"Sex and the City: The Movie" is not a bad flick, it's entertaining and a wild hoot to see a pack of women lead a summer box office film, no guns, no robots, no guys crawling up walls in tights. But it's not all great. I saw many of the episodes on HBO, and some were shallow pools of shoe obsession, but most hit on important topics to any woman -- dating, marriage, a miscarriage, or a New Yorker, mainly a huge tip post 9-11.
If you know the original HBO show, you know the drill. If you don't, the film follows newspaper sex columnist Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) and her four pals (Kim Cattrall, Kristin Davis and Cynthia Nixon) as they cope with sex and life in New York City. The title is a giveaway, don't you know? Here, Carrie finally gets the chance to leave singleton behind as she marries long-longtime boyfriend Mr. Big (Chris Noth). But not so fast -- Big leaves her at the altar after getting cold feet. The three friends also have their own tribulations, both corny and heartfelt, but the film, like the show, focuses on Carrie.
It is witty, funny and well-acted, especially by headliner Parker who plays early 40s with all its glories and bumps. But the film lingers for an unbearable 2 hours and 25 minutes, and that shallow feeling comes roaring back. Full on loud. Must we watch women squeal over $500 shoes that could pay for a family's groceries for a month? The greed and materialism is stunning, and so very Wall Street and AIG. The taboo-smashing joys of the show have been bought out.
So, I'm in a toss up: "Sex and the City" is entertaining, but it's also a great call for socialism. Pluses go to Parker and company for making a film by woman for woman (Ok, a man directed and wrote, but still). Many of the male characters are treated as mere disposable and replaceable sex objects, just as women are in 99.7 percent of Hollywood films. It's interesting -- and vital -- for us guys to see the shoe on the other foot, not to obsess on shoes. I hope this inspires more films of its kind (but without the rampant self-love and materialism). C+
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Steven,
ReplyDeleteI hope I do not sound like a total bitch as write this. I did enjoy your take on Sex and the City-The Movie. Firstly, Carrie is a sex columnist for a newspaper, not a magazine. Just a sticky point.
Second, the treatment of men as sex objects seemed to be more rampant in the show. After all, this is about a wedding.
Third, men may never understand the love many women have for shoes--unless they are the designers. I have never seen their shoe love as absolute materialism but rather extravagant indulgence in the things they work for. Glamorous as the show is, these women are fabulously successful because of their own efforts. I will admit that I find Carrie's indulgence often a source of frustration: her column would only achieve such earnings to afford her lifestyle if she worked very, very hard to syndicate it. Maybe we just don't see her marketing efforts, because she networked enough for a $4 per word contributor position at Vogue and she publishes her columns into a book.
Samantha, the man-izer (my crappy attempt to take over womanizer) works very hard. PR is no easy game to be the best at and she triumphs regularly.
I will never see socialism is a realistically viable option for our society, and I think that if you work hard to have what you have, you deserve all the spoils.
As a business owner myself, I work very hard and I love to treat myself. I don't have anything handed to me and I proud of everything I have afforded myself.
Okay, /rant. Glad you were able to enjoy the movie. I felt it was stretched as well, and I am a fan of book and show to a fanatical point.
Have a good day,
- Jessie
A REAL sex writer