Monday, May 31, 2010
My Opinion on SEX AND THE CITY 2, aka watered down material from a bygone era
Sex & The City lacks sex and the freaking city. A horrible film that is so badly written that my head actually hurt from hearing the dialogue. Where is the plot? Where is the structure? Where are the character arcs? It's so watered down that it barely has any resemblance to the HBO show, which was edgy and fresh. This version is just sad and dumbed down. And someone needs to tell the ladies that at a certain age, dark eyeshadows are WRONG! (I'm looking at you Horseface Parker)
I thought maybe I'd enjoy some Fashion porn, but most of the clothes were ridiculous. What man in their right mind would be at all attracted to what some of the ladies are wearing? No straight man or any self-respecting man is my guess. Samantha Jones actually wears a red jacket with huge shoulder pads marked with SPIKES! Yes! Spikes. It looks like a cross between Michael Jackson's thriller jacket and what Tina Turner wore in Mad Max beyond Thunderdome.
I am a fan of the show. I loved it. I still do. The first movie was fun and dark, but at least it had its heart in the right place. This sequel is pompous and arrogant on the part of the filmmakers who didn't even try to create a film that is witty and rewarding towards its core audience. Then again who is the core audience? The people who first watched the show on HBO or the people who watched the watered down PG version on TBS? And the wink wink nudging between the actors was vomit inducing. They'd deliver a line and smile and laugh as if they said something so hysterical that we, as the audience, couldn't possibly comprehend. Throwing us a bone is not the way to treat intelligent moviegoers.
There's a scene in the film where the ladies sing karaoke at a bar in Abu Dhabi. A bar filled with half-dressed Belly Dancers. They get up to sing "I am woman". Are you freaking kidding me??? "I am FUCKING woman?" Wow! What a great way to show us how progressive you are and how they are so backwards. Where's the subtlety? Where's the subtext? I am a moviegoer that doesn't need to be spoon fed an agenda. And thanks to Miranda's constant exposition on the rules and regulations of the Middle East. She was our own walking wikipedia page. Is the audience that dumb that we don't know shit about other cultures? I guess some people in the audience are.
And what is with Act One? A wedding? A gay wedding? With freaking Liza Minelli officiating and then dancing? I kept waiting for her to keel right over in her sequined dress. It's not campy. It's not fun. It was eye-rolling and head shakingly trite. Everyone knows that when one girlfriend has a best gay and her best gal pal has her own best gay, then that means those two gays must end up together! Even if they HAVE nothing in common. No chemistry. NOTHING. Marrying off Anthony and Stanford is a shallow and insulting move on the writer's part. Michael Patrick King, as a gay man, you should be ashamed at the cliché.
I was disappointed by SATC2, and I went in with low expectations because I just wanted to be entertained and return to characters I loved. I missed the 'sex' and the 'city' part. I wanted New York City! I wanted SEX (and not just Samantha's) I wished they had explored the motherhood guilt more and the idea of "be careful what you wish for?" and the whole Aidan thing felt off, I think maybe because it too wasn't explored. For such a long movie not much happened. And I wasn't a fan of how they judged or portrayed the Middle East. It felt off to me. Like it was the wrong movie or something. If you're going to explore such deep issues as the treatment of women in certain parts of the world then I say go for it. Write about it with humor and wit and respect. The plot was thin for my liking and some of the one liners felt like they were trying too hard. Also, I think they made the movie for themselves rather than for the fans. At least this one fan.