depth that real people, men and women, often achieve in their 50's and 60's. Raise your hand if you know [several] someone[s] who were once frighteninly hard-livers who are now monogamous/celibate and either "in recovery" or simply health conscious, who still burn with the same warm flame that made them the center of their circles in the first place. I know a few.

The S&tC women can still be strangely well-to-do, sexual people who enjoy the things that money can buy, yet show a mature appreciation of life. And I think that could be a great movie.


I can't wait!!! Even if the trailer made me think of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert...or maybe because of it :)


From the majority of comments I'm reading here, it wasn't a second SATC movie they should have made but a full featured Ab Fab. I know I'd pay to go see that.


I'll see it on DVD or on HBO.


I love fashion, so I like watching it. But, and it's a big but, I don't know if it was SJP or the writers, but somewhere along the way Carrie became kind of an asshole. They kept doing things to humiliate the other three women (they did it throughout the series Miranda eating out of the garbage, Charlotte shitting herself etc.)but Carrie floated along unscathed. They also gave big emotional hurdles for the other three. Infertility, cancer and a mother in law with dementia and Carrie's big struggle was moving to Paris with her rich boyfriend. Which she complained about. Woman, you are a writer. Try writing. You are also a fashion person...Paris is the damn capital of fashion. It is your mecca. I know this show likes to imagine New York is the only good place to live, but Paris is ok, too.

I think this whole Carrie situation was illustrated when Carrie screeched (sreeched!) at Miranda that she ruined Carrie's marriage. Actually,Carrie, Big just did exactly what he had done 10 000 times before in your 10 year relationship. And Miranda supported you 10,000 times when he did. You might have been too busy trying on a billion couture wedding dresses to realize this. So you, being self-absorbed and Big, being a child, together ruined your marriage.

But yeah, the fashion is good. Merry Christmas!!!


Oh, and if they wait a few more years for the third movie, the four of them can move into a beachy house in Miami with bright floral wicker furniture. They can crack wise and thank each other for being a friend.


sigh. it is what it is. let's get back to the reasons this movie could exist in the substance-less vacuum of a pop culture we are all living through: war, economic turmoil, exponential joblessness.is that more fun to talk about? well then, don't hate on purposeful mindlessness like it's the real problem.


For all the complaining that has occurred in this thread, most people admit that in spite of extremely low expectations, they will go ahead and see the movie... which means that no matter how terrible, there WILL be a third. If people EXPECT a crummy movie and pay money to see it anyway, why not continue making sequels ad nauseum?


One of the greatest legacies of the series is that they never had comedy come from the women's incompetence at work. It was always a given that they were good at their jobs (no Grace Adler bullshit in this show) and that was a huge step forward for women portrayed on comedy TV.


Ah, from the mouths of sage TLo - referring to the girls as Drag Queens really resonated and summed up perfectly what was so off and disjointed about the first film and, (hopefully not but it's not looking promising) the second: These women have become vacuous, self-obsessed charactures of themselves, in direct opposition to why those of us who loved the series fell in love with these women in the first place: Beautifully written to be complex, perfectly realized by this quartet of actors, they were real enough to be relatable and not just this side of real enough to be the glamorous fiction we all waited for each Sunday night. But the film eschewed their relatability and made them couture blow up dolls. The film was nothing but a NYC version of The Hills.

Yes, the majority here will go to the sequel. If they're like me, it'll be about hope: The hope that the new film will capture what we loved best about the series. But I am fully expecting to be disappointed.


There are millions of action films released which are no Fellini. With level game-based stories, repetitive plots, totally superficial characters. Watched by many or flopped, whatever. One may think they are crap, or not, or watch them anyway, but they do not provoke the vitriol that the SATC films do... What if they were crap, arent' they watched by millions? isn't that more than enough reason to make them? do not legions of people find them enterntaining? Have they claimed they want to be the next Cannes festival winners, or aim at beeing the next Sundance intelectual cult flick hit?

The funny thing is that someone who's not interested in watching, say, 2012 may say, I don't like disaster movies, or whatever. But many critics of SATC (and yes, whether they write in a newspaper or they are your friend from next door, they tend to be straight men), seem to take it so personally, to find it so utterly offensive. Why do you care? As to women not dressing or behaving their age, again, the opinions seem so extreme. If SJP wears a trendy bikini, how is that not funny as opposed to threatening? what do you find so obnoxious about the concept? what on earth are you afraid of?


I like the show when it was airing - but when I matured and re-watched it, I just couldn't relate to it anymore. Sex and The City has such an immature way of looking at human relationships - that it's hard to take it seriously past just being a comedy. That said, the first movie was horrible. The writing was bad - it was like 3 bad episodes smushed together. And the big drama of the show was that Big had cold feet and Carrie couldn't get past herself enough to love him through it. 13 year old drama.

Sex and The City is just one big giant commercial. And I'm not talking about the constant ads placed in it. I'm talking about this concept of how we are supposed to relate to each other and the world that this show is selling. It wants us to be immature, self centered babies. And people eat it up -- and then wonder why their relationships go down the drain. I can't even bring myself to see this movie -- I've grown out of Sex and The City. I'm suprised at any adult person who hasn't.


Relax. It's comedy.


Abfab in Morocco was totally my first thought! Good call :)


No turbans!!

-Anon1


Thankyou, Tlo, for defending SJP's looks! It makes me love you even more. I can't stand it when people mock other people's faces; nobody chose the face they have. She looks like so many women who are very pretty but not in a Hollywood cut-out way. It's crazy that we live in a world where good-looking women often feel bad about their looks just because they don't have small noses or oval faces or whatever.

Thank you also mentioning the Ab Fab Morocco episode - it makes me laugh just to think about it. Edina: "Have you eaten something?" Patsy: "Not since 1973".


Yay! Love SJP. Will be there opening weekend!!





BALMAIN for women

Blog Archive

Search This Blog

Loading...

Project Runway