"It is 146 minutes long...This is an entirely inappropriate length for what is essentially a home video of gay men playing with giant Barbie dolls."

May 26, 2010 11:51 AM

I Watched 146 Minutes of Sex and the City 2 and All I Got Was This Religious Fundamentalism - The legacy of the TV show destroyed forever.
posted by Artw (222 comments total)

SPOILER ALERT:

Kim Cattrall gets naked.
posted by Mister_A at 11:53 AM on May 26, 2010 [8 favorites]

This is a great review. I love this term: emaciated goblin shoulders.

Now I must look for a way to use it in conversation.
posted by Mister_A at 11:59 AM on May 26, 2010 [13 favorites]

That Stranger article had the opposite of what I presume was the desired effect. I actually kind of want to see that mindless twaddle now. Ugh, wtf self, feel shame.

Movie tickets: $14
"small" popcorn: $137.50
vile chemical-flavoured "vitamin water": $15
bittorrent: PRICELESS
posted by elizardbits at 11:59 AM on May 26, 2010 [6 favorites]

"legacy"?
posted by From Bklyn at 12:00 PM on May 26, 2010 [7 favorites]

As shitty as SATC2 is, it will have been worth it if only to generate lines like these:

I'm not asking for much. I just don't want to be sick in my mouth. (Guardian)

What... rasps the death rattle of our collective sanity. What is the lubrication level of Samantha Jones's 52-year-old vagina? (The Stranger)
posted by Halloween Jack at 12:00 PM on May 26, 2010 [5 favorites]

...I entered the theater in the bloom of youth and emerged with a family of field mice living in my long, white mustache.

...Carrie et al.'s emaciated goblin shoulders...

I'd read pages and pages of this stuff. Can I pay her to keep going??
posted by hermitosis at 12:01 PM on May 26, 2010 [27 favorites]

SATC seems so dated now, like Rachel's haircut from Friends before they decided to get extremely skinny. Thank goodness someone wrote a scathing review. I thought I was being a Debbie Downer about not being excited about the movie.
posted by anniecat at 12:01 PM on May 26, 2010 [3 favorites]

There was a legacy for Sex and the City where it wasn't horrible disgusting trash?
posted by paisley henosis at 12:01 PM on May 26, 2010 [4 favorites]

This venom is delish.
posted by Beardman at 12:01 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Ha. "Mons pubis."
posted by drjimmy11 at 12:02 PM on May 26, 2010

This is the angriest movie review I have ever read. I love it.
posted by adamdschneider at 12:02 PM on May 26, 2010

Ebert's one-star review is characteristically awesome:

The characters of "Sex and the City 2" are flyweight bubbleheads living in a world which rarely requires three sentences in a row. Their defining quality is consuming things. They gobble food, fashion, houses, husbands, children, vitamins and freebies. They must plan their wardrobes on the phone, so often do they appear in different basic colors, like the plugs you pound into a Playskool workbench.
posted by jbickers at 12:03 PM on May 26, 2010 [27 favorites]

Aspiring reviewers, take notes; THIS is how you verbally assassinate a movie.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:04 PM on May 26, 2010 [13 favorites]

Here is an excerpt from Lindy West's review of Babies:

Babies are dicks who don't care if their poop gets on you or if you die in a famine.
posted by Mister_A at 12:05 PM on May 26, 2010 [8 favorites]

"...what is essentially a home video of gay men playing with giant Barbie dolls."

Awesome.
posted by thewittyname at 12:06 PM on May 26, 2010 [11 favorites]

She liked Babies, by the way.
posted by Mister_A at 12:07 PM on May 26, 2010

Despite knowing how bad this movie is going to be, I will see it. DAMN YOU, SARAH JESSICA PARKER.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:07 PM on May 26, 2010 [3 favorites]

DAYUM that is one badass takedown. I'm going to have to re-read it several times to fully savor all of its delectable vitriol.
posted by blucevalo at 12:07 PM on May 26, 2010

Ha! This is like the Star Wars prequels for women. Take that, women!
posted by Mister_A at 12:08 PM on May 26, 2010 [38 favorites]

What is the lubrication level of Samantha Jones's 52-year-old vagina? Has the change of life dulled its sparkle? Do its aged and withered depths finally chafe from the endless pounding, pounding, pounding—cruel phallic penance demanded by the emotionally barren sexual compulsive from which it hangs? If I do not receive an update on the deep, gray caverns of Jones, I shall surely die!

Someone's been taking ♫ crazy pills! ♪
posted by zarq at 12:08 PM on May 26, 2010 [8 favorites]

Meanwhile, Edward Said rolls over in his grave.
posted by shii at 12:08 PM on May 26, 2010 [13 favorites]

I did not previously have an 'Annals of Amazing Movie Reviews' folder in my Firefox bookmarks, but now I do.
posted by painquale at 12:08 PM on May 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

On a more serious note, 146 MINUTES????

I just don't get this trend. We have action movies and comedies now consistently going over two hours. Look at movies in this genre from the 80s and 90s. They were 90-100 minutes. That's almost always the perfect length.

I realize art and Hollywood don't always go hand in hand, but forget art- what is the freaking benefit? People don't pay to watch movies by the minute!! You're spending more budget to make a longer movie, and selling less tickets, because you can't have as many showtimes!! Unless they start scheduling an intermission to sell more food, I just don't get it from a business POV.
posted by drjimmy11 at 12:09 PM on May 26, 2010 [16 favorites]

I found the writing to be a little too showy clever, but, then, it also includes this line:

This is an entirely inappropriate length for what is essentially a home video of gay men playing with giant Barbie dolls.

And, with that, the whole franchise ended in one of those long, embarrassed moments when everybody realized they'd be had.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:09 PM on May 26, 2010 [3 favorites]

Can't wait to read the positive review from Armond White.
posted by BoatMeme at 12:11 PM on May 26, 2010 [15 favorites]

the last line of the review actually made me chortle aloud.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:12 PM on May 26, 2010

The characters of "Sex and the City 2" are flyweight bubbleheads living in a world which rarely requires three sentences in a row. Their defining quality is consuming things. They gobble food, fashion, houses, husbands, children, vitamins and freebies. They must plan their wardrobes on the phone, so often do they appear in different basic colors, like the plugs you pound into a Playskool workbench.

What's really characteristic here is the grumpy old moralizing at fictional characters, while neglecting to offer any actual artistic criticism.
posted by drjimmy11 at 12:12 PM on May 26, 2010

What's really characteristic here is the grumpy old moralizing at fictional characters, while neglecting to offer any actual artistic criticism.

You can't offer artistic criticism where there is no art.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:13 PM on May 26, 2010 [45 favorites]

OK, Lindy West's other reviews are also hilarious. Time to read her entire back catalog.
posted by painquale at 12:14 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

I found the writing to be a little too showy clever

Kind of par for the course for The Stranger, the Dave Eggers of free weeklies.
posted by blucevalo at 12:15 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Meanwhile, Edward Said rolls over in his grave.

Hook a generator up to that corpus and we will have enough power to last us through the century. All of us.
posted by joe lisboa at 12:16 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

blucevalo: "Kind of par for the course for The Stranger, the Dave Eggers of free weeklies."
That's good, I bet you could get a gig at The Stranger writing like that.
posted by boo_radley at 12:16 PM on May 26, 2010 [10 favorites]

There was a legacy for Sex and the City where it wasn't horrible disgusting trash?

Of course. A.O. Scott summarizes in the NYTimes review: The clothes were fabulous, the social pressures and professional ambitions intense, the names aggressively dropped, but at the heart of every episode were four friends who, while they could be competitive, judgmental and mean, could also be relied upon when it really counted to be loyal and supportive. Sex was the tease, the city was the packaging, but the real selling point was always the love among those four wonderful women.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:20 PM on May 26, 2010 [8 favorites]

Too bad almost every other weekly in the United States doesn't even come close to the Stranger in terms of actually being funny.
posted by josher71 at 12:20 PM on May 26, 2010

Ebert's one-star review is characteristically awesome

According to Ebert's scale, this film got only one more star than The Human Centipede.
posted by apranica at 12:21 PM on May 26, 2010 [6 favorites]

And I can I just say: holy SHIT is that a takedown of a review. In a good way. That is prose well-crafted to a noble end.
posted by joe lisboa at 12:22 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

The Sex and the City franchise is so effective as a terrorist recruitment tool that even I want to burn down the empty, cavernous, vapid consumerism of the West.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 12:22 PM on May 26, 2010 [32 favorites]

minus one I, like a pirate
posted by joe lisboa at 12:22 PM on May 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

... and closing my tags, arr.
posted by joe lisboa at 12:23 PM on May 26, 2010

So, the TV show, it was ... better?
posted by adipocere at 12:24 PM on May 26, 2010

The Jezebel review round-up is hilarious.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:24 PM on May 26, 2010

the last line of the review actually made me chortle aloud.

Is it actually possible to chortle silently?
posted by Combustible Edison Lighthouse at 12:24 PM on May 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

Holy crap. I came in here to hate on the fact that you of all people had posted something about that pile of trash, Artw, but... this is the best thing I've read in weeks. Awesome.
posted by koeselitz at 12:24 PM on May 26, 2010

According to Ebert's scale, this film got only one more star than The Human Centipede.

Ebert didn't give The Human Centipede 0 stars; he declined to rate it at all.

"I am required to award stars to movies I review. This time, I refuse to do it. The star rating system is unsuited to this film. Is the movie good? Is it bad? Does it matter? It is what it is and occupies a world where the stars don't shine."
posted by dfan at 12:24 PM on May 26, 2010 [11 favorites]

Sex and the City 2 currently has a 9% approval rating at Rotten Tomatoes. The Human Centipede is at 47% ... to my mind, this suggests a way the filmmakers could have vastly improved the movie's box office appeal.
posted by Auden at 12:25 PM on May 26, 2010 [76 favorites]

Reader, I must confess that while attending the sneak preview with its overwhelmingly female audience, I was gob-smacked by the delightful cleavage on display. Do women wear their lowest-cut frocks for each other?

I generally like Ebert now that he has reached a stage in his life and career where he says whatever the fuck he wants, but that was a little... hurm.
posted by Shepherd at 12:26 PM on May 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

"legacy"?

Well, yeah, some of really enjoyed the show. Or most of it. And I liked how the show ended - I thought the final arc was extremely well done.

So I refused to see the first movie because it seemed unnecessary.

This? Gahd. It will make it almost impossible to go back and enjoy the original series. As one reviewer put it (and I'm paraphrasing) - it emphasizes everything that was bad about the series, with none of it's redeeming features.

I mean, I didn't like the show for the fucking shoes. I liked it because once in awhile it touched on real issues.
posted by kanewai at 12:28 PM on May 26, 2010

This is an entirely inappropriate length for what is essentially a home video of gay men playing with giant Barbie dolls.

I don't get it. How is it like a home video?
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 12:28 PM on May 26, 2010

Holy crap. I came in here to hate on the fact that you of all people had posted something about that pile of trash, Artw, but...

I actually sort of liked the TV show and thought the second links assesment of it was fair.

Also the chances are high that I will be forced to watch or at least be present in the room for this movie at somepoint. This review is probably the only enjoyment i can get out of the prospect of that experience.
posted by Artw at 12:30 PM on May 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

Man, nothing quite distracts me from a global financial crisis like partying it up in a $22,000/night hotel room with a closet of $8000 designer dresses.

Finally, a movie that speaks to me.
posted by Theta States at 12:30 PM on May 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

I will be SO SO SO happy when people stop talking about "The Human Centipede", because every time they say the name, I see it in my head, and it's just awful.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:32 PM on May 26, 2010 [20 favorites]

I heard an interview with Michael King (writer, director) yesterday. He is probably the least self-aware, most superficial person I have ever heard Leonard Lopate interview.

I feel a bit bad for SJP, whom, I've heard, is a likeable person. I guess I should say, I feel bad for the day, if it comes, when she opens her eyes and realizes how bad these films are.
posted by angrycat at 12:33 PM on May 26, 2010

So, the TV show, it was ... better?

The TV show was less grating for a couple of reasons. The main characters were quite a bit younger, so their incessant bleating could be shrugged off as immaturity. Also, the show was pre-recession, back when people had jobs and dreams, so Carrie's habit of buying a new $500 pair of shoes every episode was more aspirational and less of a fuck-you to those of us who have to do more than spit out a few puns once a week to afford staying alive.
posted by oinopaponton at 12:33 PM on May 26, 2010 [6 favorites]

Sex was the tease, the city was the packaging, but the real selling point was always the love among those four wonderful women.

Except that three of the women weren't characters at all, but character-types, and they were better defined by their inconsistencies than anything else. Miranda, for instance, is a big reader, we're informed in one episode. She goes to a book swap every week. Except she doesn't. She goes in one episode. We almost never see her reading, she never talks about books, and her apartment isn't what you would expect from an avid book-reader -- a prominent bookshelf overflowing with used volumes, which also pile up next to the bed. In another episode she's a sports fan, and attends baseball games frequently. In fact, though, she doesn't; she never goes again, and, in a later episode when the characters go to a sports bar, she's disdainful.

No, any consistency in character is merely because the same actresses inhabited the roles. They had the same superficial characteristics, because they were types, all sort of derogatory -- the slutty one, the bitchy one, the rich one. But, beyond that, they were ciphers, changing from episode to episode to fit the inane storyline. In every instance, anything established as being part of their personality was a pretext to have them meet men, and their relationship with the other women existed only so they could complain about men. If the core of the show was about friendship between these women, it was about how puppets with a thousand different faces have a friendship based on their simultaneous need for and loathing for puppets of the opposite gender.

It would be a curiosity as avant garde art. As mainstream television, it's both unsatisfying and entirely expected.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:34 PM on May 26, 2010 [98 favorites]

Mr. Kyoto has always said that watching SATC was a cure for a Viagra overdose. This sure sounds like it might be the case.
posted by Wylie Kyoto at 12:35 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

I'm curious as to whether this movie would pass the Bechdel Test, but am in no way curious enough to subject myself to it.
posted by Shepherd at 12:36 PM on May 26, 2010 [4 favorites]

Except that three of the women weren't characters at all, but character-types, and they were better defined by their inconsistencies than anything else. Miranda, for instance, is a big reader, we're informed in one episode. She goes to a book swap every week. Except she doesn't. She goes in one episode. We almost never see her reading, she never talks about books, and her apartment isn't what you would expect from an avid book-reader -- a prominent bookshelf overflowing with used volumes, which also pile up next to the bed. In another episode she's a sports fan, and attends baseball games frequently. In fact, though, she doesn't; she never goes again, and, in a later episode when the characters go to a sports bar, she's disdainful.

Isn't stuff like that true of any TV show that spans many seasons? Stuff gets dropped and picked up as needed? Little things like that, I'm willing to accept.

Now if we're talking about SATC inconsistencies that bother me, it still bugs me that Carrie runs into Aidan on the street in season 6, and, SURPRISE, he's married with a kid. Surely she would have already heard about the wedding and the child through Steve and Miranda.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:37 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

It really depresses me how much I know about the show. But, then, I also wrote a porn version of the first film, so that makes it all better.

Yes, it's called Sex and the Titty. Why do you ask?
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:38 PM on May 26, 2010 [4 favorites]

We will never get out of this solar system if Sex and the City continues to be the popular definition of female success.
posted by The White Hat at 12:38 PM on May 26, 2010 [9 favorites]

I will be SO SO SO happy when people stop talking about "The Human Centipede", because every time they say the name, I see it in my head, and it's just awful.

Oh come on, with their cute little outfits and designer shoes? It could have been 2010's must see film.
posted by Auden at 12:38 PM on May 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

::covers ears, sings real loud::
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:39 PM on May 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

What's really characteristic here is the grumpy old moralizing at fictional characters, while neglecting to offer any actual artistic criticism.

If criticising the moral values espoused by a piece of art, and the context in which the art exists, isn't "actual artistic criticism", what, exactly, is?

Or are you seriously proposing that anone wanting to dicuss the 30s films of Leni Riefenstahl must confine themselves to praising their undoubted technical merits, but refrain from being a "grump old moralizer" about their content?

Of course, SatC was just "Cosmo Advice Pages Played Out" so I'm unconvinced there was a legacy to ruin, so meh.
posted by rodgerd at 12:43 PM on May 26, 2010

The legacy of the TV show destroyed forever.

So, the movie exhibits taste, style, and class? And, it's actually funny? And SJP is a believable actress in the movie???
And on, and on, and on...
posted by Thorzdad at 12:44 PM on May 26, 2010

Ha! This is like the Star Wars prequels for women. Take that, women!

To be fair, I thought the Star Wars prequels were enough of a hit to the gut, thanks.
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 12:46 PM on May 26, 2010 [6 favorites]

That review is hilarious. It almost makes the existence of the movie worthwhile.

Almost.
posted by brundlefly at 12:51 PM on May 26, 2010

MetaFilter: Yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap YAp bock bock yap yap hee haw zzzzzzzz
posted by brundlefly at 12:52 PM on May 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

Ha! This is like the Star Wars prequels for women. Take that, women!
posted by Mister_A at 1:08 PM on May 26

*ahem*

Last time I checked, a penis wasn't a requirement to be a geek.
posted by Kimberly at 12:53 PM on May 26, 2010 [47 favorites]

You know, I saw the first Sex And The City movie on my wife's birthday, her choice. How's that for an embarrassingly generic turn of events? I had never seen an episode of the show. I was ASTONISHED when I enjoyed it the movie. I mean, it wasn't Casablance, but I liked and got the characters, I cared about what happened to them. It was fun. Maybe it was improved by my alarmingly low expectations but I really did come away pleased.

I think this probably is not as good.
posted by dirtdirt at 12:54 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

ThePinkSuperhero: “::covers ears, sings real loud::”

I know, right? People mention The Human Centipede all the time nowadays just to get a big shock out of people and gross everybody out. It's tiresome. And the worst part is they always seem so pleased with themselves; every single time somebody's mentioned The Human Centipede to me, they've done it with this huge shit-eating grin on their face.
posted by koeselitz at 12:55 PM on May 26, 2010 [26 favorites]

Weirdly, as the show became more successful, it became more conventional, thereby losing its USP.

This is soooo true. I watched the show through maybe the 4th season or so (or maybe 5th? I don't remember), but really, after the 2nd season it became a cliched piece of shit sitcom. The first season or two I felt like I was actually watching real people. After that, it was just a big joke.
posted by Saxon Kane at 12:56 PM on May 26, 2010

I mean, it wasn't Casablance

It was a little bit Ted Casablanca.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:56 PM on May 26, 2010 [5 favorites]

The last Sex and the City thread (that I remember) was a huge mess with a lot of weird double standards about what women (in film and real life) should do and aspire to.

It is silly to say that they were vapid and one-dimensional because they buy things and talk about men and sex a lot--well, damn, a comedic drama should probably not be entirely about testicle cancer, infertility, sexual harassment, sexism, family deaths, abortion...all topics touched upon with grace and humor during the series. But not the focus of the series, and thank God for that.

Women have a lot of things going on--career, family, social, health, romantic and sexual problems, setbacks, and successes. Is that all canceled out, and are we all now vapid and shallow and one-dimensional if we talk about clothes and shoes and getting laid?
posted by internet fraud detective squad, station number 9 at 12:58 PM on May 26, 2010 [6 favorites]

I'll admit to a mild, intermittent, slightly unhealthy obsession with the TV show, fed by its Seinfeldian late-night syndication ubiquity at the moment. I've come to think of its true title as "And that's when she realized . . .," because the voiceover for every single episode I've seen contains this phrase at least twice. I can't fathom how anyone could describe a show that relies so heavily on such slapdash, mawkishly expository voiceover to convey its character development and key themes as "well-written." I mean, it makes The Wonder Years look downright taciturn.

The Guardian review in the FPP has finally settled my mind on this. To think it's well-written, you evidently have to watch a fundamentally different show in your head as it unspools over top of the actual show. Like for example how this Hadley Freeman writes:

It was about four smart women, three of whom had no interest in getting married.

From what I've seen of the show, the only accurate words in that sentence are "four" and "women," and if you wanted to be cheeky about it you could probably mount a pretty strong case that even the "women" part is debatable. (Charlotte, for example? Strikes me that it'd be a defensible position to argue that she's mostly a caricature of a gay man.)
posted by gompa at 12:58 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Is that all canceled out, and are we all now vapid and shallow and one-dimensional if we talk about clothes and shoes and getting laid?

Only if it's the only thing you talk about.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:00 PM on May 26, 2010 [3 favorites]

I will be SO SO SO happy when people stop talking about "The Human Centipede" Lady Gaga, because every time they say the name, I see it in my head, and it's just awful.

Yes, I just equivalated Lady Gaga with sewing a string of people's mouths to each others' assholes. I believe this is a perfectly valid comparison.
posted by FatherDagon at 1:01 PM on May 26, 2010 [7 favorites]

Lindy West, by the way, wrote one of my favorite Internet things ever, The Different Kinds of People That There Are.
posted by Rory Marinich at 1:03 PM on May 26, 2010 [10 favorites]

The Human Centipede version of Lady Gaga is called Lady GAH! GAH!
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:03 PM on May 26, 2010 [3 favorites]

"Samantha, being the prostitute sexual revolutionary that she is,"

Can someone who has seen the actual movie tell me if Samantha has taken up sex work since the last movie? Or is this just a nasty jab at women who have a lot of sex with more people than the author deems appropriate?

Oh and other things I can do without: unfunny jokes about people being raped to death, criticism of women's bodies for being too skinny/fat/ugly, demoting the women involved who in making this film to "barbie dolls", talking about gay men because fashion = gay men or something stupid like that...

This review sucks.
posted by internet fraud detective squad, station number 9 at 1:08 PM on May 26, 2010 [25 favorites]

unfunny jokes about people being raped to death,

Oh, sorry, she was actually talking about everything she holds dear being raped to death, not an actual person. (which would have been much worse, although it is still bad)
posted by internet fraud detective squad, station number 9 at 1:10 PM on May 26, 2010

I absolutely love the last line of the article in The Stranger. I will not be seeing the movie. I did not see the previous movie; neither did I watch the TV show (actually, I watched one episode, and didn't think it was funny).
posted by infinitywaltz at 1:14 PM on May 26, 2010

Could someone, anyone, who is actually planning to see this movie explain to me why they want to?

I get that the show was popular a decade ago. Even then, I always had a problem when I tried to watch the series because all of the characters were shallow, stereotypical and static.

Samantha is the Slut.
Carrie molds herself to fit with the man of the moment, only to break up with him and give her own "I am woman, hear me roar," speech at the end of the next episode.
Miranda always struck me as not really liking men; whether that was her character's assessment or the actress's sneaking into the role I don't know, but anyway she was the token workaholic.
And Charlotte was the hopeful, traditional girl, whose friends see her as laughably naive and try to counter her naivete with their supposed-to-be-witty but actually shallow and judgmental one-liners.

Even Carrie's writing, the whole construct for the narration of the show, absolutely sucked, full as it was of horrendous puns and hackneyed conventions.

I just don't get what ever made these vapid, superficial, ridiculously materialistic women so riveting to their fans.
posted by misha at 1:14 PM on May 26, 2010 [3 favorites]

It is silly to say that they were vapid and one-dimensional because they buy things and talk about men and sex a lot

Why? Can't we hope that characters will grow and change like people in real life over the course of a very long-running series?
posted by misha at 1:17 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

I just don't get what ever made these vapid, superficial, ridiculously materialistic women so riveting to their fans.

Aspiration!
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 1:19 PM on May 26, 2010

Damn, that first review is all kinds of "OH SNAP?!"
posted by chunking express at 1:19 PM on May 26, 2010

Could someone, anyone, who is actually planning to see this movie explain to me why they want to?

Despite not enjoying the last movie, I will see this one because:

*I enjoyed the show and like seeing flashes of the characters I used to love (even if the writing has totally gone to shit, a stopped clock is right twice a day).
*The materialism is so over-the-top, it will probably be entertaining to ooo and ahhh over everything. I don't need to see a movie about a real life, because I have one of those.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:21 PM on May 26, 2010 [3 favorites]

Only if it's the only thing you talk about.

I think the point is that that wasn't the only thing they talk about. badly written it may have been, but I believe the show at least tackled more than shopping and sex.
posted by shmegegge at 1:25 PM on May 26, 2010

I just don't get what ever made these vapid, superficial, ridiculously materialistic women so riveting to their fans.

May I suggest that if you didn't really watch the show, you might not know enough about it to know why people enjoyed it?

Just a thought.
posted by internet fraud detective squad, station number 9 at 1:26 PM on May 26, 2010 [6 favorites]

Thanks ifds for saying the thing I wanted to, but that I was afraid would start a flaming kind of derail.

It's such a bummer when you stumble on a rape "joke" (joke? Not sure) in an otherwise funny piece. Yep, Lindy West, even though you have lady parts, it's still not okay.
posted by purpleclover at 1:29 PM on May 26, 2010 [3 favorites]

I don't need to see a movie about a real life, because I have one of those.

I know! Movies can't all be "goes to sleep in same shirt she wore all day" and "thinks about buying new shoelaces, but is too lazy".
posted by internet fraud detective squad, station number 9 at 1:32 PM on May 26, 2010 [4 favorites]

"Pulls dust bunny out from under bed"
"Bends knee to fit in shower without hitting head"
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:34 PM on May 26, 2010

May I suggest that if you didn't really watch the show, you might not know enough about it to know why people enjoyed it?

Not to jump in on misha's behalf, but a) I think he/she was making a rhetorical point and b) is it really that hard to understand why some people liked the show? As ThePinkSuperhero wrote:

The materialism is so over-the-top, it will probably be entertaining to ooo and ahhh over everything. I don't need to see a movie about a real life, because I have one of those.

It's a fairytale for a certain kind of adult - a world where everyone is wealthy without working, attractive without trying, and blissfully unaware of the travails of the rest of the world.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 1:35 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Could someone, anyone, who is actually planning to see this movie explain to me why they want to?

The clothes.
posted by cell divide at 1:41 PM on May 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

ok, so I've never been a fan of the show, and I haven't seen much of it. I remember being forced to watch the 1st movie one time, and aside from liking the general nakedness of people in the film, one scene of the entire awful disaster really struck me: where samantha flips out at her husband for being late and eventually, during the fight, it becomes clear what's upsetting her and she says "I am not the kind of woman who waits around for a man."

and the whole scene was handled pretty intelligently and non-judgmentally. her husband wasn't necessarily a jerk, and she wasn't necessarily one for being upset, and their realization they couldn't stay married was tragic but not the fault of either of them. While I really enjoyed reading the reviews, and am positive I will never enjoy seeing this movie if I'm ever made to watch it, the one thing that continually bothers me is how people make a huge deal out of samantha as though there were something wrong with enjoying sex enough to have lots of it. I mean, people can make the claim that she's not some sexual revolutionary all they want, and that's fine. But the other options are not limited to "slut," alone and I really hate that that seems to be the thing: either she's a nasty person for all that sex or she's the epitome of sexual freedom or something. I sincerely hope that people, generally, grow away from wanting to put women into one basket or the other.
posted by shmegegge at 1:41 PM on May 26, 2010 [11 favorites]

I remember almost liking the show except for the stupid wrap up monologues. The show, to my mind had a decent premise, but it seems like there was a consistent undercurrent of conventionalism destroying the point of it. At the same time it's relentlessly comfortable at the end of every episode, wrapping up the lessons learned in a frilly little bow, all better. I hate that crap. How about a voiceover saying the lesson learned is that sometimes being who you are, in conflict with the expectations of those around you is unrelentingly painful, but you have to cling to it anyway if you want to be a genuine human being. How about genuine sacrifice that isn't trivialized or mocked or used as a way to undermine the strength of a character.

But then I only saw three or four episodes.
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:43 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

I'm going to go ahead and pee in the pool.

I never really thought I'd find myself defending SATC - but that review was breathtakingly, appallingly misogynistic. The first paragraph alone was so utterly scathing about Kim Cattrall's aging body (which, hello - AMAZING) that I don't even want to see my own 40+ body naked anymore.

aged vagina joke, check
slut shaming, check
lesbian bashing, check
gratuitous use of cunt as insult, check
transbashing, check
gay mocking, check
FGM joke, check

And the writer accuses the movie of being obsessed with physical beauty. Worst, how is this even necessary when we have Rober Ebert?

It's enough to make me go to the theater and watch the god damned tripe as a form of feminist protest, for fuck's sake. And for that, bite my ancient, withered ass Lindy West.
posted by Space Kitty at 1:43 PM on May 26, 2010 [38 favorites]

I keep trying to equivocate on the stuff that Space Kitty mentions, but I can't. It made me laugh, but it's a strangely hypocritical type of humor considering what the ultimate thesis of the article is.
posted by codacorolla at 1:50 PM on May 26, 2010

Hey, I'm all for sluttiness and celebrating women's sexuality.

The problem for me with Samantha is that she is a completely one-dimensional stereotype. If she was a well-rounded, well-educated, socially responsible woman who was also really sex positive, I would be the first to cheer her on.

But her character seems to only want to talk about her sex life, and as such she is as obnoxious to me as any man who only talked about all his sexual constructs would be.

She's a sexual boor.

ifds,s9 I think it is obvious from my comment above that I do have some familiarity with what the show is about.
posted by misha at 1:52 PM on May 26, 2010 [8 favorites]

OK. Sorry if that came off as aggro, not my intention.
posted by internet fraud detective squad, station number 9 at 1:54 PM on May 26, 2010

I'm also pretty uncomfortable with the Stranger review. The hi-larious ironic? misogyny that Space Kitty catalogued is unpleasant to read, and I'm going to second purpleclover and ifds—the "raped to death" thing is jarring and unfunny. I want to agree with Lindy West that the movie is crappy, but sheesh, all of this stuff kind of ruined the review for me, and I like vitriol.

come on, writers, there are lots of other metaphors you can pick if you want to say something is terrible! it's really uncomfortable to be in the same room as a bunch of people laughing about a rape joke, and it's pretty easy to just not make the joke.

I never really watched SatC so I'm not sure how to read the Guardian review, but! I'm not asking for much. I just don't want to be sick in my mouth. is about the greatest opening of a movie review I've ever read. A+
posted by bewilderbeast at 1:56 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

I feel a bit bad for SJP, whom, I've heard, is a likeable person. I guess I should say, I feel bad for the day, if it comes, when she opens her eyes and realizes how bad these films are.

angrycat,

Trust me - if she ever opens her eyes to Did You Hear About The Morgans? - the comedy she made in between the two Sex/City movies - she'll top herself!
posted by Jody Tresidder at 1:58 PM on May 26, 2010

I'm with Space Kitty-- misogyny does not fight misogyny. Where are the articles about how gross it is that 53-year-old men have sex using their ancient limp and withered dicks? oh yeah, 53-year-old men are "distinguished" but 53-year-old women are old hags who should hide their aged selves in a cloister before they put everyone else off sex forever. This may be a crappy movie, but daring to portray older women as sexual beings is not what makes it so.
posted by Maias at 2:05 PM on May 26, 2010 [8 favorites]

The Guardian review contains this line:

(If this point about youth obsession now being de rigueur is not made clearly enough, behold the film poster, on which the four leads are so airbrushed not only do they not look like themselves, they don't even look human.)

And yet utterly fails to make the words behold the film poster a link to an image of the film poster. I hate when articles do this. Please do not make a reference to the appearance of a thing on the web and then fail to link to said image if it is available.
posted by Babblesort at 2:08 PM on May 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

53-year-old women who have lots of sex are awesome. 53-year-old women (and 53-year-old men) who talk nonstop about all the awesome-y awesome sex they're having and define themselves almost entirely by that accomplishment are just boring, which is how I interepreted West's criticism of Samantha's character.
posted by Evangeline at 2:11 PM on May 26, 2010 [10 favorites]

I realize art and Hollywood don't always go hand in hand, but forget art- what is the freaking benefit? People don't pay to watch movies by the minute!! You're spending more budget to make a longer movie, and selling less tickets, because you can't have as many showtimes!! Unless they start scheduling an intermission to sell more food, I just don't get it from a business POV.

They were probably editing it and discussing what would be cut, and they decided it was just too good to leave out anything less than that.

Or they were really, really high.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:11 PM on May 26, 2010

But her character seems to only want to talk about her sex life, and as such she is as obnoxious to me as any man who only talked about all his sexual constructs would be.

Well, the show was called Sex and the City.

I think it is obvious from my comment above that I do have some familiarity with what the show is about

Or at least some familiarity with the stereotypes that people have about the show, if not the actual show.

(or maybe you missed the episodes dealing with Samantha's job, her clients, or her cancer).

It's a shame the movies suck so badly - it would have been interesting to follow the original characters through their lives. I don't know why the director has turned them into such nagging self-centered harpies.
posted by kanewai at 2:13 PM on May 26, 2010

53-year-old women (and 53-year-old men) who talk nonstop about all the awesome-y awesome sex they're having and define themselves almost entirely by that accomplishment are just boring, which is how I interepreted West's criticism of Samantha's character.

that seems overly generous considering West never once mentioned that.
posted by shmegegge at 2:13 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

What really grated about the show for me was the sheer reality of it.

The reality that as far as I can tell there really are people out there who buy $6,000 dresses and $500 shoes and work in "jobs" where they don't actually have to do very much to earn stupid amounts of money and don't give a shit about anything that happens in the world outside their own immediate privellaged neighbourhood.

Not entertaining. Reminds me of this Onion article.
posted by Jimbob at 2:14 PM on May 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

... that seems overly generous considering West never once mentioned that.

The stuff she brings up in the first paragraph? The yams, the vitamins? Those are things the character says - West didn't make it up.

Frankly, labelling her as somehow anti-sex for older women seems a little overly harsh!
posted by Evangeline at 2:19 PM on May 26, 2010

I don't think Ms. West was slamming the Samantha character for being older and still interested in sex; rather she was slamming the character's obnoxious over-sharing of tedious details about her sex life and the over-the-top maintenance rituals to which she subjects her sexual apparatus (excerpted in teasers and trailers for the film). Frankly, I find her description of the elaborate maintenance necessary to keep herself in fucking trim as potentially very offensive to any woman of a certain age who still enjoys a roll in the hay. You don't need multiple hormones injected and smeared into and onto your body to have fun in bed as you get older (he said hopefully); it's kind of grotesque and age-ist and misogynistic to suggest that this is the case. That, I think, is what Ms. West is skewering when she refers to the aging sexpot Samantha.
posted by Mister_A at 2:23 PM on May 26, 2010 [15 favorites]

"I don't know why the director has turned them into such nagging self-centered harpies."

Maybe focus groups? It sounds like one of those "dial up everything to 11" kind of things.
posted by Kevin Street at 2:24 PM on May 26, 2010

Or what Mister_A said much better.
posted by Evangeline at 2:28 PM on May 26, 2010

Not entertaining. Reminds me of this Onion article.

Oh, I thought for sure you were going to go with this one.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 2:28 PM on May 26, 2010

I'm a little surprised by how people are taking two words from this:

"SATC2 takes everything that I hold dear as a woman and as a human—working hard, contributing to society, not being an entitled cunt like it's my job—and rapes it to death with a stiletto that costs more than my car."

and using them to imply the author is an self-hating misogynist anti-feminist, and as a basis to go and see this film out of protest against...insensitive movie reviews that use bad words or something.

Fight on, Metafilter.
posted by Kirk Grim at 2:43 PM on May 26, 2010 [20 favorites]

The last episode of SATC, particular Samantha's realization that she genuinely loves her (abandoned in the first film) boytoy, was actually quite excellent as far as series endings go.

I think the first movie sort of pissed all over the legacy by undoing the rather satisfying endings the characters reached in the series. the first movie (and the descriptions of SATC2) smack of trying to keep a story going after the story is already over.

In other words its a (literally) naked money grab. The film is, to some extent, immune to bad reviews since most fans will turn up anyways. SATC completists will buy the DVD.

The rest of us get some hilarious negative reviews - some that smack of mysogyny but are still riotous. So, really, everyone wins.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:49 PM on May 26, 2010 [3 favorites]

I'm a little... unsurprised that a guy showed up to tell me what I get to be offended about. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Kirk Grim!
posted by Space Kitty at 2:50 PM on May 26, 2010 [4 favorites]

The stuff she brings up in the first paragraph? The yams, the vitamins? Those are things the character says - West didn't make it up.

I'm saying West never accuses her of being boring. she does, however, accuse her of being a slut and a prostitute. in context, your reading doesn't really fit.
posted by shmegegge at 2:50 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

there really are people out there who buy $6,000 dresses

"...a particular dress of Carrie’s cost 50 grand..."
posted by kirkaracha at 2:58 PM on May 26, 2010

Cattrall, in short shorts in the Arab marketplace, has a flurry of hot flashes, drops to the ground, and writhes around screaming, “I have sex, yes! I quite enjoy it!” People coming out of surgery with bad reactions to the anesthesia have been known to behave like that, which gives it some fleeting connection to real life.

best ever
posted by internet fraud detective squad, station number 9 at 3:07 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

kirkaracha: ""...a particular dress of Carrie’s cost 50 grand...""

Holy moly: "It begins with the nightmarish manic gaiety of Mamma Mia!, with strenuous lockjawed smiles that make you think you’re watching stroke victims."
posted by boo_radley at 3:18 PM on May 26, 2010

Sex and the City 2 in 60 seconds.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 3:26 PM on May 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

I didn't find West's take on it offensive, maybe because I could be more finely tuned to appearances of misogyny, maybe because of the following:

From what I saw of the first movie (it was a bad movie to watch stoned; it's like bashing yourself in the noggin in the same state), what I've heard about the second movie, and let's say some aspects of the series conclusion, I have the following judgment:

It's bad for women.

It's bad for women because it's shallow, shrill, gaudy, superficial, and immature.

It's bad for women because some unfortunate women think that the characters are role models and should act accordingly.

It's bad for women because men who see these movies or hear of them feel empowered to shit all over womenhood.
posted by angrycat at 3:37 PM on May 26, 2010 [6 favorites]

(also, I loved the early years of the series, so I'm not 100% haterade)
posted by angrycat at 3:39 PM on May 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

Excuse me, I'm sorry... Is this the line-up where we ogle Kim Cattral? I was told....

Oh.
posted by seanmpuckett at 3:58 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

I'm a little... unsurprised that a guy showed up to tell me what I get to be offended about. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Kirk Grim!

Oh, c'mon! He's not telling you anything. He's just expressing an opinion. Men are still allowed in the thread, right? And I'm assuming that if they're still allowed in the thread, they're also allowed to state an opinion.
posted by Evangeline at 4:03 PM on May 26, 2010 [19 favorites]

...every single time somebody's mentioned The Human Centipede to me, they've done it with this huge shit-eating grin on their face.

Yeah but...look!
posted by turgid dahlia at 4:04 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

i'm still going to see this. i don't know if i should be amused or annoyed at all the GRAAH FEMINISM GRAAH TERRIBLE MOVIE GRAAH WOMENFOLK talk that this has dredged up all over the interwebs. i enjoyed the series and i thought the first movie was kind of like delightful junk food. no substance, but fun to eat and kind of a sinful delight that you feel vaguely guilty about. i mean, come on people. it's like reading those deliciously dumb and trashy gossip rags while waiting in line at the grocery store, it's not the new yorker or something. i'm expecting silly, i'm expecting over-the-top, i'm expecting schlock. it's like when i walk into mcdonalds and don't expect that the big mac i've been guiltily craving is made of quality beef or actual food product.
posted by raw sugar at 4:04 PM on May 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

I do wish I had still been invested in the series enough to stick around for the episodes that dealt with Samantha's cancer, because that probably did add a lot of depth to her character.

It's too bad that the director of this newest movie (and the actresses themselves) settled for lowering the bar even further than the first movie apparently did.
posted by misha at 4:10 PM on May 26, 2010

First Twilight, now SATC2.

Boys can have all the idiotic escapist fantasy they want and it's just dumb turn-your-brain-off fun. God forbid girls and women have the same thing.
posted by Legomancer at 4:10 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Looks like Lindy West reads MetaFilter!
posted by grouse at 4:11 PM on May 26, 2010 [6 favorites]

every single time somebody's mentioned The Human Centipede to me, they've done it with this huge shit-eating grin on their face.

Precisely.
posted by Strange Interlude at 4:13 PM on May 26, 2010 [4 favorites]

I'm saying West never accuses her of being boring. she does, however, accuse her of being a slut and a prostitute. in context, your reading doesn't really fit.

I think we're at a standstill here. What I'm reading into (rightly or wrongly) the author's first paragraph is a very sarcastic "oh my god we're all so excited to hear about Samantha's vagina". And because it's obviously sarcastic, I take that to mean that the writer is actually trying to express the opposite of that sentiment - in other words, we're all sick of hearing about Samantha's vagina. I don't think my reading is exactly "way out there".

I do think the use of the word "prostitute" was a very poor choice.
posted by Evangeline at 4:14 PM on May 26, 2010

Boys can have all the idiotic escapist fantasy they want and it's just dumb turn-your-brain-off fun.

yeah, it's a shame nobody ever talks about the cultural impact of Michael Bay's films.
posted by shmegegge at 4:20 PM on May 26, 2010 [3 favorites]

First Twilight, now SATC2.

Boys can have all the idiotic escapist fantasy they want and it's just dumb turn-your-brain-off fun. God forbid girls and women have the same thing.

And frequently boys are taken to task when the women depicted in their idiotic escapist fantasies are hypersexualized, one-dimensional, shallow stereotypes. Why should this be any different?
posted by Amanojaku at 4:24 PM on May 26, 2010 [6 favorites]

Carrie's outfit with the tee shirt and the big poofy skirt reminds me of Baby Jane Hudson from Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962).
posted by anniecat at 4:36 PM on May 26, 2010

I'm sorry I linked to that scary clip.
posted by anniecat at 4:38 PM on May 26, 2010

"No wire hangers!"

...wait, that's the other one.

Courtney Love badly needs to be in a remake of one of these.
posted by Artw at 4:43 PM on May 26, 2010

c'mon yourself, Evangeline, you're saying my objection to a virtual head pat is equivalent to banning all men from the thread? And I have the power over whether they're 'allowed' to state an opinion?

I've got the banhammer! FEAR ME!

Is my sarcasm detector hopelessly broken? I can't even tell anymore.
posted by Space Kitty at 4:55 PM on May 26, 2010

Not broken, but in need of a tune-up, I'm afraid.
posted by Evangeline at 4:56 PM on May 26, 2010

Will scotch fix that?
posted by Space Kitty at 4:57 PM on May 26, 2010

And Space Kitty, what he says is "I'm a little surprised by how people are taking two words from this..." followed by a quote.

How is that "telling you" how you need to feel?
posted by Evangeline at 4:59 PM on May 26, 2010

Scotch or scotch tape? Or both? Either way, it can't hurt.
posted by Evangeline at 4:59 PM on May 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

aged vagina joke, check
slut shaming, check
lesbian bashing, check
gratuitous use of cunt as insult, check
transbashing, check
gay mocking, check
FGM joke, check

This would seem to me (IMO) to be just as likely a list of the stereotypes in the film, stereotypes that the review is mocking, including those stereotypes that the four women embody.

The director of the series and the movies is apparently a gay man, but he has no qualms about mocking everyone and everything on that list, and more, when it suits his purposes. In SatC2land, no gay man is anything much other than queeny comic relief. Lesbians are pretty much invisible or non-existent, so they don't even get the acknowledgement of being mocked.

Millions will see the stereotypes in SatC2, including the flaaaaay-ming Stanford and Anthony characters (because only flamy flamers get gay-married), and take away that those stereotypes are acceptable, harmless, lighthearted fun. As a gay man, I find that more offensive than anything that this review is purveying.

And yes, this is just my opinion.
posted by blucevalo at 5:03 PM on May 26, 2010 [8 favorites]

I'm a little... unsurprised that a guy showed up to tell me what I get to be offended about. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Kirk Grim!

Hey, I'm just doing my job as the personal patriarchal oppressor to the jerky-kneed. Seriously though, I'm not telling you not to be offended by "bad words." But it sounds like a some of what you're offended by is actually in the movie itself and not exclusive to the review--particularly the "vagina jokes" and "slut shaming" which are apparently based entirely on actual lines from Kim Cattral's character in the movie. Which neither of us have seen, so it's a really dumb thing to be arguing about in the first place.

Take anything written above with a grain of salt though because I have a penis and am therefore prone to telling women what to think.
posted by Kirk Grim at 5:06 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

they've done it with this huge shit-eating grin on their face


I really can't see how someone eating shit could possibly be grinning.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:07 PM on May 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

Watch the movie.
posted by koeselitz at 5:17 PM on May 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

Sex And The City 2, I mean.
posted by koeselitz at 5:18 PM on May 26, 2010

In a previous thread (on Star Trek, actually), I commented on the SATC formula.
posted by Saxon Kane at 5:36 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

I made the mistake of seeing the first SATC: The Movie -- not just seeing it, but seeing it as a matinee showing at a big suburban theater. The female fans who lined up to see it, aged from about 8 to 80, resembled bad Star Wars fans or bad vampirefic fans in that they had no idea how they really looked. They had made a stab at what they thought was SATC fashion.

Good Star Wars fans and vampirefic fans, if you exist, I am not insulting you.

The movie was only viewable if you treated it as a loosely connected series of fashion photo shoots; as such, it was entertaining but disposable, like fashion magazines. If you tried to take the story seriously, it was awful.
posted by bad grammar at 5:58 PM on May 26, 2010

I fucking hate that show, mainly on the grounds of false advertising. I only every watched one episode of that piece of shit, and the only person who got naked was an ugly bald-headed dude, and the "City' they live in bears ZERO resemblance to the one I inhabit. Also, they've inspired a bunch of insufferable bimbos to come to NYC and imitate them. And they've profaned the legacy of Chris Noth, he'll always be MIke Logan to me. Fuck this MR Big shit.
posted by jonmc at 6:19 PM on May 26, 2010

Could someone, anyone, who is actually planning to see this movie explain to me why they want to?

girls just wanna have fun.



(sorry, someone had to do it)
posted by liza at 6:25 PM on May 26, 2010 [3 favorites]

Yeah, I was enjoying the reviews trashing the movie-- the 31% rating on Metacritic, and all-- until the pervasive undercurrent of sheer nastiness wore me out. I haven't seen the first movie, will not see this one, and I've seen maybe half of an episode of the TV show. I have no time for SATC whatsoever, and certainly couldn't relate to it at all (though I do know intelligent women who regard it as silly fun and have seen every episode). But I can't help but feel that yes, by all accounts, the movie is bad-- and offensive with its ridiculous Oriental stereotypes-- but there's a level of visciousness on the general pile-on that's starting to get to me, a kind of over-emotional reaction which smells more and more like standard misogynist revulsion. I'm not going to defend the movie or the show, but the terms in which the movie is being ridiculed seems above and beyond what is simply a stupid movie starring four TV characters.
posted by jokeefe at 6:28 PM on May 26, 2010 [10 favorites]

I'm curious as to whether this movie would pass the Bechdel Test, but am in no way curious enough to subject myself to it.

As I understand it, there's a scene where two of the women talk about how hard it is to be a mother and how on earth do women who can't afford servants manage it all. For what that's worth.
posted by jokeefe at 6:31 PM on May 26, 2010

What's missing for me in this thread and the linked reviews is any sense of why the movie was made in the first place.

But the NYT review may have (I would say inadvertently) hit upon it:

The longest segment of “Sex and the City 2” consists of a drooling, gawking deluxe tour that would not be out of place in a high-end travel magazine or a hip-hop video.

I have a suspicion this movie is at base a travelogue, financed by Middle Eastern resort money, and meant to lure wealthy (I'd guess the movie was conceived and financed pre-meltdown) American women to Abu Dhabi.
posted by jamjam at 6:44 PM on May 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

Watch the movie.
Sex And The City 2, I mean.

Not even at gunpoint.
posted by jonmc at 6:45 PM on May 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

I'm just mostly offended that someone sentient actually included the line, in a movie in 2010, "We're not in Kansas anymore!" Really, SaTC? Really??
posted by tristeza at 6:54 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Setting the movie in Kansas might have made it more interesting, frankly.
posted by jonmc at 6:58 PM on May 26, 2010

there's a level of visciousness on the general pile-on that's starting to get to me, a kind of over-emotional reaction which smells more and more like standard misogynist revulsion.

Aren't the terms of almost all negative movie reviews above and beyond what is required to demolish what is usually the nth example of whatever round of trash Hollywood is currently churning out?

Reviewers get paid to be ridiculers, more than ever now since nobody really pays much attention to anything they write anymore. If you ridicule and maul movies more cuttingly and more viciously than anyone else, particularly the movies that it's easy to trash, maybe it's the only way you'll stand out.
posted by blucevalo at 7:27 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Really? You are a misogynist if you happen to be male and observe that this movie is a misogynistic piece of crap? Look, I am a feminist Marxist hetero male, and you are part of the problem if you are defending this garbage. And no, this is not my privilege speaking. This is the ghost of Susan B. Anthony telling you to wake the fuck up already. All of us.
posted by joe lisboa at 7:29 PM on May 26, 2010 [4 favorites]

Saxon Kane - you missed the typing a question bit. That's really important.
posted by Artw at 7:31 PM on May 26, 2010

I like ultra-negative review waves like this because they only happen when it's understood well in advance how bad a movie's going to be. Then the reviewers are free to go to town and really write something deliciously nasty, because we know in advance what the conclusion's going to be.

I mean, compare Ebert's and Lindy's review. They're both overwhelmingly negative, but they both let the reviewer's style shine through the negativity. I rarely enjoy positive reviews for movies: Might as well just see the film if people like it. But the really negative stuff fuses criticism with creativity, and I love both.

Now if only the Star Wars guy would do a video review. Then I'd have heard from all three of my favorite reviewers.
posted by Rory Marinich at 7:32 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

I'm just mostly offended that someone sentient actually included the line, in a movie in 2010, "We're not in Kansas anymore!" Really, SaTC? Really??

Yeah, the statute of limitations on that one ran out in 2009.
posted by Saxon Kane at 7:32 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Some people are shallow, materialistic, hypersexualized and manipulative. These people tend to be over-represented in films and television because they're great at selling stuff. Some of these media projects are about men. Some are about women. Sex and the City 2 is a film about the latter. It's bad for people to be shallow, materialistic, hypersexualized and manipulative: instead, people should be generally caring, creative and independent. To do so, they should avoid learning what they should be from aforementioned TV and movies.

Did I miss anything?
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 7:34 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Yes, because I can think of any number of movies that present those things (shallowness, materialism, hypersexedness, and manipulativeness) as virtues, or, at the very least, as traits that don't possess value judgments.

I don't think the point of those movies is that people should avoid learning what they should be from them. The point is to flee from what you should be. That is why those movies are great.
posted by blucevalo at 7:40 PM on May 26, 2010

MetaFilter: the ghost of Susan B. Anthony telling you to wake the fuck up already
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:54 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Two fucking Sex & The City movies but not a proper Deadwood finale in sight.
posted by turgid dahlia at 9:04 PM on May 26, 2010 [14 favorites]

on reading the Ebert review I was hurt that, as much as as he hated it, he gave it a higher rating than Spice World, which was at least funny and had awesome songs
posted by toodleydoodley at 9:05 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Eh, I'll probably see it. I absolutely loathe the first film... but I really loved that show. I can understand hating the show, but most of the criticism comes from people who haven't seen it and who assume it's all crazy outfits and crass jokes - and it isn't. The first SATC movie, unfortunately, shat all over all of the characters and negated all of their character arcs and was the kind of cluelessly misogynistic disaster that the women of the (latter day) version of the show would have had a good laugh over.
(I don't know how to do small type, so here's my PS. In every review of the film I've read they've pointed out that Sam says "Lawrence of My Labia", and every time I laugh. It's not supposed to be brilliant or anything. Samantha loves stupid puns and loves talking about sex to the total disdain and eye-rolling embarrassment of Carrie, Miranda and Charlotte. It's not that SATC existed at that level of "humor", it's that Samantha is that corny and would deliver that awful joke all LOUD AND PROUD and we liked her anyway).
posted by moxiedoll at 9:07 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

All. Of. Us.
posted by joe lisboa at 9:17 PM on May 26, 2010

To all the critics who say that the film's setting clashes with the current economic climate, movies in the Great Depression weren't about the Great Depression. Think Busby Berkeley extravaganzas. As Wikipedia says:

Berkeley's popularity with an entertainment-hungry Great Depression audience was secured when he choreographed four musicals back-to-back for Warner Bros.: 42nd Street, Footlight Parade, the aforementioned Gold Diggers of 1933 and Fashions of 1934, as well as In Caliente and Wonder Bar with Dolores del Río. Berkeley's innovative and often sexually-charged dance numbers have been analyzed at length by cinema scholars.[specify] In particular, the numbers have been critiqued for their display (and some say exploitation) of the female form as seen through the “male gaze”, and for their depiction of collectivism (as opposed to traditionally American rugged individualism) in the spirit of Roosevelt's New Deal. Berkeley always denied any deep significance to his work, arguing that his main professional goals were to constantly top himself and to never repeat his past accomplishments.
posted by telstar at 9:52 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Look, I am a feminist Marxist hetero male, and you are part of the problem if you are defending this garbage.

Uh what? We can disagree without anybody being part of the problem, my feminist Marxist hetero man friend.

Also Susan B Anthony? Why her? Modest dress? Bun? She liked voting? I don't get it, yo.
posted by internet fraud detective squad, station number 9 at 9:55 PM on May 26, 2010 [6 favorites]

jamjam: I have a suspicion this movie is at base a travelogue, financed by Middle Eastern resort money, and meant to lure wealthy (I'd guess the movie was conceived and financed pre-meltdown) American women to Abu Dhabi.

But then why would they film it in Morocco?
posted by desjardins at 10:20 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Saxon Kane - you missed the typing a question bit. That's really important.
posted by Artw

Good point. That's usually somehow combined with the cheesy metaphor, which is the answer to said question.
posted by Saxon Kane at 10:38 PM on May 26, 2010

I haven't this much intense, consistent hatred of a movie from the critics since Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen. I predict a huge hit.

Peter Bradshaw picks the Star Trek movies as an analogy:

This put me in mind of a stunned and disillusioned childhood of multimedia consumption in the 1970s: watching the adventures of that sexy quartet, Kirk, Spock, Scotty and Bones, as with eternal dynamism they pursued space adventures on TV. And yet, up on the big screen, with each new movie … why did they look increasingly slow and dull and tired, often wearing new outfits which didn't look very good? Perhaps, with Sex and the City 4, we will be treated to a heart-rending Death of Spock-type scene, in which Samantha is fired out of a Manhattan penthouse window in a sparkly coffin, having first transferred her "katra" to a demure assistant.

posted by TheophileEscargot at 11:30 PM on May 26, 2010

Oy.

Rereading the thread, it’s not clear to me whether Kirk Grim’s Fight on, Metafilter was a swipe at the people who objected to the 'rape it to death' quote or at me for sarcastically saying I’d go to the movie as a protest. Either way, it’s hard for me to see how a good faith reading of my comment can lead anyone to think that my issue was with insensitive movie reviews that - oh, noes! - use bad words.

Anyway, seeing how my sarcasm detector is borked, I probably should have given Kirk the benefit of the doubt. But trivializing women’s concerns is so often used as a tactic to trivialize women themselves, I’m thinking this might not have been the best occasion to deploy that argument.

I can pull-quote the review line by line to explain exactly what I’m offended by (it is the review, not the movie) but I’ve already been humorless and pedantic enough for one night.
posted by Space Kitty at 11:46 PM on May 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Hope y'all are happy. I am currently watching The Human Centipede. I can only handle a limited amount of references before I have to see the referred material.

You soulless bastards.
posted by Samizdata at 12:38 AM on May 27, 2010 [1 favorite]

"Pulls dust bunny out from under bed"
"Bends knee to fit in shower without hitting head"

ThePinkSuperhero, there's a blues song in there somewhere.
posted by KathrynT at 12:38 AM on May 27, 2010

Hey someone upthread said that the first movie was terrible to see stoned and I felt like it was important to chime in and say that no, seeing it stoned alone at the last show in a weird movie theater in a closed mall was one of the best movie-going experiences of my life. I got to sit real close and eat popcorn loudly and laugh my ass off.

OF MY LIFE.
posted by wemayfreeze at 2:15 AM on May 27, 2010 [5 favorites]

The movie may be shite, but the url for this post is a future cult classic.
posted by MuffinMan at 5:25 AM on May 27, 2010 [1 favorite]

This thread has served no purpose but to alert me to the existence of a movie called 'The Human Centipede.' Wait, make that: This thread has served no purpose.
posted by joecacti at 5:31 AM on May 27, 2010

I don't get it, yo.

I do not get it either, yo.
posted by joe lisboa at 5:53 AM on May 27, 2010

I have a suspicion this movie is at base a travelogue, financed by Middle Eastern resort money, and meant to lure wealthy (I'd guess the movie was conceived and financed pre-meltdown) American women to Abu Dhabi.

This notion dovetails nicely with my theory that the SATC films are actually well-produced, heavily financed terrorist recruitment videos. If we're both right, then the idea is to simultaneously lure wealthy Americans to the Middle East while training a new generation of jihadists. Those clever bastards.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:16 AM on May 27, 2010 [1 favorite]

On a more serious note, 146 MINUTES????

I just don't get this trend. We have action movies and comedies now consistently going over two hours. Look at movies in this genre from the 80s and 90s. They were 90-100 minutes. That's almost always the perfect length.


This was one of the best things about Zombieland: runtime 88 minutes. Zombies, Twinkies, Bill Murray. Done. Judd Apatow should be taking notes.
posted by Who_Am_I at 6:35 AM on May 27, 2010 [2 favorites]

To all the critics who say that the film's setting clashes with the current economic climate, movies in the Great Depression weren't about the Great Depression. Think Busby Berkeley extravaganzas.

Plenty of movies in the Great Depression were about the Great Depression, directly or otherwise. The Busby Berkeley extravaganzas to which you refer may not have been moaning dirgefests about standing in bread lines, but if you watch "Gold Diggers of 1933," I can guarantee you that it's all about the Great D, extravagant dance numbers and all, from Ginger Rogers singing "We're in the Money" at the start to the very last frame. Same with "42nd Street."
posted by blucevalo at 6:49 AM on May 27, 2010 [3 favorites]

On a more serious note, 146 MINUTES????

I just don't get this trend. We have action movies and comedies now consistently going over two hours. Look at movies in this genre from the 80s and 90s. They were 90-100 minutes. That's almost always the perfect length.

I used to work in a movie theater.

Movie theater owners and managers generally prefer films that have a runtime of approximately 90-100 minutes, because that allows them to stick to a two hour cycle. They can attach a variety of commercials and previews while still leaving enough time for the ushers and/or janitorial staff to adequately clean up before the next show. Shorter films = more shows that can run in in a day = higher revenue. Note that a theater's profits do not come primarily from ticket sales, they're from the concession stand. Fresh, new crowds are more likely to buy food and drinks than ones that have already done so and are staring at a screen.

Some directors prefer shorter films. Others (*cough Michael Bay *cough*) just throw in extra scenes for the heck of it. (Can you just see the Con Air storyboard meeting? "So after the plane crashes into the hotel, you think the movie's over, BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! Let's throw in a fire engine chase scene through Vegas!!!")

Anyway....

While you're correct that most comedies run about 100 minutes, many of the most popular action movies released in the 80's and 90's had far longer run times.

Random selection:

Batman: 126 minutes
Conan the Barbarian: 129 minutes
The Rock: 136 minutes
Terminator 2: 137 minutes (first one was 108 mins)
Face/Off: 138 minutes
The Hunt For Red October: 134 minutes
Aliens: 117 minutes
Die Hard: 134 minutes (second one was 124 minutes)
Armageddon: 150 minutes

Of course, there were plenty of action movies did fit the 90-100 minute time frame. Or, who barely edged past it, like Lethal Weapon, Robocop, Mad Max 2 or Predator.

But a shorter run time doesn't necessarily mean a film will be either higher quality, or more popular with the masses.
posted by zarq at 7:16 AM on May 27, 2010 [1 favorite]

At this point in the game, if I was super rich, I'd buy you all tickets to a double-header of SATC2 and The Human Centipede.

I'd even give you free popcorn.
posted by Theta States at 7:16 AM on May 27, 2010 [2 favorites]

A few more Lindy West pieces that raped everything I hold dear as a human to death made me laugh:
The Different Kinds Of People That There Are
Review of a strip club lunch buffet
Review of The Game Plan
posted by Superfrankenstein at 7:17 AM on May 27, 2010

Yeah, but Face/Off sucked.
posted by adamdschneider at 7:27 AM on May 27, 2010

OMG - Sex and the Zombies [in Zombirabia!]
posted by honey-barbara at 7:32 AM on May 27, 2010

Yeah, but Face/Off sucked.

But he took his face... off!

[FLAGGED AS WOO-IST].
posted by SpiffyRob at 7:53 AM on May 27, 2010 [3 favorites]

But he took his face... off!

Hey, I like/lampoon that line as much as anyone, but it was by far the highest point of the film...although I have been known to shout, "I'm Castor Troy!" from time to time.

[FLAGGED AS WOO-IST]

No way. A Better Tomorrow? The Killer? Hard Boiled? All better than Face/Off. Ugh. I even preferred the craptacular Broken Arrow to Face/Off. In fact, come to think of it, a Broken Arrow/Stealth double feature would be an awesome way to spend an afternoon.
posted by adamdschneider at 8:00 AM on May 27, 2010

Yeah, but Face/Off sucked.

Never saw it. Read the reviews and just couldn't bring myself to watch.

I'd rather be subjected to Mission Impossible 2 again.
posted by zarq at 8:11 AM on May 27, 2010

My general rule is that comedies should be about 90 minutes and dramas should be about two hours. Comedies rely on situations more than depth of character and it's hard to come up with enough funny setups and situations to go much over 90 minutes. Dramas need the extra time because they're more character-driven and need to flesh out the characters more. Action movies, maybe somewhere in between.

Movies that "feel long" usually go over those guidelines, unless they're particularly good. I was surprised to see that both Die Hard and The Hunt For Red October were 134 minutes, but they're both excellent movies with well-developed characters (for action movies, at least) who get put into interesting situations. There are also prominent and well developed secondary characters in both movies.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:40 AM on May 27, 2010

I'd rather be subjected to Mission Impossible 2 again.

In my personal opinion, Face/Off is the better of the two. Both fall neatly into the "John Woo's Payday" subgenre, and MI:2 has that amazing shot where doves are a stand-in for Woo's ejaculate all over the screen, but Face/Off is worth seeing if only to round out the Nicolas Cage Mid/Late Nineties Action Movie Trilogy with Con Air and The Rock. Face/Off is, almost without question, the worst of the three, but if you got any enjoyment out of the other two (and I'll grant that you may not have), take the plunge.

It's the tightest 138 minutes you'll ever see. Particularly the boat chase.
posted by SpiffyRob at 8:46 AM on May 27, 2010 [1 favorite]

Ha! This is like the Star Wars prequels for women. Take that, women!
posted by Mister_A at 1:08 PM on May 26

*ahem*

Last time I checked, a penis wasn't a requirement to be a geek.
posted by Kimberly at 8:53 PM on May 26 [35 favorites +] [!]


*ahem*

Last time I checked, being a geek wasn't a requirement to enjoy the original Star Wars films.
posted by jonnyploy at 8:53 AM on May 27, 2010

Theta States: At this point in the game, if I was super rich, I'd buy you all tickets to a double-header of SATC2 and The Human Centipede.

What have I ever done to you??
posted by desjardins at 8:59 AM on May 27, 2010 [1 favorite]

ThePinkSuperhero: I will be SO SO SO happy when people stop talking about "The Human Centipede", because every time they say the name, I see it in my head, and it's just awful.

*sets up Google Calendar reminder every 2 weeks to randomly work Human Centipede into a thread – "yeah, that politican has his head so far up his ass he looks like one of the stars of Human Centipede!"*
posted by WCityMike at 9:22 AM on May 27, 2010

TheophileEscargot: in which Samantha is fired out of a Manhattan penthouse window in a sparkly coffin, having first transferred her "katra" to a demure assistant.

I'd actually watch that.
posted by WCityMike at 9:23 AM on May 27, 2010 [1 favorite]

In my personal opinion, Face/Off is the better of the two. Both fall neatly into the "John Woo's Payday" subgenre

Face/Off is retty great, in a crazy kind of way. MI:2 is pretty boring. Paycheck has to be the most generic Woo-product ever, Even if it is based on a neat little PKD story (which it more or less ignores after the first hour or so).

"After Paycheck, I couldn’t get better scripts."
posted by Artw at 9:31 AM on May 27, 2010

I really like Face/Off. It was the film that turned me on to Woo as a teenager, and led me to discover his (obviously far superior) Hong Kong work. It's not perfect, but I think it's the best of his American work.
posted by brundlefly at 9:40 AM on May 27, 2010

Although I do have a soft spot for Hard Target, in all its campiness. Van Damme's character is named "Chance Boudreaux" for fuck's sake. You have to love that.
posted by brundlefly at 9:44 AM on May 27, 2010

What I don't understand is why this version of SATC didn't have Joe Flaherty. He was hilarious as Count Floyd and Guy Caballero.
Plus his ass looks terrific in a Halston Heritage V-Neck Rhinestone Dress.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:47 AM on May 27, 2010

The big thing is to never get boring. Aliens doesn't feel long to me, even though it is, because it holds my attention for the entire running time.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:02 PM on May 27, 2010 [1 favorite]

(Similarly, Snow Crash seems to just fly by, despite being 450 pages long.)
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:02 PM on May 27, 2010 [1 favorite]

Jezebel live-blogged the movie, and even reading how ridiculous it is and completely spoiling it, I STILL feel the need to see this movie. DAMN YOU, SARAH JESSICA PARKER. YOU AND YOUR CUTENESS.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:26 PM on May 27, 2010

Jezebel live-blogged the movie, and...

10:57 Somewhere in Times Square, Samantha is putting some kind of serum on her vulva as she sits in her office.

Note to self: Always knock and wait for an all-clear before entering anyone's office unexpectedly.
posted by zarq at 12:38 PM on May 27, 2010

I couldn't finish that article. Simply put, it was just too hostile, mean and degrading. Also, I don't want to hear her voice pissing on my experience and attempting to make me feel self conscious about my tastes if I decide to go and try to enjoy this movie.

I debated keeping my opinion to myself about this, but I won't be favoriting this post, and yet I do want it in my Recent Activity. I guess I just didn't know what else to say.
posted by iamkimiam at 1:03 PM on May 27, 2010 [2 favorites]

I could only last an hour of the live-blogging. I can't imagine the whole movie...
posted by Theta States at 1:18 PM on May 27, 2010

ThePinkSuperhero: Jezebel live-blogged the movie

From the comments: "Upon reading this I actually asked myself, 'Miranda quits her job?! Who can do that in this economy?' Then I remembered I'm applying logic and realism to a a movie about women who buy shoes made from unicorn pelts and blood diamonds."
posted by WCityMike at 1:59 PM on May 27, 2010 [7 favorites]

I enjoyed Paycheck, but I wish it was more Dickish.
posted by Mister_A at 2:37 PM on May 27, 2010

Pretty much all later PKD adaptations could do with being more Dickish, in that sense.
posted by Artw at 3:04 PM on May 27, 2010

(notable exception: A Scanner Darkly)
posted by Artw at 3:04 PM on May 27, 2010

I am really annoyed that they trashed the entire legacy of the show to make more money. Especially making a film like this that ignores reality to the degree that it does. Why did anyone thought it was a good idea to send these chicks to a Muslim country, either?

A friend of mine is insisting on dragging me to this shite. She's currently out of the country right now, most likely missing all of these lovely reviews. I hope to effing god she finds out it sucks before she comes home, or I'm gonna have to be the one that drops the hammer on her. Unfortunately, I think my friend's gonna be thinking like The Pink Superhero on this one and not be dissuaded. ARGH.
posted by jenfullmoon at 3:47 PM on May 27, 2010

Humbly submitted, a counterpoint.

Sure, it lacks the panache of the posted article. And sure, it makes me a little mad at NPR for serving up such a glossy, thoughtless review.

But I love Old Hollywood. And look at the clothes in the picture accompanying the article! This franchise is a costume designer's dream - matching the character stereotype to the location and occasion.
posted by jeoc at 6:41 PM on May 27, 2010

The reality that as far as I can tell there really are people out there who buy $6,000 dresses and $500 shoes and work in "jobs" where they don't actually have to do very much to earn stupid amounts of money and don't give a shit about anything that happens in the world outside their own immediate privellaged neighbourhood.

Yes, and around here they call them real estate agents.
posted by krinklyfig at 9:55 PM on May 27, 2010

Astro Zombie: "Except that three of the women weren't characters at all, but character-types, and they were better defined by their inconsistencies than anything else ... If the core of the show was about friendship between these women, it was about how puppets with a thousand different faces have a friendship based on their simultaneous need for and loathing for puppets of the opposite gender. It would be a curiosity as avant garde art."

Holy shit, I get Lady Gaga now.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 10:01 PM on May 27, 2010 [1 favorite]

As I understand it, there's a scene where two of the women talk about how hard it is to be a mother and how on earth do women who can't afford servants manage it all. For what that's worth.

A friend of mine has rich relatives, and she told me this story one time about an incident that made her realize how very different they really were, rather than basically the same but at a different point on the money continuum. A cousin of hers had just made an interstate move and was talking about how stressed out she was, and my friend jumped in to commiserate. "Oh, yes, it's so stressful...packing, getting the truck or hiring movers, cleaning the old house, dealing with all the boxes once you get there."

Her cousin said, "Oh, no, I paid people to do all that. It's just that I don't have any staff here yet."
posted by not that girl at 8:11 AM on May 28, 2010 [2 favorites]

Village Voice: Sex and the City 2 Reviews / The Ten Best Slams
posted by zarq at 9:13 AM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]

Bit late to the party but...

New Sex And The City 2 Trailer: The 15 Worst Outfits
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 2:16 PM on May 28, 2010

I'd just like to make the comment that when it comes to bold and refreshing depictions of liberated, sexually-empowered women, The Golden Girls destroys Sex and the City, even in the latter's heyday.
posted by Saxon Kane at 3:44 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]

I HAVE RETURNED FROM THE MOVIE. It was pretty much as bad as previously reported. Dialogue bad, storylines ridiculous (pardon me while I go cheat on my husband in hopes he gives me a huge diamond ring to "punish" me), clothes and lighting making the ladies looking as orange and leathery as possible. I think the outrage over Miranda quitting work was overblown, although- she didn't quit working; she quit a job that was making her miserable, and got a new one she liked shortly thereafter.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:15 PM on May 28, 2010 [1 favorite]

I want to see it because it was set in Abu Dhabi and want to see how it stacks up.

Why is there a Saudi Arabia tag?
posted by emkelley at 8:06 PM on May 28, 2010

I'm sorry, I can't even imagine going to see a Sex in The City movie. Lindy West, however, is hilarious!
posted by marimeko at 4:02 PM on May 29, 2010