Well, this looks positively dreadful.
I didn’t always hate Sex and the City. There was a time when the novelty hadn’t worn off, the writing was fairly sharp, and the characters were somewhat appealing. Then the show fell in love with its own bawdiness, and the charm was gone. Suddenly, listening to four women banter like bitter old queens was as excruciating as it should’ve been in the first place, with each successive episode deteriorating into an increasingly desperate jumble of stock scenes (Carrie agonizes over Big, Charlotte does something naive, Miranda can’t decide if she’s happy, Samantha fucks something, and the girls lunch somewhere trendy).
So why is this getting the big screen treatment again? Is there anything original left to say on the state of being a privileged tramp in New York City? Of course not, but the enormous success of The Devil Wears Prada signaled to studios that there’s a market for chick flicks in the summer, so why not get the harpies back together for one last shrill meditation on what it’s like to screw your way to contentedness? Carrie’s certainly an expert on it, having broken up Big’s marriage during Season Three, but let’s be happy that the philandering pair are getting married anyway! Oh, but wait! There’s a twist! Carrie gets a life-altering call on her cell phone and leaves Big standing at the altar! Fuck yes, it’s a remake of Telefon!
No matter how wretched Sex and the City: The Movie is, it’s going to rake in a ton of too-little, too-late cash for New Line when it opens on May 30th (the charming and very funny Forgetting Sarah Marshall was wise to vacate that date). God help you if your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend drags you to this misery.
16 comments
perfectly sums up my feelings about both the show and the movie
The horror of finding your girlfriend standing in front the poster for this movie when you come out of the bathroom. "Haha, yeah, lame, right, babe? Right?"
Remember in 'Flight of the Navigator' when Sarah Jessica Parker looked hot?
Bob, no I don't remember that. Probably because it never happened.
Plot: We fade up on a hospital ward where all four of these cum-dumpsters are bed-ridden, dying. The rest of the film is told in flashback about how they contracted AIDS.
Big twist: BIG fucked em all and gave it to them.
So Jeremy, is this going to be the “Hairspray” of 2008? Should we prepare now for the venom that will be spewed at it for the next year, how you’ll be preparing for the “inevitable” nomination at the 81st Academy Awards?
If so, then I suppose I bet gear up. And btw, “Hairspray” was more enjoyable than “No Country…” was. And before anyone jumps on me, “There Will Be Blood” is on course to being my favorite film of this decade. So you know where my taste is.
Yes, Retlaw, we do see where your "taste is". You have no taste. "No Country" is the best movie of 2007 and the Coen Brothers career high (check the Oscar wins, and Deakins lost to Elswit cus he split the vote). "There Will Be Blood", though great, is not even in the decades top 50. And "Hairspray" was "enjoyable", in 1988 when John Waters made it right. "No Country" is the rare film that goes beyond perfection. Nothing can touch it. It's offensive you even compared that fluff remake to it.
It's Big who leaves Carrie at the altar, not the other way arpund, right? Her ass is way too clingy to do the dumping anyway. Guys like girls who play hard-to-get, just as long as they don't realize that's what they're doing. That's one thing I always hated about Carrie is she's too desperate, or looks like it — her friends will comfort her, the guy will come back again, and then she ditches them until he dumps her again. It's all about Carrie. She can't even listen to her friend's problems cuz she's too busy talking about herself.
Most likey, it's too large of a question to deal with here (especially considering the amount of mouthbreathers that frequent the talkback), but I'll say my 2 cents, anyway. If this is a film aimed at women and women enjoy it, is it truly an artistic failure? The 'men' of this site preach the greatness of such films as Slither and Crank, films certainly aimed at a male audience (films that didn't necessarily blow up the box office), and rant about how ridiculous it is that such films did not do more business.
I guess what I'm saying is, it really all comes down to taste (and gender does play a big factor in taste, for various reasons), and these sorts of articles that trash a film (unseen) because it appeals to an audience other than the writer seem small minded and the antithesis of the kind of broadview reporting I initially began reading CHUD for.
(Which is not to say that I believe SatC: The Movie will be any good, simply that the trailer didn't look particularly good or bad to me, it just was what it was, an ad for a movie aimed at woman.)
I wonder if I'll get any logical, objective responses.
moviemenace – you seriously used oscar wins to show how good No Country for Old Men is? are you fucking serious? The Awards ceremony that nominated Little Miss Sunshine instead of Children of Men? Ha. You idiot. And Children of Men can touch No Country for Old Men, in fact it owns it. No Country for Old Men is a well made film, but nothing special, nothign groundbreaking, nothing that hasn't been done before or even adding something different.
Messi be correct about No country not be so special. Not so much about Hairspray being better than No country.
me like movie. u am dumb for not like. me smart.
Someone said earlier, There Will Be Blood is not even on the decade's Top 50….
…. This very same person accuses someone else of having no taste.
Well, contradiction in terms. Case closed.
LOVED No Country. Loved Blood even more, and a complete fan of Children of Men.
Sure, Sex and the City is most probably past its prime, but its probably not trying to be in the same league as these movies, so relax.
And by the way, I thought Transformers SUCKED BALLS
Sarah Jessica Parker is not an attractive woman. Never has been, never will be. I don't know where this deluded idea that she has a good looking face ever came from, but it needs to be stopped. Okay, maybe she's not exactly hideous, no, but she sure as shit ain't pretty. She's just got one of those faces that just doesn't come together in any proper fashion.
SJP may be busted stuff, but I'd still give Kim Cattrall some big trouble in little China, if you know what I mean.
{Re: Joseph}What are you, a fucking queer.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.