Advertise here.
 |
Title: Sex and the City: The Movie
|
/ 
/ 
/
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/
/
/ | CONSUMER ADVICE |
Parents, there is lots of sex (obviously), some strong language, and lots of nudity.Recommended for ages 17 and up. |
This is a review where I have to be up-front: I’ve never seen HBO’s hit comedy “Sex and the City.” Not because I have anything against sitcoms that revolve around women gossiping about clothes, men, and sex, it’s just that I can’t afford HBO. Therefor I was actually looking forward to seeing “Sex and the City: The Movie,” as I hoped it would give me some clue as to why the show became such a big hit. Well, I can see the appeal, but I’m not sure if a movie was the best format for this show. Maybe a mini-series would have been better? Since I haven’t seen the show I’m not sure what’s been going on to lead to the events of the movie, but the movie revolves around Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker), New York’s ultimate single girl.
 |
Carrie is a professional writer, writing many books (mostly about relationships and fashion), and having a long relationship with Mr. Big (Chris Noth), a relationship that I assume has been going on since the show. They are now taking the big step of moving into an apartment together, and they’ve found a great apartment with only one flaw: the closet is too small. No worries though, as Mr. Big promises to build Carrie a bigger closet. This decision leads to the two deciding to get married, in a manner that is very business like and unromantic. That said, it’s rare that any relationship these days gets a proposal, so maybe this can still be considered a success? Well, if you’ve seen the previews, you know that the wedding doesn’t work out, which gives the movie it’s emotional pull.
 |
But this is “Sex and the City.” This show isn’t about one woman it’s about four. So while Carrie’s story should be enough to fill out a movie, we get major storylines for the other women as well. There’s Miranda Hobbes (Cynthia Nixon), who’s own marriage is in trouble after her husband cheats on her (he did this, apparently, because his wife stopped giving out). There’s Samantha Jones (Kim Cattrall), who apparently didn’t have much use for a steady relationship in the show, but now has one in a Hollywood hunk. Finally there’s Charlotte Goldenblatt (Kristin Davis) who stands out as the only character to not have any relationship problems in this movie. In fact, she’s pregnant in this movie, which is noteworthy because in the show she was told she couldn’t have children, so it’s nice to know not everyone’s lives are full of gloom.
 |
Finally there is Louise, Carrie’s new assistant who came to New York to find love. Carrie hires her because this girl reminds her of herself before the reality of life sank in. This is a touching storyline, but I have to wonder how much reality could have really sunk in when the woman walks around the city wearing fancy jewelry and never gets mugged? Never mind. Despite the checklist of characters one has to name off just to scratch the surface of this movie, it’s to the writers credit that the movie is not more confusing. As someone who’s never seen the show I was amazed at how much these stories made sense in their own right, and that the movie didn’t seem to be handicapped by the TV show’s established continuity.
 |
With that out of the way I need to get to why the story - for everything it does right - never quite takes off. The movie is two and a half hours long. If all this was spent wisely on the lives of the girls this might not be so bad, but the movie gives us many scenes that simply do not need to be here. These scenes include the girls talking about their sex lives, the latest in fashion, and least three five minute scene where a variety of different dresses are worn by the girls. Dialog that either advances the story or is mindless gossip is almost always spoken in a fashion store, because these women are always shopping. Always shopping. Even during some of the more emotional scenes one can’t help but feel that this feels like a glorified commercial on some level.
 |
It also doesn’t help that for many of these situations the women come off as unreasonable while the men come off as much clearer thinkers, which seems to defeat the purpose of a “chick flick.” I also want to give special mention to Jennifer Hudson, who plays Louise, as this is her first role after she won an Oscar for her role in “Dreamgirls.” I’ve debated Hudson’s acting talent in “Dreamgirls” with friends, as I felt she was a better singer then an actress. At least one of my friends felt that singing was acting. Well, her performance here should validate my opinion a better, because despite playing one of the better characters in the movie, her acting and line delivery is so flat and unconvincing, that it brings into question whether she’s a competent actress or not. Trust me, this is not something you want discussed about you if you won an Oscar.
 |
On the positive side I can see why this show was such a success. These characters may seem shallow, but spend enough time with them and they revel human characteristics that make them very realistic at times. The dialog is not completely dumb, the discussions with fashion obviously appeal to women, and there’s something to be said about a movie where middle-aged women are portrayed as beautiful, sexy things, in a Hollywood that believes you’ve outlived your beauty once you reach 40. The biggest problem is the length of the film though, and how the script deviates too much for me to really recommend this. I liked some of it, and I am not opposed to a sequel, but a tighter script where the characters talk more about their lives and less about shoes would be far preferable.
  |
 |
|
|
Spaceriffic Review
Want to see us review this? Send a donation with your title request, and it will be done (might take awhile, but it will get done).
Click here for a list of films that have already been requested before you request something.
