Home > How They See Us > Archives > 2008 > May > 13 > Entry
Boring … Sex and the City?
The first review of the reunion movie of the year — Sex and the City — is in. And it’s not great. Will Pavia, film critic for the London Times, gave it only two stars out of five.
In general, he said there may be a problem with stretching Sex and the City into a two-hour-and-twenty-minute film — “it can feel like a never-ending dinner party: however pleasant the courses, after a while you can hardly eat another one.”
He also said it can be bothersome when a narrator has to constantly tell the audience the meaning of what they’ve just seen, gift-wrapping each scene with a moral.
But Pavia admitted that the women sitting around him were weeping and laughing in quick succession.
In a controversial move, the New York-based film premiered in London on Monday night. All four of the film’s main stars — Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Cynthia Nixon, and Kristin Davis — walked down the red carpet, greeted by thousands of mostly female fans. A larger premiere is planned in New York before the film opens in theaters worldwide on May 30.
According to Pavia, “the crowds cheered louder than they have for established film stars. Many felt they were welcoming back friends who had lived on their screens for six years and were returning for one last blast.”
He said it was almost as if the director was feeling the nostalgia. “The opening scenes are broken up with musical montages, softly lit like Hallmark adverts.”
Do does Carrie finally marry her Mr. Big? Pavia’s not telling.
Comments
By MADMOMMY
May 13, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
I am going to wait until I have seen the movie to judge, but you just never know….
By FCM
June 2, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this
This is not a mans movie. It wasn’t a man’s show. At least that is not it’s intended audience despite the fact maybe 5 males (and their wives) were in the theater yesterday when I went. Additionally, this not meant to be a great literary work…or even some sleeper Classic film.
This is an important film though. It documents women just as much as GWTW does. The relationships, the thinking, the ways they relate to crisis. In those aspects I take back it being a great literary work or Classic. In ways that relate to sociology/history this film is important….as is the series.
Now, I was a TBS version of SATC watcher. So, to say that some of this was ‘eye opening’ is an understatement. Did I find myself stretching and wishing it were a mini series movie on TV…somewhat. However that was a pace issue that involved (spoiler alert) not carrying what Palo looked like or was doing with whomever.
Did I wish the concession stand sold Ben and Jerry’s due to the emotional plays? Sure did. However, that is what made the series SATC so good too.
More shows (Home Improvement, Full House, etc) should do a what are they up to now—in/as characters—show on the big screen if it works (and SATC so works on the big screen). People bond to the characters in these long running series. It’s like a HS reunion, you have to go back to just see who changed how.
(Spoiler alert) My opinion is that Miranda grew most as a character in the movie. She was/is my least favorite character in the series!
I think the review by Bob Longino (AJC) was right on the mark.