REVIEW: Yes, Sex and the City 2 Really is as Horrific as You've Heard
If you're wondering what's wrong with this picture -- or, more specifically, how many hundreds of things are wrong with it -- you're not alone. But you should also know that many lessons will be learned by all during the course of Sex and the City 2: This isn't just a movie, but a journey of discovery. By movie's end, we'll know that Liza Minnelli, who makes a brief appearance, still has great gams; that kissing an old boyfriend is, when you're married, really, really bad; and that Muslim women actually love glittery clothes as much as regular New York fashion types do, which makes them sisters under the skin. Phew! What a relief to know they aren't just oppressed weirdos with bad style.
The fact that Sex and the City 2 is shallow and glitzy isn't necessarily the problem: One of the reasons we go to the movies is to take pleasure in surfaces; beautiful clothes and interesting faces are part of the currency of film. But even though the movie does, here and there, feature some genuinely pretty clothes as opposed to just willfully ugly, oddball combinations (the costumer here is the much-lauded stylist Patricia Field), they're presented in a way that's calculated and flat rather than sumptuous and inspiring. There's slinky vintage Halston, some pouffy Dior, a number of fanciful Brian Atwood shoe creations -- and yet these things are paraded past us at an alarming rate, divorced from any meaning or context beyond their sheer ubiquity. There's no time to fall in love with them; in the end we can only catalog them.
It's a drag, too, that the actresses locked in these clothes don't at least have some decent dialogue to work with. That's particularly unsettling when you consider that the genesis of both of these misguided movies lies in a television show that was once genuinely great, a mix of sparkling writing and chemistry between actors that approached champagne-bubble perfection. Davis and Nixon, in particular, have little to do here, though they do share the movie's single best scene. As the two other women flounce off on dinner dates, Charlotte and Miranda share a few cocktails and pour out their secret frustrations about motherhood. Davis (who, in my opinion, was the secret weapon in the last few seasons of the show) is particularly lovely here; Charlotte is wide-eyed and completely receptive to common wisdom, but once she starts questioning why any wisdom should be accepted as common, her eyes take on a mischievous gleam. In this scene she describes to Miranda how crazy her two kids make her, and her sweetness morphs into a kind of comical dementia; it's the most honest, and funniest, sequence in the movie.
Cattrall, with her foxy smile, looks wonderful, but no actress deserves to be saddled with so many menopause jokes. (She also delivers, gamely, the movie's worst line, a joke whose punchline is "Lawrence of My Labia.") Of the four, though, it's Parker who's most unbearable. It's not her fault that she's badly served by an array of truly terrible hairdos. (In one scene, she's done up in a scarf-and-diadem combo that makes her look like Ozma of Oz.) But even if you're able to look past the misguided coifs, there's not much to see. Parker was once a marvelous comic actress, and she may be again. But her once-perfect timing has been replaced by preening self-consciousness. She always seems to be adding an extra beat, as if to give us an additional sliver of time to note the expressive and sympathetic look in her eye, or the dazzling Ultra-Brite quality of her smile, or the way she wears a Dior ballgown -- for a shopping jaunt in a souk, no less -- with as much devil-may-care ease as if it were a sundress and flip-flops. Parker no longer acts; instead, she puts herself on display, and it's not nearly the same thing. Her swanning is exhausting to watch, and the movie seems constructed to stroke her vanity. At one point, Big compares her beauty to that of Claudette Colbert, and she accepts the compliment not as if it were a sweet and generous thing to say but as if it were fact.
Sex and the City 2 flirts with, and drops, some potentially interesting ideas -- Carrie and Big's decision not to have children, for example, and how outsiders judge them for it. Maybe a better script would have nudged Parker out of her all-too-comfortable comfort zone. But King seems to know he doesn't have to work that hard. All he has to do is furnish a barely adequate girls' night out movie and watch the box-office receipts roll in.
In its television incarnation, Sex and the City both poked fun at and sympathized with modern women who didn't want to have to settle for less, whatever "less" might be. Now the franchise is making money off moviegoers, many of them women, who are happy to settle for less without ever asking for more. A decent story, witty dialogue, scenes that give good actresses something to do: Sex and the City 2 holds all of those things far out of reach, maybe because someone at the top thinks that the womenfolk out there in the audience, if they're distracted by enough sequins and silly hats, won't notice what's missing. Thanks for that, Mr. Sheik, whoever you are. But next time I think I'll pass.
Pages: 1 2
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
The problem with this review and others like it is that it's central argument rests on the belief that the TV series was not cynical, exploitative, sexist garbage as well. But it was. No series, before or since, has ever worn it's hatred for it's core audience so proudly on it's sleeve.
How did that happen?
That's ok. Reading your comment five times will still be more entertaining than watching SATC deux.
Who's Amanda?
First Fans review of Sex and the City! Great clips! Our interviews Sarah Jessica Parker, Cynthia Nixon, Kristin Davis, and Kim Cattrall
http://www.reelzchannel.com/movie/272851/sex-and-the-city-2/clips
Sarah Jessica Parker looked great in her Alexander McQueen black strapless dress and Philip Treacy hat at the UK premiere of Sex And The City 2 in London's Leicester Square. The movie reviews might not be brilliant but the girls brought out the crowds in London! http://www.fashionjournal.org
Is it usual for the comments here to be from publicists and/or other bloggers pimping their terrible stuff? Desperate much?
Yoiks.
Yes - Thanks for that, FNarf - the vacant, fatuous, publicistspeak demonstrated in these troll comment posts reveal where this tired, ugly TV/movie trend has come to a temporary rest. Do the people who make these films have barely veiled contempt for the people who buy the tickets for them?
OBVIOUSLY.
This is 'women's liberation' as consumerist, anti-intellectual, anti-Arab mind control.
Isn't this critic the one from Salon? Did Salon finally fire her? It's about time!
This critic was the only reason to read Salon.
Andrew O'Hehir is a very thoughtful critic who keeps the quality of the movie department up, but Stephanie's reviews have always been the most entertaining.
I'm glad that she's back in action over here.
She had a lot of haters in her Salon days - Itseems they are beginning to come over to post their hateful remarks here as well. Why? I just don't get it.
Regarding SATC - every negative review is a sign of hope that we are not completely brain-dead yet as a culture, not yet entirely sold to consumerist religion, though the cult of Apple suggests otherwise.
Every time I see one of these women who still look up to these cartoon characters I feel angry and wish I could yell at them: "Please, wake up!".
And there is still a frighteningly large female audience that continues to swallow this crap with great passion. There are still plenty of young women who think of themselves as Wannabe-Samanthas and - Carries. Very sad.
SATC made me question women's sanity.
If this ever was what modern women aspired to be like, then I don't want to have anything to do with women ever again.
As I exited the theater last night past crowds of dolled up women holding martini glasses,
I said to my spouse, "sometimes I'm embarassed to be a woman."
BTW, we were there to see Shrek 4.
No,I haven't seen this film,but I did see the first one. It occurs to me that Michael Patrick King is the white Tyler Perry. He panders to the lowest common denominator,never gives his audience anything unexpected or intellectually stimulating,throws in a few big names for good measure, and rakes in the dough.
What men,(FYI-whenever I say men, I mean including women who do not fit the "target audience" that created the multi-billion dollar series), apparently did/does not get, is that the series was/is based on what women honestly say about men, sex and the world. And no, I'm not a designer clad man-hater, just the opposite. Women instantly associated with the series because it's the first time that women were able to see a show that related to their lives and friends, but gosh forbid, these were things that were never said out loud to the publc-ever, where men could hear that they were not an "angel". They were NOT women who were perfect Mom/wives, who NEVER talked about sexual satisfaction, they were not the "Pefect Angels" women are hoped/supposed to be. They were REAL, and something that had never been put on TV. They didn't get up at 4:30am to exercize, make the kids lunches, dress professionally for their great Corporate jobs, have lunch with other women and talk only about what women should "morally" talk about if they were a "good girls", get home to create a fabulous dinner while helping all the kids w/homework and baths, still clean up everything and still be in time to satisfy their needs.(until then...innocent, but seductive, because that's the role we were put in) Another reason why it's made billions? You cannot dispute that hard fact.....Yes, those fab clothes women see in mags, are clothes we will never afford to buy and wear. It's a chance to see the clothes in action. Vanity? No, just the chance to see the ultra-expensive clothes other than a in still shot photo. And yes, the truth is that A LOT of the sex coments are exact phrases women have said to their VERY CLOSE FRIENDS, and it hit a chord with them. It justified their conflicts as to whether they were saying things that "perfect and innocent" women shouldn't. Yea!....they weren't different, and even if they haven't said this to besties, it was a chance to see others say what they would, if they weren't constricted by their ingrained "limit" as to what steps over the bounds of what you can and cannot say. THERE'S A REASON WHY the series and the SATC1 was a huge success (have yet to see 2). What is that REASON? Just because men (and wnita)do not understand "WHY" it was/is a huge sucess does not mean it's not valid. From the start men said "Do women really say and do this"? Yes, but it's secret stuff women say to each other! But for the first time, men got to hear the reality of what the women who fit this target audience actually said and did and was previously not-dared to let them know. Understandably shocked about this unknown territory, the women (who say and do these things everyday today) were vilified (as sluts, vanity hogs, NOT being an angel, etc....because they dared to be honest and say out loud what we've all been saying forever!! If or for SEX breaching that barrier, "Desperate Housewive's" and many, many oher sucessful money-making series that, (OMG!)actually talk about what a lot of women secretly say that men did not know, would NEVER be on air now. Any no, this isn't Disney-like shows, where they end learning from their mistakes, and turn into the ANGELS we are supposed to be. They have aged, and changed, but have stayed true to the initial REASON it appeals to so many. Honesty, never before allowed. "Now, I haven't seen #2 yet, and maybe they got off-base the fab clothes "draw", one of the reasons the Sex series/movies makes huge money. Despite any negative reviews, I will see it, and the movie will make money. It think the reviews would be more accurate, if the reviewed the actual reaso WHY the subjust allowed Sex to become a billion dollar money maker, rather than review "plots" and things that were never, ever a reason for it's sucess. Would you review an a action shoot em-up and talk about why the "Man-hero" shoes didn't match his outfit? So why talk about things that are relevant to the REASONS it akes so much money?
Remarkable contribution. Cheers a great deal. Yes !, it sometimes looks we are typing towards cyber-breezes…. then, anyone could leave a review that actually connects yourself to the outside world therefore you know you have a community.
Thanks for the nice writing. I will be returning.
Actually made me want to throw acid in my own face.
Seriously.
I'm sure the suffragettes are spinning in their graves
This was horrible! I don't even know how the movie ends because I couldn't watch more than half 😀
UGH UGH UGH....
Well Im no even a S&C Fan and my lady made me watch this, I would rather spend 90 min watching static or the test picture...
Maybe not, but they are stretching this story way to far. I hope they never revive this crap ever again.
Wow! I keep wondering how in the world a guy like so called "big" ends up with bradahow, the lady is horrible, resembles a witch, in Mexico she would be dumped as soon as she kissed the other guy, this only happens in the US where the woman are no longer playong their role and sadly the men resign to such low quality girls, a girl must be beautiful and a good wife and the man is the provider this has been since the behinning of the days only in tje US the men resign with low quality and horrible girls, it is awful just to watch these four old stupid ladies with super egoes. They should be extremely grateful that they have a man in their lifes still.
Sex
I loved the show. Not the movies. Well actually I didn't like Carrie anymore in season 6. She is such a self centered drama queen. She is so spoiled. The way she treats Big. Why does he put up with it???? She tells him he knew she didn't cook and he needs to accept that. Oh but he comes home tired, after working all day to provide the luxuries, and she can't accept he wants to stay home and rest. I agree this was a lazy script. Aiden in Abu Dhabi? Seriously? And my beloved Samantha with her constant menopause and crassness. When the crowd of men surround her with her purse of condoms. Wth was that for? To show us how strong new york women are? That was just so distasteful. I cringed trying to get thru this stupid movie. I'll just stick to SATC episodes on Amazon. ????