Back to Metroland's Home Page!
 Site Search
   Search Metroland.Net
 Classifieds
   View Classified Ads
   Place a Classified Ad
 Personals
   Online Personals
   Place A Print Ad
 Columns & Opinions
   Comment
   Looking Up
   Reckonings
   Opinion
   Letters
   Rapp On This
   Best Intelligencer
 News & Features
   Newsfront
   Features
   What a Week
   Loose Ends
 Lifestyles
   This Week's Review
   The Dining Guide
   Leftovers
   Scenery
   Tech Life
   Profile
   The Over-30 Club
 Cinema & Video
   Weekly Reviews
   The Movie Schedule
 Music
   Listen Here
   Live
   Recordings
   Noteworthy
 Arts
   Theater
   Dance
   Art
   Classical
   Books
   Art Murmur
 Calendar
   Night & Day
   Event Listings
 AccuWeather
 About Metroland
   Where We Are
   Who We Are
   What We Do
   Work For Us
   Place An Ad

Back in the saddle again: Sex and the City 2.

It Is What It Is

By John Rodat

Sex and the City 2

Directed by Michael Patrick King

The reviews of Sex and the City 2 were out before I made my own investment of nearly two and a half hours, and they were very, very bad. There are already whole Top 10 lists of the “best,” that is, the most vicious and gleefully insulting things said about the newest visit with Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) and her cosmo-n’-couture-lovin’ friends (Kristin Davis, Cynthia Nixon and Kim Cattrall). Industry gossips are wagering it may be the worst-reviewed movie of the summer.\

I have avoided reading any of the reviews, so as to remain unprejudiced. (Well, I did read the one that claimed that the movie was best understood as a science-fiction movie, one with “chronal stasis,” “phantom geography,” and shoes as “the City’s harbinger, the City’s familiar, and Carrie’s tormentor.” It was awesome, but I don’t think it influenced my experience of the movie. More’s the pity.)

Nor did I see the first big-screen Sex and the City, or watch the series. So, it is with innocence and purity of heart that I render my very bold and original judgment:

This is a very, very bad movie. It’s lazy, shallow, halfhearted and inane. The characters are caricatures, the jokes are predictable and repetitive, the story emphasizes place over plot, and the acting has all intensity of an early, if affable, table read.

But . . .

Duh.

It is an intensely stupid movie, true. But no more so than, say, Bikini Summer, or one of the other bazillion “Late Night” flicks in which we learn, over and over, that straight guys love hot chicks, that some cars (or motorcycles or speedboats, whatever) are cooler than others, and that there’s always an uptight so-and-so ready to harsh your mellow. But in the end, true love and/or a good lay conquers all.

Does anyone expect those things to be “good”? When Johnny Depp gets his lifetime achievement Oscar, do you think the reel’s going to be heavy on Private Resort?

So, this just in: Straight women like hot men, some shoes (or red-carpet dresses, or bath products, whatever) are better than others, and there’s always some uptight patriarchy ready to harsh your mellow. But in the end . . .

For the record, the movie bored me (and my date, a woman, if it matters, and moderate fan of the previous works in the franchise) damn near to death. And though the others in the audience giggled heartily at times, it trailed off as the movie passed 90 minutes.

If you’re interested in a sharper, more subversive and funnier twist on the boys-and-bikinis perennial, by the way, check out the old Saturday Night Live sketch “Schmitts Gay,” starring Adam Sandler and Chris Farley. Make dinner plans, though. At one minute and 23 seconds, it’ll leave you a lot of time to kill waiting for your shoe-fetishist friends to get out of SATC2.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.


Send A Letter to Our Editor
Back Home
   
 
 
Copyright © 2002 Lou Communications, Inc., 419 Madison Ave., Albany, NY 12210. All rights reserved.