Quantcast
subscriber help

artisanal film reviews | by maryann johanson

Sex and the City 2 (review)

Workin’ on the Sparkle


(for fabulous brainless gals who lurve sparkle)

(for everyone else)

Thank Jimmy Choo for feminism! Am I right, ladies? I mean, not the nasty hairy feminism that’s all about equal pay and publicly subsidized day care and all that nonsense: All a girl needs to do is catch herself a Mr. Big, and then she can hire a full-time live-in nanny and do whatever “work” she wants to do for fun, like writing books about her sex life or calling it “PR” when she fucks a movie star and later brags in this week’s hot nightspot about what a great lay she was with him. Now that’s fun!

No, thank Jimmy Choo for the kind of feminism that has freed women to have as much awesome fun as possible! I’m talking about the fabulous kind of feminism, where wealthy white privilege is healing and a gal is liberated from having to be “interesting” — we all know that’s code for “dog” anyway — or having to think about anything unpleasant, unless it’s about menopause or being forced to sit around a boring old pre-war Fifth Avenue apartment — not even a penthouse! — with her boring old husband.

But a woman should be free from having to think about anything. Oh, it’s so frustrating! I don’t know how Carrie puts up with Big, who leaves her alone all day while he’s working, doing whatever it is he does with all his money, investing or something, and then doesn’t even have the decency to head out onto the town with her in the evening. What a rat! And after she’d gone to all the trouble of decorating that flat with the most expensive furniture she could find on Madison Avenue. “I’ve been cheating on fashion with furniture,” Carrie tells a shop assistant who hasn’t seen her in a while. And that’s one of the things I love about Carrie and her besties: they say stuff that sounds smart without sounding like they actually think about anything at all! Because only ugly unfabulous girls like actually thinking about stuff. There’s no reason to have to think about things. Life is fun! Have a cocktail and relax!

Oh, how I love Sex and the City 2! It gives you exactly the same feeling you get from the September Vogue every year: lots and lots of ads about lots of shiny sparkly things that cost an absolute fortune and make you feel so great that you can’t stop buying! It used to be (or so I read in The Feminine Mystique, which is this great old book from like the 1800s or something) that women were only supposed to buy, like, cake mixes and washing machines, but now feminism means that women can spend all their money on shoes and vintage Valentino and botox and $25 mixed drinks. And I’m sorry, but anyone who says that it doesn’t make sense to wear vintage Valentino while you’re making cupcakes for your kid’s school or to wear a formal ballgown skirt and a $200 T-shirt in an Abu Dhabi marketplace is just jealous, and probably too poor to be able to afford it. Get yourself a Mr. Big, girlfriend! Or at least write a book about your sex life.

Ah, yes, so Carrie and Samantha and Miranda and the other one go to Abu Dhabi, which is this fantastic place in the Middle East. And they get to go for free, because Samantha fucked that movie star and now he’s an even huger movie star, and the Abu Dhabi Arab guys want Samantha to do the same for Abu Dhabi, too! That turns out to be really funny, actually. Of course you’ve heard about how awful the Middle East is for women, but it turns out that it’s not really that bad, and the women there are all fabulous under their burqas and all read Suzanne Somers books about hormones, just like Samantha does. And Samantha gets to “fuck” nasty Arab men and their nasty Arab hangups about women — it’s because they don’t like feminists. I’ve heard those news stories about Westerners in the Middle East who end up in jail for months or years just because they kiss in a public place, but I don’t believe it, because it that were true, Samantha would totally be, like, executed for what she does! So it can’t be true.

I guess really the whole point of the movie is for Big to learn how special Carrie is, because she happens to run into her old boyfriend Aidan in Abu Dhabi — I know! it’s like that one time I ran into my cousin at Bergdorf! Because earlier Carrie had told Big that they need to “work on the sparkle” in their relationship, and then along comes Aidan who tells Carrie how she’s not like any other woman! And it’s true, because Carrie wrote books about her sex life, which hardly anyone else does, but she can also talk about shoes and shopping. And then Big gives her some more bling, which is so romantic I could die. Because we all know that when Carrie said she wanted more sparkle in their relationship, that’s what she meant.


Like what you’re reading? Sign up for the daily digest email and get links to all the day’s new reviews and other posts.

shop to support Flick Filosopher

Independent film criticism needs your support to survive. I receive a small commission when you purchase almost anything at iTunes (globally) and at Amazon (US, Canada, UK):

    

watch at home


MPAA: rated R for some strong sexual content and language

viewed at a semipublic screening with an audience of critics and ordinary moviegoers

official site | IMDb | trailer
more reviews: Movie Review Query Engine

If you’re tempted to post a comment that resembles anything on the film review comment bingo card, you might want to reconsider.

  • Andrews

    *slow clap*

  • Vanessa

    MaryAnn–
    You are now officially a goddess!

    Hysterical review and thank you for taking down a franchise that started out clever and fun and ended up a parody of itself!

  • gale

    I was never a fan but went with my adult daughters. They loved the tv show and even they hated it. Stilted dialogue, truly amateurish acting, a ridiculous story line. If only it had been a little *more* bad, then we could have laughed at it. As it was, I’m not sure which nauseated me more: the movie or the horde of women who seemed enamored with it! Worst movie ever.

  • JoshDM

    So… I take it you regret not writing about your sex life?

  • yesmam

    Ah, yes, post-feminism! We can buy everything that we want. Nice satire.

  • M

    *others join in applause*

  • Alex Ortiz

    Mary-Ann
    Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

  • Tina

    Was it as good as the series? No. The first movie? No. But crikey you review it like it’s supposed to be some masterpiece theater.

    Come on people … IT’S A MOVIE. It’s fluff. Review it for what it is. And it’s a nicer version of those crazy Housewives of the OC, JERSEY, Beverly Hills or whatever concoction that Bravo cooks up and that you ALL secretly tune into, but will never admit to watching.

  • Laurel

    @Tina

    Sure there can be “fluff” movies, but if you’re going to spend $95 million dollars, at least make it intelligent and funny enough to be worth while. This movie was designed for one thing: taking people’s money, and I would rather pay money for something actually entertaining than drivel that I could watch on tv for free.

  • Me

    Like, OMG, this review was hysterically funny!

  • WalkSoftly

    Absolutely brilliant review. I’ve just found a new “go-to” source for information and reviews as to which movies to see, and which to possibly skip. Not that I’d allow anyone to substitute their judgment for mine (nor would you want me to) but finding a critic who is intelligently critical – not to mention extremely funny – is a rare thing.

    Very well done indeed – I didn’t see the first one until it appeared on cable TV and fell asleep mid-way through it, and I’m quite certain this one is worse based on the “story-line” (PWP) and offensive, or rather, more offensive, to boot.

  • A.J.

    To those who would say “Hey, it’s just a movie,” and state that critics should expect so much, I say thee “FOOEY!”

    If we don’t call a piece of poo what it is, then the movie studios will keep giving us bad films. If they don’t hear “Hey, maybe ‘Sex and the City 7–Taking on Des Moines’ is a bad idea” loud and clear, they’re going to spend millions upon millions of dollars on crap and we won’t get to see the good films that should be made.

  • RogerBW

    Read the subtitle as “Workin’ on the spackle”.

    Clearly there is a market for this stuff. I don’t know anyone who is in it. Thank goodness!

  • David St. Hubbins

    Thank you, MaryAnn! *stands, continues applause*

  • B24

    You. Are.Awesome.

    I love love LOVE this critique…except for the part about her outfit for the marketplace: I’ve actually worn similar get-ups on occasion while working in Arabic countries ( insert face palm here); nothin’ wrong with sporting a ball skirt and t-shirt and shrug in a souk! In countries where they have varying degrees of the Muslim religion the outfits the women wear are VERY creative and more fashion forward than we think…just gotta remember to cover those arms and “most” of the legs and you’ll be fine. I was shocked by the outfits worn on the posters for the film and was actually wondering if that was going to be an issue.

  • Tina

    @Laural …

    All this talk about intelligence and drivel cracks me up because reviewer Maryann Johanson can’t wait for the A-Team movie to come out! That just tells me everything right there! I can’t take her seriously, lol!!!

    To me, Ms. Johanson doesn’t like Sex and The City series or otherwise which is fine, but she’s not reviewing the movie just things she hates about the whole franchise.

    Besides, when was the last time you saw a $95M movie that was intelligent?

    Let’s see:

    Avatar: Wait! I spent 2 hours with flying lizards to sit through something that was a rip off of Pocahontas?

    The Twilight Series: If Bella is the heroine for her generation of girls then they ALL are in trouble.

    And I would watch Sex and The City 2 over and over again, than Saw 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 or Hostel 1,2,3, or Last House On The Left. To me the latter are designed for one thing: taking people’s money.

    I’m not saying Sex And The City 2 isn’t flawed, but some parts were good. And having read other reviews, what I dislike is how the male reviewers are attacking how the women look (and I’m not talking about clothes). I’m sorry all women can’t look like 22-year old Megan Fox but come on, Kim Cattrall and the girls great! Too bad so many people are looking at plastic surgery enhanced women that they don’t appreciate the real thing when they see it.

  • Brian

    @Tina: Precisely who fits into your definition of “ALL” . . . ? ‘Cause I’ve never once even thought about watching any show containing the word “Housewives.”

    I have actually seen a few episodes of “Sex and the City,” and it’s a miracle that I didn’t smother myself with my own couch cushions afterward. I could not believe that the catty, shallow, materialistic, and downright cruel women depicted were supposed to be relatable to anyone at all, let alone an appealing or acceptable portrayal of actual women. Yet there I was in a room full of otherwise reasonable, smart, pleasant women who were eating it all with a spoon. I was uncomfortable for them – it was like sitting in a theatre full of African-Americans to watch a minstrel show, and seeing them all really enjoying it. It didn’t make sense to me.

    The difference between this and a movie like The A-Team is that The A-Team is supposed to be hyperbolic and cartoony, and makes no pretense of being anything else. The women of SATC are supposed to be “real” . . . and if people, especially women, buy that . . . well, that troubles me.

  • Der Bruno Stroszek

    Oh come on, Tina, the A-Team movie’s just going to be fluff! It’s just a bit of fun! It’s not Masterpiece Theater or anything, but it’s better than Saw 6, so you shouldn’t criticise it, the end.

  • Sandy

    Another funny review, MaryAnn, but where are all the brainless gals who lurve sparkle to accuse you of being a lesbian with menstruating friends who drive ’96 Saabs and stay home on Saturday night?

    You managed to deeply rile up the sexually stunted fratboys to the tune of 170+ comments in your review of MacGruber, but no one has insulted you yet with this review. What’s up with that?

  • Having grown up in one of the three Des Moines in the US (the Iowan one), I can promise you that there will never be a Sex in the City movie in any of them.

    Next stop, Portland, OR, where one of them can take yoga, be enlightened by scented sticks, and get herself a girlfriend.

    Oh, and Tina, she did review it as fluff. That’s why she was being funny instead of doing an in-depth examination of the superficality of American cultural consumerism and the regressive, infantilization of the concept of individualism.

  • LaSargenta

    …but no one has insulted you yet with this review. What’s up with that?

    Sandy, what do YOU know? I needed time to let my nails dry before I could tell her what a pathetic hairy lesbian she is!

    And then, because she at least appreciates how wondeful Jimmy Choo shoes are (but she forgot about the Louboutin!), I’d be happy to let her have a couple of coupons I have for Botox and tanning…

  • MaryAnn

    And it’s a nicer version of those crazy Housewives of the OC, JERSEY, Beverly Hills or whatever concoction that Bravo cooks up and that you ALL secretly tune into, but will never admit to watching.

    I hate that shit too. I gladly admit to watching anything I actually watch, and see no point in pretending I don’t. Which is why I am not embarrassed to admit I’m looking forward to the *A-Team* movie. Though I will rip it apart if it makes me as angry as this movie made me.

    Some people would be embarrassed to admit that they are obessessed with *Doctor Who.* I’ve made it a virtue. :->

    And having read other reviews, what I dislike is how the male reviewers are attacking how the women look (and I’m not talking about clothes).

    I don’t like that, either. And I didn’t do that.

    nothin’ wrong with sporting a ball skirt and t-shirt and shrug in a souk! In countries where they have varying degrees of the Muslim religion the outfits the women wear are VERY creative and more fashion forward than we think

    I know Carrie’s look is supposed to be fashionable, but I think it looks ridiculous… even on the streets of Manhattan.

    If the skirt and tee were purchased for two bucks in a secondhand shop, that would be less objectionable to me. It’s when designers appropriate cheap funk and turn around and sell it to idiots like Carrie for absurd amounts of money that my stomach turns. And that Carrie buys it and accepts it as “fashionable” because a designer and a magazine told her it was just boggles the mind.

  • Brian

    @Brian … I was assuming (sorry) that those who would be
    viewing Housewives of ____ are female and the gays (I know my gays do). And that is who I am writing to.

    And it’s fine that you don’t like Sex and The City series or the movies. There are plenty of male generated movies of hateful, catty, men that just appall me as well. Watching sitcoms like Two and Half Men (I’ve seen a few) give me that smother me with my own couch cushions, too for the reasons you dislike Sex and The City so much. Or just watch a sitcom with a fat ugly balding male who somehow snags a skinny, beautiful wife and then will put her down all the time. Yeah that’s appealing. Come on the list is endless. And they are supposed to be “real”.

    @ Der Bruno Stroszek. EXACTLY … the A-Team, Sex and The City is NOT Masterpiece Theater. We should all stop thinking that they are trying to depict “real” people. But I’m sorry, Mr. Bruno, I never liked the A-Team, so this would just bored the hell out of me. BUT I hope you go out and have a good time. And I won’t criticize you if you like that stuff. Or call you stupid or brainless or whatever because you want to see YOUR version of fluff!!!

  • Tina

    Ooops. Sorry I typed Brian instead of my own name. I hate working on a laptop without a mouse, lol ..

    @Brian … I was assuming (sorry) that those who would be
    viewing Housewives of ____ are female and the gays (I know my gays do). And that is who I am writing to.

    And it’s fine that you don’t like Sex and The City series or the movies. There are plenty of male generated movies of hateful, catty, men that just appall me as well. Watching sitcoms like Two and Half Men (I’ve seen a few) give me that smother me with my own couch cushions, too for the reasons you dislike Sex and The City so much. Or just watch a sitcom with a fat ugly balding male who somehow snags a skinny, beautiful wife and then will put her down all the time. Yeah that’s appealing. Come on the list is endless. And they are supposed to be “real”.

    @ Der Bruno Stroszek. EXACTLY … the A-Team, Sex and The City is NOT Masterpiece Theater. We should all stop thinking that they are trying to depict “real” people. But I’m sorry, Mr. Bruno, I never liked the A-Team, so this would just bored the hell out of me. BUT I hope you go out and have a good time. And I won’t criticize you if you like that stuff. Or call you stupid or brainless or whatever because you want to see YOUR version of fluff!!!

  • Brian

    @Tina: Congratulations, you missed Der Bruno’s point completely. And how do you know I’m not gay, anyway?

  • Tina

    @Brian, thanks for the congrats. I’m sorry I missed the point. But since we are writing and there is no voice inflection, sometimes it’s hard to figure out who is being sarcastic. :)

    Brian, maybe I’m wrong but how you described your dislike for the series is a tip off that you are straight! LOL or you are still in the closet and don’t know gay culture at all.

    I’m not saying that ALL gays like Sex and the City or Housewives of ________________ but looking who was at the theater watching the movie yesterday it was women and lots of rows of men sitting with men who clapped when the movie was over. Maybe I shouldn’t assume! It could be straight guys trying to get in touch with their feminine side. LOL …

    And since we are in the information age, I tried to google “gays who hate/dislike sex and the city” or “homosexuals who hate/dislike sex and the city” and came up with nothing. Go figure.

  • AsimovLives

    SEX AND THE CITY 2 looks to be as bad as JJ Abrams’ TRASH TREK.

  • Kim

    I never could figure out why I just couldn’t get into this show like other women. Thanks to your hilarious review, I know why. I actually live in the real world and take pride in being a woman who doesn’t need Jimmy Choo and to say “fabulous” and oogle over every expensive designer.

  • Cat

    I can’t believe all those year watching Sex and the City, bought the DVD’s and then they come out with not one but two crappy films. People can say whatever they like, these films are trash. I’m sure there is an audience for this film but I pray that there are no more sequels because someone needs to put down the cosmopolitan.

    By the way, I loved the A-Team also, but I have zero interest in seeing a film version of it. I know that going to allow to believe that my dislike of this is irrelevant because of that, but I will keep repeating this film sucks big time.

  • And since we are in the information age, I tried to google “gays who hate/dislike sex and the city” or “homosexuals who hate/dislike sex and the city” and came up with nothing. Go figure.

    Oh, they’re out there. Google harder. ;-)

    Here’s one:

    http://thenewgay.net/2010/05/sex-and-the-shitty.html

  • CAS

    This is the first review I’ve read by MaryAnn, and I’m bookmarking your site now. Hilarious! I’m almost glad they made this awful movie just so I could read your review of it. Exposes everything I hate about the series, the franchise, etc. But then, I guess I must be a hairy feminist from Oregon. And I spend less on clothes in a year than these women spend in a single shopping trip. (But I won’t admit how much I spend on my horse…) Rancher wives in eastern Oregon are more feminist than these chicks. Thanx for showing me that it’s not representative of ALL women in New York City (or back east, for that matter)…

    PS: I’m a huge Dr. Who fan, too! :-D Ya’ want a real feminine icon, try some of the Doctor’s companions…

  • Tina

    @BlueJay … I never said that there WEREN’T gays who didn’t like Sex and The City. But but after 10 pages in Google, I didn’t find anything. It doesn’t surprise me that some PEOPLE don’t like it — including some gays.

    I just know what I saw at the theater were a lot of men sitting with men, which I can assume were not straight. I know my gay male and female pals are excited to go! Sorry, but I know NONE of my male straight friends want to go see this. And already telling their girlfriends no.

    While some women can’t understand why other women spend money on Jimmy Choo shoes or designer clothes. There will be those who don’t understand why other women spend their money on horses (and living in Florida horse country I know) which is freaking expensive.

    And if some people are using a film or tv show to form conclusions about others from a particular zip code, no wonder we have some much misunderstanding in the world.

  • Ken

    And it’s a nicer version of those crazy Housewives of the OC, JERSEY, Beverly Hills or whatever concoction that Bravo cooks up and that you ALL secretly tune into, but will never admit to watching.

    You’re new here, aren’t you?

  • MaryAnn

    It could be straight guys trying to get in touch with their feminine side. LOL …

    This is another thing I hate about SATC: that it’s supposedly “feminine.”

    Perhaps it is. Perhaps the world thinks that “feminine” means “shallow, materialistic, overprivileged, sheltered, dependent on male approval, and lacking an inner life.”

    This is what the world has thought women are since forever, in fact.

    There is nothing feminist about this shit. This is retrograde garbage that ascribes a narrow place in the world for women.

    Thanx for showing me that it’s not representative of ALL women in New York City

    Oh dear god, is it NOT representative of New York City, except in the fantasies of, perhaps, the gay male mastermind of the show, who is, it appears, fixated on Barbie dolls.

    If some women want to enjoy this as “fluff,” good for them. I, however, do not want my fluff to enrage me. Of course fluff cannot, by definition, be deep. But it also should not utterly contradict everything I know about life as a woman.

  • Bonkfast

    Okay, I will admit, I liked the movie, but this review was absolutely hilarious.

    As for my opinion… well, as I watched the Sex and the City TV series, I often asked myself, “Why the hell do I watch this?” It is my third biggest guilty pleasure of a show (behind Chapelle’s Show and It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia). It’s not a show I’d recommend to just anyone, but the first movie answered all my questions. I feel some people who aren’t fans of the show may actually like the first movie. It got right down to the show’s heart.

    When I saw this movie, I feel it’s just like an elongated episode of the TV series (to quote Homer from The Simpsons Movie, “We’re paying to watch something we can see on the TV for free! If you ask me, everyone in this theater is a sucker! Especially you!”). It has more fanservice than a Megan Fox film, more shirtless men than Twilight, and more product placement than Yu-Gi-Oh! (and none of this an exaggeration). I’ll say the second half seemed to have some substance and turned it around (though the very end focused too much on Carrie – the series, sans the finale, gave everyone equal screen time), but still, I don’t recommend this to anyone who isn’t a fan.

  • wooster182

    I have seen several episodes of the show and it’s a nice way to spend a dark couple of hours at 2:00 am when you can’t sleep.

    So I thought the first movie would be fun to watch. It was absolute trash. Carrie is even more irritating and self involved. Samantha dumps the best man in the entire series universe because she just wants more sex and Charlotte is there only for slapstick comedic effect that is never funny. The actress’ lack of skill was never more noticeable than the farcical scream “NO!!” she yells at Big during the wedding scene. That’s when I had to change the channel. I finished watching it, but just out of self torture.

    So I’m sure this one is even worse. The most interesting character and definitely the smartest, Miranda, is always abused by her friends as though she’s not as good as them. Hell, she’s the only one that should be allowed to exist!

    What I don’t like about the films is that they don’t feel like the show. They are too plastic, too rushed, the dialogue is too forced, and there’s no sense of depth at all. At least on the show, they tried to give them some sense of depth, even if it was in its shallowest form.

  • Great review. Sly and funny.

  • Paul

    “Perhaps the world thinks that “feminine” means “shallow, materialistic, overprivileged, sheltered, dependent on male approval, and lacking an inner life.”

    This is what the world has thought women are since forever, in fact.”

    Speaking as a former history major, I would go out on a limb and say what men have thought of women changes with what they want from women, from era to era. Whatever they want from women, they say that’s what real women are. The 4th and 5th adjectives are the most consistent over time, but since the most consistent ideal women is as a mother, the other adjectives listed above aren’t as common. And for some reason what men say women are is usually in opposition to what men say men are (leaving aside the issue of if men are what men say we are).

    Speaking as a guy, in my experience women do the same thing to men when they have the power to do so. I heard so many women tell me what “real men” were in college, and so many verisons of it, that I started tuning it out and went back to playing D&D to maintain my sanity (such as it was).

  • MaryAnn

    Okay, not that’s only been the definition of “feminine” since the post-WWII era. It’s long enough.

  • Rancher wives in eastern Oregon are more feminist than these chicks.

    Actually Western states were among the first in the Union to give women equal rights–including the right to vote–and it’s been argued by some historians I’ve read that feminists in Western states were originally more successful in the West because they were preaching to women who regularly worked beside men on ranches and other locations and saw little benefit in the traditional laws which governed men and women back home–whereas feminists in Eastern states were often preaching to women who thought they benefited from the way things were already set up.

  • *slow clap*

    But is that a Citizen Kane type of slow clap or a Brubaker type of slow clap? ;-)

    I’m not saying that ALL gays like Sex and the City or Housewives of ________________ but looking who was at the theater watching the movie yesterday it was women and lots of rows of men sitting with men who clapped when the movie was over. Maybe I shouldn’t assume! It could be straight guys trying to get in touch with their feminine side. LOL …

    I guess I picked the wrong week to admit that the only guy in my family who admits to watching Sex and the City on a regular basis is a notorious homophobe who loves to kvetch about his former girlfriends almost as much as he does about gay people…

  • Ken

    But is that a Citizen Kane type of slow clap or a Brubaker type of slow clap? ;-)

    I visualized the Joker slow clap. One could just pick one from here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhTiJEYqqY8

  • Bonkfast

    “Samantha dumps the best man in the entire series universe because she just wants more sex”

    It’s not that – it was because they promised to spend Valentine’s Day together and he worked extra late anyway.

    “and Charlotte is there only for slapstick comedic effect that is never funny.”

    Please explain this further.

  • Bonkfast

    While I generally don’t jump to Sex and the City 2‘s defense despite my enjoyment of the film, there is one thing I will say…

    No sitcom is meant to be “real” at all! Not Friends, not Will & Grace, and most definitely not Sex and the City! (And I enjoy Will & Grace and Friends too.) In fact, it’s just as fictitious and Transformers, Jennifer’s Body, Twilight, and Yu-Gi-Oh!, and just because it doesn’t have robots, demons, vampires, or ancient Egyptian magic card games doesn’t mean it’s supposed to be “real”. You’re not supposed to take a sitcom seriously.

  • wooster182

    “It’s not that – it was because they promised to spend Valentine’s Day together and he worked extra late anyway.”

    I just watched the movie a few weeks ago. She dumps him because she says she doesn’t want a boyfriend. She’s miserable in LA. She wants to go back to NYC and have meaningless sex.

    ………………………

    “Explain further.”

    What storyline does she have in this movie? She doesn’t have one. All I recall her doing through the entire film is her screaming at Big at the wedding and then defecating in Mexico. That’s what Charlotte was reduced to in this film.

  • Muzz

    There’ a lot of people saying that this is just a bit of fun and not meant to be taken seriously. But while the series was a comedy of sorts, it was held in seriously high esteem for representing the “modern successful woman” and giving intelligent insight into high powered womanhood. Maybe it was just the Camile Paglia echo chamber, but seriously it was supposed to be landmark television and people wouldn’t shut up about it.

    Maybe it was, I don’t know. I only watched it a couple of times. But these films… the more I hear about them they sound like crass farces, the kind where you’re supposed to hate the main characters, laugh at their horrid vapidness and delight at their misfortunes. Then because they don’t die horribly at the end it foments all out revolution at the sheer injustice in society.
    That or some sort of ludicrously over-the-top anti-American Islamic propganda film from somewhere in Pakistan (albeit with somewhat higher production values).

    This is what landmark women’s television boils down to? Again, I haven’t seen the things in question, but if that’s the case it is most definitely worth the highest criticism.

  • Muzz

    @Muzz … You are critical about a film that might be offensive to Muslim culture? Don’t you think it’s a little too late? I don’t know after Abu Ghraib, the U.S. government invading Iraq to shove democracy down their throats. Halliburton coming in to help “rebuild” there.

    Oh yeah the new story is that some U.S. soldiers are executing people caught on the battlefield in Afghanistan. The soldiers have a day or to two determine if those captured are Taliban, and if they think so it’s lights out. VERY DEMOCRATIC .. Please read:

    http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0512/hersh-battlefield-executions-continue-obama/

    I think we can safely say the American government has the insult angle covered. I bet Muslims wish that what happened in the film was the ONLY thing we did to offend them.

    The only thing ground-breaking about Sex And The City series is that it centers around women, and it actually pulled in great ratings.

    I keep the ground-breaking title to series like Lost. That finale was awesome!

    But it’s sad to see some women bash (fabulous brainless gals who lurve sparkle) those gals who like the series in the movies. It makes them just like the Sex And The City characters they so desperately despise.

  • Tina

    Ok. I officially hate my Mac laptop without a mouse. I apologize Muzz. I never used a laptop before and clicking the center pad isn’t one of my strong points yet. Somehow I typed in your name when I should have typed in mine. Again my apologies.

    @Muzz … You are critical about a film that might be offensive to Muslim culture? Don’t you think it’s a little too late? I don’t know after Abu Ghraib, the U.S. government invading Iraq to shove democracy down their throats. Halliburton coming in to help “rebuild” there.

    Oh yeah the new story is that some U.S. soldiers are executing people caught on the battlefield in Afghanistan. The soldiers have a day or to two determine if those captured are Taliban, and if they think so it’s lights out. VERY DEMOCRATIC .. Please read:

    http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0512/hersh-battlefield-executions-continue-obama/

    I think we can safely say the American government has the insult angle covered. I bet Muslims wish that what happened in the film was the ONLY thing we did to offend them.

    The only thing ground-breaking about Sex And The City series is that it centers around women, and it actually pulled in great ratings.

    I keep the ground-breaking title to series like Lost. That finale was awesome!

    But it’s sad to see some women bash (fabulous brainless gals who lurve sparkle) those

  • MaryAnn

    But it’s sad to see some women bash (fabulous brainless gals who lurve sparkle) those gals who like the series in the movies. It makes them just like the Sex And The City characters they so desperately despise.

    I don’t believe feminism means I must support everything all women do or love just because they’re women.

  • Tina

    MaryAnn … Ohhh. This is about feminism. I see. So you knock other women who do something you don’t like by calling them names? “… fabulous brainless gals who lurve sparkle” to be exact and probably other things unprintable. Wow! That’s not catty? Or shallow?

    No wonder I love and prefer hanging out with men. At least you know what you are going to get.

  • MaryAnn

    “Don’t like”? It’s not about what I do or do not “like.” There’s lot of stuff that I merely “don’t like” that does not enrage me the way that SATC does.

    This is about being infuriated to see women embrace something that “celebrates” women as shallow, materialistic Barbie dolls.

    Yeah, I’m gonna bitch about that.

    As I said about *MacGruber,* if you’re not brainless, you have to shut off your brain to enjoy *Sex and the City.* As with *MacGruber,* even the fans of SATC defend it by calling it fluff. So how can you possibly complain when someone agrees with you that it’s fluff? I’m just characterizing the fluff differently than you do. You think it’s harmless. I think it’s dangerous.

  • Tina

    MaryAnn. Dangerous? This freaking movie?? If that’s the case then movies made in the last 100 years can all be labeled dangerous!!!

    Let’s stick to real things: How about the oil spill or what we are doing in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. things I have pointed out few posts ago. THAT’S DANGEROUS and will do more harm to men, women, children and the way they view themselves for DECADES to come than a freaking movie based on what you call shallow, materialistic women. Shoot if it were men, we give them bats and balls, with their hefty salaries and called baseball, football or whatever.

    The point isn’t that our views of fluff are different. It’s that you had to put women who like this movie down by name-calling. Does it make you feel more important?

    Geez, my psychology notes from college 101 might refer to name calling as projection. You know where one tends to label others the very things that they fear they might be involved in themselves.

    You really crack me up! This is all coming from a woman who keeps an archive of “fictional” boyfriends that have you swooning and drooling over actors? LOL!! Hunky … Ohhhh…. Dreamy aaaaaahhhh. Thank you so much for making me laugh so hard. I almost peed myself. :))))))

  • amanohyo

    So Tina, MA is projecting her own thoughtlessness and materialism? She doesn’t actually think that the people who enjoy this movie are shallow brainless foo foo fashion trend followers because she is secretly one herself (or longs to be one)? You can’t honestly believe that.

    Not all movies in the last 100 years have presented women in such a negative light. Many have, but most of them have other merits. That doesn’t seem to be the case here for most people. What did you enjoy about this movie? Is it really fantasy and escapism to follow this clueless quartet on their self-absorbed adventure of dull, mindless excess? Surely your imagination can outperform this. The danger of this movie is just as “real” as any other, perhaps more so because its underlying view of women is so retrograde and pervasive.

    And what does finding certain celebrities attractive have to do with anything? Are you saying that a person who finds certain fictional characters attractive cannot (or should not) criticize superficiality and vapidity in others? That a woman must silently watch her daughter, spouse, and/or friends waste hundreds if not thousands of hours and dollars buying and dreaming about buying clothes, shoes, beauty products, fashion magazines, rich husbands, and cultivated ignorance because she sometimes has the desire to fuck a movie star? Once again, I doubt you honestly believe that, and even if you do, others do not.

  • R. N.

    Thanks for this review Mary Ann.

    This is the first time I am commenting here, but I am a long term reader and I think you are one of the few actually feminist not to mention intelligent reviewers out there.

    I am a 32 yo female physicist: a profession which is still 95% male. That makes sense in a world where feminist empowerment is not telling girls they can be anything they want to be-a mathematician, physicist etc., but feminist empowerment = a Mr.Big with bling who will buy you a large shoe closet.

    I am not a blogger, opinion maker etc. and rarely get time to comment on the intertubes, but I have silently been getting more dismayed by the kind of utter rubbish that is being passed off as contemporary feminism/feminist empowerment.

    I loathed Sex and the City from the get go and I am actually glad these two movies were made because they seem to finally be highlighting things about that obnoxious show that I saw in it from the get go: braindead navel gazing, narcissism,
    stereotypical “feminine” behavior, obsession with name dropping, fashion, materialism and stupidity in general.

    One reason I have always found SATC so obnoxious is that, for all that when it is criticized its fans resort to the “Oh its harmless fluff” argument, they
    don’t actually believe that in my experience. They want the shoes and get to wear too them I guess. It must not only be acknowledged that this show
    is entertaining (for people like them)-it must also be considered sophisticated, cool, smart etc. The tragedy I suppose is that going by the really low bar of stuff marketed to people like this, it is smart.

    I have found that there is a certain conformity this sisterhood actually tries to force on people (kinda like “Tina” is doing here) who dare to possess a vagina yet find SATC completely without any merit. They will call you a scold, but really the scolding mostly comes from that side-how dare any woman care about things other than shoes, the latest fashion etc?

    My view of feminism is that yes of course women should be able to behave as obnoxiously and brainlessly as some men do yes-but I don’t understand why you expect other women to celebrate you when you do? Just because you relate to these vapid, stupid princesses (a collection of female Tucker Maxes at the end of the day) does not mean you get to harangue other women into accepting that moronic world view. If I see one more of these vapid creatures commenting about how awful it is that male reviewers are trashing this pathetic movie (because you know of course all “gals” must love this trash), I will vomit.

  • R.N.

    Ugh…I noticed that my comment above is filled with errors (which I suspect is death as far as internet flamewars related to intelligence go ;-)), but oh well….

  • Paul

    I’m curious, but not curious enough to see the movie, if Samantha actually has sex with Middle Eastern men in this movie?

    It’s just that last year I read an article about a few American women who found Middle Eastern men they meet in America attractive because those men are more traditionally masculine, then they marry them, go to the Middle East, and realize what it’s like to live in a pre-feminist society.

  • bats :[

    Damn, I missed MaryAnn name-calling. Then again, I didn’t take Psych 101 in college, so that might be the reason.

  • Mo

    I was going to completely ignore the existence of this movie until someone at i09 wrote an essay about why it was actually a scifi movie that cracked me up: http://io9.com/5550558/why-sex-and-the-city-2-is-a-science-fiction-movie?skyline=true&s=i

    @Tina: I really love fluff, particularly marshmallow fluff. Marshmallow fluff may not have any nutritional value whatsoever and is kind of really bad for you, but it’s really, really delicious. My problem is when I’m presented with some sort of petroleum-based polysorbate-60 fake twinkie cream concoction and told that it’s delicious marshmallow fluff. It isn’t. It tastes like chemicals. Probably because it’s made from petroleum products rather than actual food-based ingredients.

    I have the same reaction to bad fluff movies. I think that’s the difference between types of movie fluff that people are getting at.

  • MaryAnn

    How about the oil spill or what we are doing in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. things I have pointed out few posts ago. THAT’S DANGEROUS

    I agree. And I often state as much, as anyone who reads this site regularly will attest… and I’m often taken to task by readers who think such commentary does not belong on a blog devoted to pop culture.

    But just because there are MORE dangerous things in the world doesn’t mean I will refrain from commenting on the less dangerous ones.

    what you call shallow, materialistic women

    Are you suggesting, Tina, that these women are NOT shallow and materialistic? And if so, can you provide some evidence of such, please?

    Shoot if it were men, we give them bats and balls, with their hefty salaries and called baseball, football or whatever.

    I don’t quite know what this means. If you’re suggesting that men can be as idiotic as women, then yes, I agree. And I call that out, too, when I see it.

    I’m curious, but not curious enough to see the movie, if Samantha actually has sex with Middle Eastern men in this movie?

    No, she doesn’t.

    I have found that there is a certain conformity this sisterhood actually tries to force on people (kinda like “Tina” is doing here) who dare to possess a vagina yet find SATC completely without any merit. They will call you a scold, but really the scolding mostly comes from that side-how dare any woman care about things other than shoes, the latest fashion etc?

    This drives me insane, too.

    I refrained from including this in my review, because I don’t think it should *have* to be said, but I guess it does have to be said:

    I like men. I like sex. I like clothes and shoes (though not the kind of clothes and shoes Carrie and her friends like). I would love to be able to have the kind of money these women have to spend on frivolous stuff (though I’d spend it on different frivolous stuff). But these things are not the sum total of my existence, and these things do not define me.

    We don’t expect this of men, that they be defined by the clothes they wear and the car they drive and the women they fuck. We expect men to be defined by what they do and what they think. (Though their clothes and their cars and their women may well be *part* of how they are defined.) I ask only that the same breadth of definition be extended to women. That’s all. *SATC* does not do that, and in fact it suggests that women are defined *only* by clothes, shoes, and worrying about such shallow things as how much money their men have.

    This also drives me crazy: What makes a person a woman or a man, what makes a person gay or straight, is not the kind of car you drive or the kind of movies and TV shows you like or your politics. What makes a person male or female, gay or straight is what naughty bits you have and which gender makes those naughty bits perk up and go, Hey, I want that! Some fey men are straight; some butch men are gay. Some butch women are straight; some femme women are gay.

    So liking SATC does not make a woman a woman. Not liking SATC does not make a woman not a woman. If SATC existed as just a small speck on a spectrum of stories about women, it would not be as offensive as it actually is in our real world, where embracing SATC is taken as some sort of indicator of modern womanhood.

    I am a modern, 21st century woman. I cannot fucking stand SATC. Deal with it.

  • Me

    MaryAnn, I have recommended this review to ALL of my friends, SATC fans or not, because your review article was so hilariously accurate! They’ve all love your article, too!

  • Bonkfast

    I think I’m starting to get what you guys are talking about. When I said it had more “fanservice” than Megan Fox films, shirtless men than Twilight, and product placement than Yu-Gi-Oh!… it shouldn’t. Transformers and Jennifer’s Body are made to appeal to horny teen boys (well, the Megan Fox parts are in the former, but the robots fighting should already tell you that it’s void of all realism). The shirtless men in Twilight are supposed to indulge in the fantasies of teenage girls (though in this case and in S&tC2‘s case, they both received loud screams from girls at my screenings of both) and girls are basically supposed to put themselves in emotionless Bella’s place. Yu-Gi-Oh! is (this is still subject to debate) supposed to be an advertisement for a card game. Sex and the City is not supposed to be an advertisement or any of the other things. So that’s where it goes wrong. I still like it, but I see what you’re saying.

  • Tina

    R.N. First why are you putting quotation marks around my name? Please clarify.

    I’m sorry I didn’t have enough money or brain power to go to an elitist school to be a mathematician or to go into physics. I’m sorry that I’m assuming things about you, but you sure do about me.

    You aren’t the only one who has dealt with working in a male dominated industry. I was a line cook at 17 in charge of 15 men. Some old enough to be my father. They had to take orders from me. Do you know how much crap I got? I went to school for audio engineering. Out of 75 students, three of us were women. I was in the top 10 of my class. And while the lowest scoring male got a job in the field, my 90% average and know how got me offers to do typing work in the office. I did work in the music industry for a while, but saw too many women wearing knee-pads to continue their career. I quit and took a $7 hour job in a labratory running blood specimens because I thought it was more dignified then scraping my knees.

    I went back to college full time and worked full time, all paid by me. I did it on my own!! That’s empowerment. Not a tv series or a few movies about women, vapid or not. Wow, you all take the series and movies a little seriously. Actually, I’m kinda scared. Who the hell associates feminism or female empowerment with Sex And The City? Some stupid columnist in the media? One of the actors? I certainly don’t find any empowerment in it, and neither do my friends, acquaintances or my mother.

    I have yet to know of anyone who has watched this and then wanted to go out and blow tons of money on shoes, clothes, etc. or try to find a rich husband. Sorry RN if that’s the case for you. It looks like you might need to be surrounding yourself with different people. And please use other social cues like music videos, reality tv to answer the question why girls and guys are maxing out their credit cards on materialistic crap. Shit while we are at it, blame the Victorian Period and the Industrial Age for creating this trend at least that’s true and not speculation.

    You want to know why I really watch? It’s for the clothes. It’s a train wreck waiting to happen. I go and create my own Mystery Theater 3000 but instead of bad movies I comment on the bad clothes. Nothing makes me laugh harder after a very stressful and bad day than watching what Carrie wears. That Adore Dior 8 shirt is the silliest thing in the movie. Or the bird-hat on her head in the first movie. WTF? That’s fashion? And it costs HOW MUCH?

    I buy all my clothes at TJMAXX in the CLEARANCE section or at Old Navy’s clearance section. If you do it right, you can get t-shirts for 99 cents! I have no desire to keep up with fashion. And wear some clothes that are ten-years-old. I refuse to spend $20 on anything.

    Let’s be real. Carrie can’t be buying all those clothes, shoes, going out to eat and drinking booze, living in a fancy NYC apartment on a NYC columnist salary pre Big. Come on. I used work in newspapers. THERE IS NO FREAKING WAY. I can’t relate. But I sure can relate to Miranda trying to juggle being a lawyer, mom, dealing with a mother-in-law with Alzheimer, being married, dealing with a cheating husband. And trying to find out if she wants to stay with him. These are some of the stories they presented.

    I think you all miss my point.

    I don’t want you to conform to my beliefs. And if you feel like I’m trying to push my views on you all, that wasn’t my intention. I was just asking for a little RESPECT with our different points of view. I don’t need be called brainless or vapid because I actually like the series and the movies and you guys don’t. Name calling and belittling “RN” is just as bad as being vapid, vain, shallow or materialistic.

    At the end of the day, some people listen to Wagner or Kinda Blue by Miles Davis (my FAV!!!), read Chaucer, drink a little to unwind at night for a little escapism.

    Me? From time to time, I like to watch four women do stupid stuff in sometimes hideous clothes and enjoy a giggle. But it doesn’t define my life or who I am. Can’t we all just get along? There is room enough in the universe to co-exist and even like each other!!

    P.S. The girls in series are far from being Tucker Max. Please, you give the man too much credit. If Tucker was that popular then his movie wouldn’t have gone straight to DVD after a week out in the theaters.

    Disclaimer: I don’t care if my comment is filled with grammatical errors. I’m not here to impress anyone. Let alone worry that somebody is going to judge my intelligence based on these errors. I have lived enough and have enough self-empowerment not to care what other people think of me.

  • MaryAnn

    From time to time, I like to watch four women do stupid stuff in sometimes hideous clothes and enjoy a giggle.

    But what’s *funny* about it? I mean, not in the *MST3K* sense. If you’re not looking to emulate these women and you’re not looking to make fun of them, what’s entertaining about them?

    And if you ARE looking to make fun of them, then you’re pretty much in the same boat I’m in!

  • Muzz

    Tina

    @Muzz … You are critical about a film that might be offensive to Muslim culture? Don’t you think it’s a little too late? I don’t know after Abu Ghraib, the U.S. government invading Iraq to shove democracy down their throats. Halliburton coming in to help “rebuild” there.

    I’m not worried about offending Muslim culture with this film, particularly. As you say, there’s more offensive things.
    It’s just that this film sounds like such an extreme caricature of women and American decadence that it boggles my mind. One so extreme that it must be the worst sort of extreme left wing or Muslim fundamentalist propaganda (actually I think they’d show more restraint, expecting their audience to see through something so unbelievable. It wouldn’t provoke outrage. Just extreme sorrow). That’s the only explanation I can come up with. Weren’t these supposed to be recognisable and relatable characters to modern women? That was what I had been led to believe.

    Am I missing the point perhaps? Is it a bit like the end of Seinfeld, indirectly pointing out that the characters are terrible self absorbed human beings completely out of touch with real life? That’s not the impression I get. The SatC are not absurdist figures of fun but rounded characters the fans are supposed to like. Doesn’t sound like a good thing to me.

  • amanohyo

    This is sorta halfway on topic, but does anyone else hate clothing that has the brand name featured prominently on it (as Carrie’s Dior shirt does in pic above)? Clothing like that tells me that one or more of the following is occuring:

    1) The design is so boring that no one can tell who/what the designer/brand is without a written clue.
    2) The clothing company wants you to be a walking advertisement.
    3) The person buying the clothes wants everyone to know think they paid $200 for a t-shirt or $2000 for a purse, etc.

    The second one bothers me the most. I first noticed it in middle school when Nike started plastering the word Nike on all their clothes. “Surely people will realize that they are paying a premium for the privilege of being a walking advertisement?” I stupidly thought. But nope, the practice soon infected the entire clothing industry from top to bottom (literally, even underwear often has prominent brand names now). I suppose for some it’s similar to wearing a shirt with the name of your favorite sports team on it (certainly that’s the inspiration behind the Dior shirt “design”), but I don’t understand the appeal of that either.

    I mean, if you’ve got a strong brand, shouldn’t people be able to see the unique qualities of your product without a written reminder? When I see a Marc Jacobs dress, I know that it’s a Marc Jacobs dress even though there’s usually not a giant MJ on it… and that’s pretty much the only designer I know since he’s my wife’s favorite. Text can be used in an artistic way on clothing, but that Dior shirt and its ilk irks me.

    It’s one thing to happily consume mediocre crap, but to happily advertise for the company that sold you the mediocre crap and happily pay a premium for the privilege seems monstrous. What’s next, paying to have corporate logos tattooed on our foreheads?

  • LaSargenta

    @ amanohyo, I remember someone did auction off aprominent tatoo on his body a couple of years ago or so to pay for college. Can’t remember which corporation won.

  • amanohyo

    If someone wants to auction off space on their body, clothes, car, home, webpages (I draw the line at children though) more power to ’em, but when money flows the other way, something is screwed up. We’re voluntarily grouping and labeling ourselves according to what we consume – it’s as if a bunch of cows decided to diagram the various cuts of meat on their own bodies because the rancher said it was a cool thing to do. It creeps me out. My credit card statement says a lot about me, but it doesn’t say everything or even the most important stuff, and I hope it never does.

  • Admiral Snackbar

    This really should’ve been set in Baghdad and been the film version of Imperial Life in the Emerald City. Let’s see Carrie and the gals maintain Iraq’s infrastructure and teach the savages about the benefits of being fabulous! Beats Matt Damon Jason Bourne-ing his way through a lousy espionage flick disguised as political thought because it adapted the most obvious ironies.

    Ever hear a really good phrase that gets stuck in your head like a catchy song? Armond White’s review of the first SATC movie contained the phrase, “the sisterhood of consumerism.” Not sure if it’s his originally, but damn is that a great way to describe this madness.

  • Tina

    But what’s *funny* about it? I mean, not in the *MST3K* sense. If you’re not looking to emulate these women and you’re not looking to make fun of them, what’s entertaining about them?

    And if you ARE looking to make fun of them, then you’re pretty much in the same boat I’m in!

    You can hate the series, the movies, and at times I understand why. But for all of you scratching your heads on why anyone would want to watch these women, my take is it’s the frankness the girls have when talking about sex.

    Sheepishly borrowing from Scallywag & Vagabond’s Sarah McCarthy take on the series posted a few days ago ….

    Ever had someone fall asleep while having sex with you? There’s an episode for that. Ever been with someone who was too big, too small, too old for you, too young for you, showered obsessively after sex, adjusted his balls too much, who wants to have a threesome, swears in bed, uses baby talk in bed, prematurely ejaculated, lives with his parents, wants to have sex in public, or has a foot fetish? Or maybe, lucky you, all of the above? There is an episode for each and every one of those male oddities. The more obvious problems (cheating, impotence, infertility, accidental pregnancy, class differences) get entire multi-season arcs devoted to them. …

    I think this is the stuff that makes the series popular — not the clothes, the rich male sweeping them off their feet, though Miranda the lawyer got together with Steve the bartender, but I digress.

    That crap has been around awhile — Pride and Prejudice (don’t hate! I love the book and movie!) to Twilight. Do they all have to be good looking and rich? Most women just want a partner in life. Not an unrealistic man. I never wanted a Mr. Big. I always wanted a Mr. Right which to me of course is a partner not a money machine.

    Those episodes that Ms. McCarthy has listed always made someone in the group I was watching with say, wow that happened to me. He fell asleep during sex or I did. Or whatever it was. It’s the talk about that stuff that really made the series what it was. I know it made some of my friends open up more.

    The movies lack this charm (so to speak) and are way too long. The series had better pacing at 30 minutes.

    While you and others focus on the stuff that makes you mad — shallow, materialistic, etc. For some others, that stuff goes over their heads and they just relate to the situations because it happened to them in some way, shape or form. Can this pass as a plausible explanation? Regardless if you agree?

    Please don’t pick what I’m saying apart. I’m spending way too much time on something that I watch infrequently (I have got the whole series in a box set, and haven’t watched it in three or four years). And it’s such a small speck of my life.

    I’d rather be talking about:

    The oil spill:
    It’s gonna gush till AUGUST? I’m about ready to start a grass-roots protest.

    Let’s start sending the troops home from the Middle East. They served. It’s about time they come home.

    Or lastly,

    Pray for Sister Margaret, a nun, who got excommunicated because she helped a women make a difficult choice.

    It’s a good read: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/opinion/27kristof.html

    I am probably not supposed to put newsy stuff on here, but this is what is most important to me. Not a tv show or a movie.

  • LaSargenta

    tina, if you don’t want to talk about this stuff, you don’t have to. You’re the one who is trying to hammer this into the ground. OK, you don’t agree with her take on it nor on the “fans”. What chord was struck to make you write such incredibly defensive posts and appear to be personally insulted.

    When I get called an elitist pseudo intellectual pea brain because I really really like certain filmmakers (like Peter Greenway) it doesn’t bother me. I don’t rejoice in the epithet, but I don’t particularly care.

    This site is of pop culture review with a geek-feminist perspective. Feminists who are geeks mostly are not enamored of the Hex and The Shitty series. Why are you shocked at this review?

    And what exactly is the purpose of your current events redherrings? I didn’t se you handle on the QOTD about the BP oil spill, nor on the thread about civil liberties and the copying of a journalist’s notes. If you want to talk about the nun who was excommunicated, there might end up being a thread here about it, but I can guarantee you that there certainly is at least one thread out there in the internetz.

    So, you want to both browbeat the fans of MAJ’s reviews for thinking that piece of crap actually has merits — possibly even feminist ones — and chide us for not thinking about Really Important Stuff.

    Here, have a piece of cake with your name on it AND here’s a fork so you can eat it, too.

    Sheesh.

  • Laurel

    I’d rather be talking about:

    The oil spill:
    It’s gonna gush till AUGUST? I’m about ready to start a grass-roots protest.

    Let’s start sending the troops home from the Middle East. They served. It’s about time they come home.

    Or lastly,

    Pray for Sister Margaret, a nun, who got excommunicated because she helped a women make a difficult choice.

    It’s a good read: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/opinion/27kristof.html

    I am probably not supposed to put newsy stuff on here, but this is what is most important to me. Not a tv show or a movie.

    Yes, those issues are immensely important, but the place that I, personally, tend to discuss them are on forums dedicated to those topics such as the XKCD Serious Business forum: http://forums.xkcd.com/viewforum.php?f=8&sid=69b258351d8287772d03c60d49adc55e

    And I talk about movies and tv shows on movie and tv show forums, such as this blog (not exactly a forum, but you get the idea). Just because MaryAnn or any of us aren’t discussing such weighty topics such as: what is going to be one of the largest environmental disasters for decades, wars that have gone on for far too long (and probably shouldn’t have been started in the first place, but that’s a whole other discussion), or the idiocies of the Catholic church doesn’t mean that we don’t care about those things or that they’re not important. We’re just not talking about them here.

  • Tina

    Yes, those issues are immensely important, but the place that I, personally, tend to discuss them are on forums dedicated to those topics such as the XKCD >Serious Business forum: http://forums.xkcd.com/viewforum.php?f=8&sid=69b258351d8287772d03c60d49adc55e

    And I talk about movies and tv shows on movie and tv show forums, such as this blog (not exactly a forum, but you get the idea). Just because MaryAnn or any of us aren’t discussing such weighty topics such as: what is going to be one of the largest environmental disasters for decades, wars that have gone on for far too long (and probably shouldn’t have been started in the first place, but that’s a whole other discussion), or the idiocies of the Catholic church doesn’t mean that we don’t care about those things or that they’re not important. We’re just not talking about them here.

    Where does it say that I don’t think you care about these issues? I was talking about MYSELF. Those issues are important to me — not trying to defend my fluff! MaryAnn asked me why I liked S&TC. And I gave her my opinion to her. That’s why I block quoted her question.

    You know, it’s hard when we are reading to catch people’s tone especially with strangers. Voice inflection and physical cues are so needed. (I wish there was a font that could convey tone). So I tend to stay away from writing comments in forums. I was curious after reading all the bad reviews of the film what others were saying, and I came across this review and made a comment.

    I apologize for not really understanding where I was posting. It was really stupid of me. We all do stupid stuff from time to time, and I guess my number was up. :)

    I didn’t realize what I considered meaningless fluff had such strong affect on certain women. Trust me, now I’m schooled!!

    I know some of my women friends hate S&TC, but since they are my friends, they still love me for this particular “flaw” as they called it. They know of my other interests (see my obviously bad attempt at my last post trying to convey those interests. It seems that it was taken I think that you all don’t care about that stuff).

    It’s like being a Yankees fan and posting in a Red Sox forum and then trying to defend A-Rod, lol. It just can’t be done, lol.

    So thanks to all who commented on my stuff and sharing your thoughts and spending the time, and especially to MaryAnn for actually taking the time to write lengthy responses to my posts. Not many writers do, and I appreciate her time. So thanks MaryAnn!!!

    I leave you (is that a sigh of relief I just heard, lol??) with respect and warm feelings to all! Now, I’m gonna go get a beer!

    Regards!
    Tina

  • MaryAnn

    While you and others focus on the stuff that makes you mad — shallow, materialistic, etc. For some others, that stuff goes over their heads and they just relate to the situations because it happened to them in some way, shape or form. Can this pass as a plausible explanation? Regardless if you agree?

    It passes as an explanation for why some people might like the TV show. But I’m not reviewing the TV show. The array of sexual misadventures and other problems catalogued in the quote you supplied has nothing to do with the movies.

    And it also has nothing to do with the lives of *all* women. Not all women have lives full of casual sex and so many sex partners you have to catalogue them. (And not all women like to talk in such intimate detail, even with their closest girlfriends, about their sex lives.) There’s nothing wrong with that if it works for you, but let’s not pretend that it’s a universal female experience. Because it isn’t.

  • “We don’t expect this of men, that they be defined by the clothes they wear and the car they drive and the women they fuck. We expect men to be defined by what they do and what they think. (Though their clothes and their cars and their women may well be *part* of how they are defined.)”

    While the number one definition of a man is almost always what he does, the other definitions you provide jostle about for 2nd-5th places depending on the peer group. In certain groups, one or another of them might be kicked out completely. Just refining what you said, rather than disagreeing.

  • Jon

    “Because we all know that when Carrie said she wanted more sparkle in their relationship, that’s what she meant.”

    Touchdown.

    I haven’t watched either SATC, but I plan to. I will probably hate it because it kind of sounds like American Psycho without the satirical value. I know I’m a guy, but I’m pretty sure the girl version of Big Dum Action Movie is the romantic comedy (which can be cute and fun). SATC looks like regressive feminism (that is disguised as a new kind of feminism. Whut?).

  • Heh. I came across this quote while I was going through my files and I can’t help but wonder if it doesn’t provide the most ironic commentary on these movies that I’ve seen thus far. Of course, YMMV.

    You people are insane! You’re wasting your lives making shit! Nobody cares! These movies are terrible!
    –Sarah Jessica Parker, Ed Wood (1994)

  • Well, except for the part about nobody caring…

  • LaSargenta

    I am so happy that this thread isn’t as long as MacGruber’s. Nor is it as long as the Hex and The Shitty Take One thread.

    :-))

  • SEX in the Sahara…too much, not enough

    Sex & the City 2 is something I wasn’t gonna miss, having seen every episode of SATC something like 18 times. The first movie was as good as it could have possibly been. That’s because it was well written. Nothing succeeds which isn’t….Anyway, this wide-screen enterprise really should have quit while it was ahead. The second movie was, in a word, a bomb. And not the good kind. There were a lot of reasons why….and I want to elaborate because this seems to be what’s afflicting all facets of our social milieu, making many people quite miserable. First, the exaggerated emphasis on wealth and opulence. This whole Abu Dabi, ultra-rich lives of the Arabian sheiks being the latest thrill ride these women avail themselves of is shallow and inane. Everybody has her own car, her own great-looking manservant, and unlimited access to booze and high-end middle eastern buffet tables. Gimme a break. Plus, the clothes. Who could, or would, trod through sky-high sand dunes in six-inch stilettos and take herself seriously? Or not break her neck? I’m over it. This series touched the truth about real women grappling with real issues of intimacy and general male weirdness. And there’s NOTHING real, or truthful, about hoisting yourself up onto a camel wearing haute couture and seven inch platform heels. The fantasy aspects are getting sort of malignant — i.e., they cut off the real life flow of things in this whole story line of women simply trying to find love and happiness, the things we were usually taught — and bought — would give us the only fulfillment worth having. The decadently upscale apartment Carrie has with Big (her husband) is another over-the-top insult. One over-long and boring scene revolves around a $10,000 couch the couple had to get on a waiting list for….gimme another BREAK. People just outside on 5th Avenue are eating from garbage cans. Ohmigod, this is evidence alone that Manhattan is due a killer tsunami. I wanted to assault Carrie Bradshaw myself, despite the fact that she connected with a woman wearing a burka (head-to-toe veil) over in Abu Dabi. This is not glamorous, it’s condescending and closed off. Carrie has cashed in….there’s not much left of that endearing skinny chick obsessed with high fashion and men, capable of liberating any guy alive who’s overly strapped down by convention or uptightness, just by virtue of her simultaneous genius, oversexed innocence and vulnerability. It was a killer combination. Now, she’s one of those married, looks-going-south too-thin borderline hags, who only nags her husband and very little else. I say, if this is in any way, shape or form, likely to happen to you, DON’T GET MARRIED. You’ll wind up hating your life and yourself, and he will too. Finally, I’m sick of Samantha. I used to sort of see her as my role model….since I was always one of those exceptionally pretty women who easily drew men like flies, and often didn’t hold back. (I said, ONCE WAS. This isn’t that true anymore.) Her power-plays seemed natural to me, because I knew these were our right, we women who had lots of sexual confidence. Now, she’s just tacky. She edges her hand up her date’s pant leg toward his crotch, even after he tells her he prefers the subtlety of restraint in public. She gets arrested for going too far with him on a public beach….and has the lack of wherewithal to appear in an Arabic holding tank with lipstick smeared all over her face. (Let’s guess where her head was, shall we?) The two mothers in this movie, Charlotte and Miranda, are by turns pathetic creatures, one an emotional jellyfish and the other, a hard-ass concession-maker. Both have everything they’ve ever wanted, but persist in bitching, nonstop. One fights domestic depression after getting the two lovely children she was so desperate for, and is, on top of that, consumed with fear that her utterly faithful husband will cheat with a nanny who’s got a great rack. (He’s Jewish. He might look, but he’s not likely to touch.) Lady lawyer Miranda finds a less intensive job and makes herself more available to her husband and son. Is that really so revolutionary nowadays? Don’t think so. The point is, these characters, once so incredibly real, have taken a turn toward the highly superficial, banal and just plain stupid. Sex in the Sahara was just too much, and at the same time, not enough. I hope they don’t do it again because I’m sure to waste my money once more, and my time. Just to hold onto what was.

  • E

    I find it interesting that, when I viewed this page, I was confronted with an American Apparel ad, a company notorious for its exploitation of women. You can write an article like the above, yet you endorse a corporation which has used underage soft pornography to sell its goods, owned by a man who believes ‘most women initiate domestic violence’?

Pin It on Pinterest