User Reviews (483)

Add a Review

  • 'Sex and the City,' based on the hilarious, poignant HBO comedy series of the same name, is grossly insulting. In a strong divorce from the series, the movie picks up five years after the series finale - where we find out that each one of the characters have become vapid, soulless versions of their former selves. Now, writer Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker), and her friends Miranda Hobbes (Cynthia Nixon), Samantha Jones (Kim Cattrall), and Charlotte Goldenblatt (Kristen Davis) walk around New York obsessing over shoes, handbags, and love.

    Carrie Bradshaw was, at the end of the show, an independent woman - not the needy girl she started out as. The movie turns it's back on Carrie's development as a character, shaping her into the stock romcom lead. Think Katherine Heigl with no charm. She is now painfully unfunny, shallow, and quite possibly retarded. She spends the first half the film setting herself up to have the man whom supposedly loves her jilt her - which he does. The second half of the film, Carrie spends complaining about literally everything, dying her hair brown, and discussing bags and love with a painfully useless, annoying Jennifer Hudson, as Carrie's new assistant Louise from Saint Louis.

    CARRIE: "Louise from Saint Louis. Oh you brought me back to life." LOUISE: "And you gave me, Louise Vuitton."

    Yes the writer of "The Real Me" and "A Woman's Right To Shoes" actually wrote this garbage.

    Lawyer Miranda is now a frigid shrew who swats her deadbeat husband away like a fly every time he tries to get near her - and spends the entire 2.5 hours complaining about how marriage changed her, it made her move to Brooklyn. She is no longer likable, funny, or smart.

    Meanwhile, housewife Charlotte spends the 2.5 hours prancing around like a little girl, screaming at the top of her lungs, and carrying her confused, Asian daughter around like a dog in a handbag. The problem with continuing Charlotte's storyline on the show is her storyline came to the only logical conclusion it could have had at the end of the show. Now, it' just a retread through old territory. Davis is ultimately given a thankless role in this film.

    However, it is Samantha who is given the most honest adaptation. While certainly a cartoon version of her former self, Samantha's story revolves around her inability to maintain a monogamous relationship - despite being very much in love. However the payoff is ultimately ruined as Samantha is no longer human.

    This incarnation of 'Sex' is so incredibly shallow - it basically acts a prop to advertise luxury goods. The most obvious scenes to illustrate this are when Carrie tries on designer wedding dresses for a Vogue shoot, which goes on for an excruciating 10 minutes, followed closely by Carrie and co. going through her closet trying to decide what to take to her new apartment with husband-to-be Big (Chris Noth). The scene is ultimately pointless as she is moving to a closet that is 10 times to the size - which, if you can imagine it - is actually a plot point in a film that will make you feel compelled to throw out every designer label you own. The show was about the importance of following your own trajectory, and self actualization. The film abandons this concept.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Like many of the others, I am a huge fan of the series (I own all the DVDs and have watched each episode multiple times).

    The translation to big screen just.doesn'

    There was so much melodrama and fake crises! The male characters were like shadows of themselves. Big was like an avuncular sugar-daddy at the beginning and devolved into a limp-wristed dweeb by the time he thwarted Carrie.

    And Carrie was a shrill, melodramatic idiot who ultimately gets what she deserves. What intelligent, independent woman in her right mind would go back to the jackass who screwed you over multiple times? Why can't she just be independent? That always bothered me about the series finale.

    Miranda seems melodramatic and overreacts to Steve's indiscretion -- which comes out of nowhere and feels like a poorly timed plot device.

    Smith, who is starting to weather like Clint Eastwood, came off as way-too-casual when Samantha gave him her decision. He acted like such an airhead surfer-dude, which was never apparent in the series.

    Stanford and Anthony were like caricatures of themselves. Oh, we have a wedding, let's work in the flaming wedding planner! And didn't he and Stanford dislike each other? Why were they palling around like best girlfriends?

    I thought it was curious that Carrie's friends all showed up to help her pack her apartment, but they were nowhere to be found when the unpacking was being done. What kind of friends are those?

    The only redeeming acting came from Kim Catrall and Kristen Davis. They are totally comic pros and I enjoyed their schtick, even if it was silly. They at least pulled it off. As for Parker and Nixon, they acted like a couple of shrill witches when scorned. Ugh.
  • matt75-12 June 2008
    Warning: Spoilers
    This movie was such a disappointment: so disrespectful to the series, the characters' original complexity, and women's complexity!

    I was particularly let down by the script. First of all, the jokes were not funny. From the 'Saint Louise from St Louis' to Charlotte's Mexican incident, everything was so unlike Michael P King's style. Then the plot: predictable (Samantha's ring/ Smith being the guy getting it to her; the password of Carrie's email folder being 'love' like on the key chain...) but most of all characters were out of their 'tv series' parts. Especially Carrie: hitting Big with the wedding bouquet and screaming at him in the middle of 5th ave, really?!? Planning a honeymoon in Mexico, really (btw, the guy greets them with 'welcome to Mexico', that's …'broad' and silly…)?!? Telling Miranda 'you ruined my wedding', really? That dinner scene seemed like out of an episode of The Hills….

    I personally also found Jennifer Hudson terrible: she already won the 2008 Razzie to me (altough I should check if Sharon Stone is coming out with a new movie...).

    In general, if you think of what you saw in this movie without the affection you have for these characters, you must admit this is a terribly corny romantic comedy.

    Think of how wonderfully touching and poignant some episodes were. Like the one when Miranda finally took the courage to tell her feelings to Steve... It was titled 'One', and it was indeed a fully satisfying, beautiful episode.

    This movie is just a 1/10...
  • Let me preface this by saying that I am a straight female who has been a fan of the SATC series since its second season. I have every episode on DVD and have honestly seen every episode at least 5 times, including the commentaries by Michael Patrick King. That said, I could not be more disappointed in the film. To say that this movie was for fans of the series is insulting in my opinion because where the series had heart, depth and some intelligence, the movie had labels, poop jokes and lame choices by the characters.

    First of all, yes, Carrie Bradshaw is the main character, but could the other 3 women have been treating any more cavalierly? The "plot lines", if you can call them that, for the other characters seemed to be thrown into the mix just to give them something to do while Carrie ran around town, changing outfits and hair colors to the delighted shrieks of 15 year old fans. I can only imagine that was the audience the film wanted to capture because expecting grown women to follow this crap is insanity.

    Secondly, the ending of the film made me completely lose respect for Carrie. I cannot imagine an emotionally healthy 41 year old woman making the same choice she made. I think she needs intensive therapy because she is obviously a masochist who values the ability to purchase brand name couture more than her own happiness. And if the ability to buy couture is what makes her really happy, well, then, the 15 year old target audience should be thrilled.

    That said, I probably will see the sequel. I'm hoping they bring in more writers from the series to add some of the emotional oomph that this movie painfully lacked. *sigh* I just can't seem to quit SATC.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    My wife watched the TV series. In other words that means I had to watch the TV series. I didn't hate it. A lot of episodes were good, some were bad, the rest were just average.

    This film was an insult to any fan of the show and I'm surprised so many "real fans" were suckered in by it. What happened to the characters? Well, for the most part the couples were needlessly pulled apart merely as a plot device to put them back together again later on in another glaringly obvious saccharine reunion scene. The only story which actually seemed natural was Samantha's, and Charlotte's baby story was a slap in the face to the TV series.

    Also, what was with the clothes? Did the makers intentionally try to make the stars of the show look as ridiculous and old as possible. I'm sorry, but Sarah Jessica Parker has the arms of a 60 year old and they should not be highlighted in any way. The ginger one's (2nd?) haircut did her no favours whatsoever unless she actually wanted to look seventy years old.

    In short, I may only be a bloke so most/all women on here will immediately shrug their shoulders and say I don't know what I'm talking about. However, I do know enough to realise when a show's creator is manipulating and cheating the very audience who helped make him successful.
  • I am a big fan of the show. I am one of those people who have seen every episode at least 4 times, and some of them around 10 times. Even so, I still watch the reruns, and I was really looking forward to the movie.

    So, it is really upsetting that I have to give it such a bad review. I went to see it with the best of intentions. I really wanted to love it. Unfortunately the movie has nothing to do with the wittiness and character of the series. Even putting aside the wooden and/or exaggerated acting, you fail to recognize the characters who where transformed into caricatures, pathetic versions of themselves.

    There were very very few lines that gave a glimpse of the old clever dialog, and they all got lost in a mass of cheesy lines about love and friendship that you even rarely anymore encounter in the corniest of Hollywood's chick flicks, and toiler humor that you only expect from movies like Harold and Kumar. OK, maybe the comparison to Harold and Kumar is a little unfair, but really I had never expected Sex and the City to rely on fart jokes for comic relief.

    People comment that those who rate this movie badly are either men, or just not fans of the show. From my perspective the fans of the show should be the ones most disappointed by the travesty that was this film.

    We grew to love the show because of its honesty towards sexual issues, its shocking but clever dialog, and its characters who, however unreal with their designer obsessions, uncontrollable spending and lack of real jobs, remained true to their personas regarding sex, relationships, commitment, independence.

    The show was about sex. The movie is about love, and treats the subject from the weakest, corniest and most disappointing standpoint.

    This movie is a fake Fendi. Dropping 15 designer names in one sentence, showing bulging men's underpants and orgasming at the sight of huge closets, Sex and the City does not make.

    As for me, I will keep watching the reruns and pretend this movie never happened.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    It was so awful it defies description. If you are really a "true fan"... you will leave quite bitter and feeling used. The movie literally contains plot lines that revolve around poop and fat jokes. Literally. Poop jokes and fat jokes. Oh, and a petulant 40 year old who responds to being disappointed by/in her partner by cutting him out of her life for a year and looking to her friends to be her mommies. Mature.

    SATC was on my last year in high school through my college years and into my mid-20s. Needless to say, the show meant a lot to me in those formative years. I've since grown up to be a feminist and professional and look back fondly on the revolutionary nature of the series. Even in its moments of fluff and vanity, there were redeeming aspects to the self-reflection and (sometimes reluctant) self-reliance of these women. No, it's not perfect... but it was challenging and eye-opening in its milieu. To then go see this movie is an insult. Much like as I did in my late teens and early-to-mid 20's, I expected a mature movie that examined the lives of these 40-somethings in a way that would offer some insight (and wit) into what I might come to expect in the years to come as I get older, live with my partner, maybe get married, maybe have babies, maybe adopt, maybe leave a partner, maybe face infidelity, etc... something that honored the promise that it was a smart movie that gave these mature women something to sink their acting chops into...

    Instead I got a wedding farce; a humping dog; stock black, Jewish and gay characters that literally made me feel ill; 4 women who don't know themselves any better than they did 4 years ago, 10 years ago; and, oh yeah, POOP JOKES AND FAT JOKES.

    SATC the TV series WAS a cultural icon, a touchstone, a movement.

    SATC the movie promotes itself as a vehicle for creating another socio-cultural rupture. Instead its witless.
  • Since any opinion on this movie has to be tempered by sex and viewing history let me just make it clear up front that I am a man and, while I don't dislike the series, I didn't ever get into it beyond watching (and enjoying) the odd episode that someone else was watching in the same room as I was sitting. Please feel free to dismiss/accept my opinions accordingly in light of this information. My first proper reaction to the Sex & the City movie was to baulk at the running time, which struck me as pretty excessive for what it was. I was right on this as the film is longer than it probably deserves to be but at the same time it never dragged as badly as I expected. The characters are older now and, after the series ended, all partnered up to a certain degree and "happy" in their relationships. Carrie and Big have settled into a new flat and this has made Carrie think about commitment and legal connections – a path that leads to them deciding to get married. While Big gets nervous, Carrie goes planning crazy, Miranda sows the seeds of problems in her own marriage, Charlotte plays happy families and Samantha has it all except one thing.

    This plot setup creates the focus of the film – less on the free-wheeling sex and modern relationships of the series and more on the pitfalls of a mature relationship. This offered more substance to carry the film from my point of view but unfortunately this was not to be the case here. For too much of the film the material is superficial and sentimental with "love" not ever being all that real and instead smacking of easy steps in the writing that focused on events rather than the characters. Fans may say that the show was never about great depths and, in my limited experience, I agree – it was witty, light and bubbly. The problem is that, the occasional moment aside, the film just isn't that way – understandably perhaps given the narrative demands of the platform and the running time. Problem is, without the witty swiftness of the series, something else is required and this is why the substance was important – and why the film is damaged by the lack of depth on this occasion.

    This doesn't make a bad film but it does severely limit it to being "average" in the main content. What doesn't help at this time of recession (and the film was released during this period) is just how endlessly capitalist the whole thing. The audience needs to care for these characters and that is a little difficult when money is no object for them, retail therapy solves everything and so much dialogue is about expensive items. To top all that, given how easy it is to get product placement into a film about shopping why on earth did we have to have such clumsy and obvious product placement (the iPhone being the worst example). The cast do their usual shtick and all look good and play comfortably with their characters. Some reviews have criticised the four actresses but the material is to blame rather than them. The male cast are mainly just narrative devices and, with the exception of Eigenberg and possibly Noth.

    The Sex and the City film is an average film with lots of problems. Generally this opinion is dismissed if it comes from a male non-fan but I cannot imagine that fans of the series are totally happy with this either. It doesn't manage to capture the spirit of the series but nor does it manage to replace it with anything else of note in regards depth or substance. It is glossy and professional enough to distract but if the plan was to continue the series through the occasional film then this is a pretty poor way to start off.
  • Cute enough for an evening's mindless entertainment, but exactly that and not a penny more. Put aside any thought you might have about not caring a great deal about what happens to a group of rich, superficial white women who (you are told) are actually very smart and talented but who (you are shown) are silly twits (not to use a different vowel) whose exclusive joy in life comes from sex and shopping, and not in that order. I know, I know; we're supposed to believe this is all about love (and the search for same), but it isn't; love is secondary. We're supposed to believe it's about solidarity among a group of women friends and it is, but that's more-or-less an accident. It's really about consuming – clothes, purses, shoes – and other human beings. The introduction of Jennifer Hudson (who tries really hard not to be appalled by the level of minstrel-show tokenism her presence represents) as Carrie's personal assistant is so painful and so blatant an attempt to give a tiny bit of color to the TV series' snow-blinding whiteness that you can't help but be embarrassed for absolutely everyone. Here's another film in which women are stand-ins for what is essentially a gay-male fantasy about women (an art form that George Cukor pioneered in 1939 with _The Women_) Take your brain out and store it in Tupperware for the evening; _Sex and the City_ will make you smile, but not laugh out loud. If you spend a minute thinking about it, though, all it's going to do is make you mad.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I took my girlfriend to see this movie last night at the 12:01 showing. She is a huge fan of the show, has every season on DVD, and has seen all the episodes multiple times. I have watched 30-40 episodes I would guess and I would not say that I love the show, but I do find it entertaining and never dreaded my girlfriend pulling out the DVDs to pop them in. So going into it I was there 75% for her and 25% because I genuinely thought it would be an entertaining movie even though it would never make it into my top anything.

    So with the set-up in place, the movie itself was very disappointing for both my-self and my girlfriend.

    First looking at the movie in comparison to the show itself, the movie simply felt flat by comparison. The show is full of frank and snappy discussion which manages to come across as both very real and hilarious at the same time. Really the show was built on the interactions of those four girls and those interactions simply fell flat in the movie in a way I never saw them fall flat in the show. Like I said I am only a casual fan of the show and this was apparent to me, it was even more apparent to my girlfriend who is an extreme fan of the show who also found it lacking.

    Second looking at the movie as a movie independent of the show, this is where the movie really fails. Rather than feeling like a movie which typically has a cohesive plot which spans the breadth of the film with smaller sub-plots which spring up along the way, the movie felt like a series of a TV show in which there is an overarching story arc, but the action is based around the individual episode plots. The latter works in a TV show because episodes by their nature are disjointed, you need to be able to make the individual episode plots stand well on their own or the show will fail. In a movie the result of the latter is very disjointed storyline and plot.

    Third the "secrecy" surrounding this movie really led to big disappointments for both of us. Given all "secrecy" one would have assumed that a cursory knowledge of the show and a simple watching of the trailer would not be enough to grasp the entire plot of the movie. Unfortunately such an assumption would be wrong. There were a number of plot twists which would have been great were they actually twists, sadly the producers decided that releasing ALL of them in the trailer would make for a better movie, it didn't. The only rational I can see for stupidly releasing such information while you build levels of pretend security is to drive up ticket sales with the reasonable thought: "if this is what they are showing us in the trailer who knows what will be in the movie!" Fourth, did the producers decide that strong powerful women would be a threat to the movie going public or something? With the possible exception of Charlotte (although she showed it at times too) these women are all strong, powerful and independent. In the movie Carrie spends the majority of her time first planning her wedding like a giddy school girl and then mopping around for the rest of the movie. Who is this woman because she is not Carrie Bradshaw. Samantha has gone from a strong sexual figure who may have finally found love to someone so whiny and needy you don't recognize her at all. Miranda remains a strong figure but rather than it being portrayed in a good way, it comes across more as her just being a bitch.

    Fifth some random complaints… This movie felt way too much like an ad at way too many points. I know that fashion and all that is supposed to be a part of the story of these women, but was there any need of a 5 minute Mercedes-Bens ad aka "Fashion Week" right smack in the middle of the movie? What the hell happened to Stamford? The banter between he and Carrie is one of my favorite parts of the show I don't know that he said more than two words to her the entire movie.

    Why was Charlotte even in the movie? It felt like they made it most of the way through filming and then realized they had forgotten all about her so they threw her in got her pregnant and hoped no one would notice she really didn't have much of a part since a pregnancy is so big for her. It might have worked to only as I said above as something that might have constituted a surprise to the movie going public is had to be disclosed in the trailer.

    On the subject of characters who really served no purpose why was Jennifer Hudson in this movie? She was amazing in Dreamgirls so I don't blame her for the one dimensional token character, but somebody deserves some blame. I can only guess that she was there in response to criticism of the series as being too white, but is the best response to such criticism really inserting a character who is so obviously a token it's painful? Again on the subject of pointless and forgettable characters, I know this movie should be primarily about the female leads, but that does not mean that all the male characters should be so flat that cardboard cutouts would perform just as well in their place.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Let me begin by saying that Cynthia Nixon has an astounding neck. It's regal and first rate.

    I saw this movie and the IMDb comments motivated me to rent some DVDs and watch the show for the first time, really.

    I have to say that the show is interesting social commentary in that group X gets together to discuss group Y and reveals more about group X than Y. Like watching an episode of "The View", a show that makes you wonder, not "why are some men gay" but "why aren't ALL men gay?" It showcases women revealing themselves as freaks as they inform us that "men are freaks." Newsflash: all humans are freaks, no gender is excluded.

    SATC stars character Carrie Bradshaw but the HEROINE is Samantha Jones, who is irreverent, enlightened and has most of the best lines.

    Carrie Bradshaw, in the film and movie, is a gold-digger who SEEMS to be looking for truth via her column but in her life is looking for an upscale lifestyle provided by a rich husband.

    She is a spoiled, overly-emotional brat and the saddest part of the film (in retrospect) is when BIG marries her. Why would he? BIG is a big idiot. There's a scene in Season 2 where he unintentionally knocks CB out of bed and she turns around and punches him in the eye, which is a lovely TV example of a woman hitting a man without real provocation. Is it supposed to be cute? Why doesn't he dump her then? What an idiot.

    In the film, Carrie KNOWS there's a problem with BIG regarding the wedding but she lets it go and lets it go then gets out of her limo to hit him with flowers because he destroyed her day. No, she destroyed it by not dealing with the emotional realities, something it takes her months to realize after much male-bashing.

    Regarding the "Hubble" reference, Carrie is not the political idealist Katie was and Big is no Hubble. It's easy to say Hubble wanted someone more attractive but more accurate to say he wanted someone less complicated/idealistic. Both women are pushing their men but one is pushing him to be "better" while the other is pushing him into a commitment he doesn't want, not a valid comparison. The only thing complicated about CB is her public analysis of why a 21st century female seeking a 19th century relationship isn't working out.

    Samantha, on the other hand, is feeling sexually stifled by the studguy who cared for her during cancer (?) but leaves him, not without regret, to be true to herself. The seemingly uncaring, frivolous character who is actually better and smarter than the STAR. She even gets FAT in an effort to be faithful. Wow!

    Carrie is a user and Samantha is a thoroughly modern "with the times" heroine.

    Since a sequel for SATC is in the works, one can only pray that it's about the divorce or a whodunit murder mystery-

    "Who Killed Carrie Bradshaw?"

    Is it:

    Big, when he realizes what an idiot he was for marrying CB?

    or is it:

    her 3 friends, because she was a "modern woman with an out-of-date agenda" whiner? I'd go see that.

    In conclusion, Big is a commitment-phobe for all the right reasons. Both genders SHOULD be afraid of marriage. It's government-sanctioned, legalized love. Don't walk, RUN.
  • While the TV-series, as Bushnells chronicles, was kind of shallow and well... stupid, in some respects, SATC did have a certain zing and friskiness, and it was entertaining and even at times exciting to take part of Carrie's and the others lives. It carried a slight feminist edge, as women had rarely been portrayed talking relationships and sex in a candid way, before.

    The film however has no emotional resonance above a typical half-assed rom-com. It seems that they only took the shallow and stupid stuff of the series, and created a rather contrived left-at-the-alter plot, far removed from the light touch, that was there, in the writing of the series. The characters only vaguely resemble human beings. Any feminist touch seems blown out the wind. I did find the film to have a certain entertainment value though, at times.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The last film I saw that offered an equally dark and twisted view of the human psyche, was Pasolini's Salo: a glimpse of something truly dehumanizing and a portrayal of the triumph of evil. SATC works along the same lines, establishing characters without any redeeming qualities, absolutely devoid of decency and empathy. At a certain level, one can see the film as some sort of uber-feminist dystopia, replete with scenes of symbolic castration; or maybe some sort of super-consumerist manifesto, where existence is distilled as lifestyle and an hymn to superficiality; or maybe as a nihilistic social commentary, where self-centeredness and egotism are systematically rewarded.

    One thing is for sure: it is a deeply disturbing experience for the male viewer. The male characters in this film are gay, sex toys or rich daddy figures. The 4 females leads are predatory, utterly self-absorbed, devoid of any moral compass, guilt-infusing middle aged "professionals" - exaggerated caricatures of an equal-rights fantasy gone terribly wrong. It is a combination of American Psycho, In the Company of Men and Fight Club from a female viewpoint - an immature and violent wet dream that is justified based on the " I am being me" and "I love me" principles. I challenge any man to check out the scene where Kim Katrall's character dumps her boyfriend of 5 years ( that stuck with her through chemotherapy to boot) because she "loves herself more" and not get enraged and scared at the vision offered.

    Of course, a lot of suspension of disbelief is required, since at the same time, the film borders science fiction - it is hard to digest that these women, manipulative as the may be, can actually transform successful and emotionally stable men into pathetic, apologetic train wrecks.

    If you watched this with your wife and girlfriend and she didn't spot anything reprehensible in the main characters' behaviour, you, my friend, are in deep, deep, deep trouble.
  • ...or at least try to be original?

    Saying that "Sex and the City: The Movie" is just for the fans is unnecessary (like it was made for another audience, right?). Who else except die hard fans of the show will be crazy for this movie?

    Is it predictable? Yes. Is it just a longer episode of the TV show? Yes. Is it funny? Depends. If you like the show, you'll laugh; if you don't, you won't. Simple as that.

    It doesn't try or pretend to be art-house material or an Oscar contender (except for the costume design, of course), but it's definitely good entertainment and a pleasant couple of hours with buttery popcorn and a Red Bull. 7/10.
  • Utlkn2me27 September 2008
    Warning: Spoilers
    I'm a great female fan of the HBO series, but this film is not in the same league. I am so disappointed. I just saw it when the DVD came out, and had intentionally avoided reading reviews here, but totally agree with many that I'm now reading.

    It looks like the producers just wanted to make quick money, decided what they thought would appeal to the movie-going public, and said to heck with the loyal series fans.

    The movie characters mostly do not resemble nor act like those from HBO, and the storyline was just plain stupid and kept going for cheap humor. These women act even more immature than they did when the series ended, and the Carrie/Big storyline made no sense. OK, he didn't have her new phone number, but did he not know where she lived? Come on - a whole year would pass, and he wouldn't make a single attempt to see her. (He went to Paris to get her in the last series episode, but couldn't have his limo driver take him over to her apartment?) How many times during the series did they show his sitting in the limo waiting for her outside her building.

    The actors in general had no passion, and it looked like they were phoning in their lines. It could have been so good - just have picked up where the series left off and go from there.

    Things they shouldn't have done (IMHO): 1 - Sent the girls to Mexico; 2 - Had Samantha get that dog; 3 - Have Samantha's and Smith's relationship end that way; 4 - Have Charlotte get pregnant; 5 - Had Carrie treat Big the way she did, and his staying away from her for a year; 6 - Have the male characters barely participate in the movie; 7 - Left out "The City" - Where was New York? I did not get the feel for NYC like I did in the series.

    I could go on and on and on. I just wished that they'd done justice to the series
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Yea, this movie is a real block buster.It lost sixty-three per cent of its core audience the first week .Even the ladies are hating this horrid film.

    By my estimation it will have to take in another thirty million to reach positive cash flow . Four self-absorbed broads shop 'til they drop discuss sex in a frank and revealing manner and clutter up the screen with garbage for over two hours. These chicks haven't progressed at all . Should be sub-titled 'Arrested Development ' Chris Noth whose, extremely, limited acting (?) chops are on display to great disadvantage,is simply a boring mannequin / archetype . A narrator constantly tells the audience what we have just witnessed complete with a moral stance attached . The duologue is no longer daring nor that interesting for that matter . Now they were talking about sex in front of a child, referring to the act as "colouring". How often did Miranda do colouring? Not nearly enough. Samantha, the goddess single of older women, of course liked to use all the crayons, while Carrie Bradshaw, our narrator and lead, said that when Big coloured "he doesn't always stay inside the lines." Wow ! How daring . How interesting . Guy s kip this drek like the plague .If your girl insists on going . Send her alone . You have been warned .This movie sucks .
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The only positive thought that ran through my mind after watching the gala premiere of the film is "Damn, that new Mercedes Benz GLK is fine."

    As a series, Sex and the City was like a sliver of pan fried foie gras - cruel, taboo, but delicious. The movie, however, was as flaccid as Spam; it was entirely unsuccessful in its attempt to achieve thorough character development/portrayal in a couple of hours.

    Think of it this way, if you cringe at the thought of FRIENDS coming together to make a movie, SATC is exactly the same. There's simply too much history within the series that can be sufficiently revisited/covered in the movie.

    We get it, you have a lot of clothes, SJP and minions. But then again, even those Blahniks couldn't save you from being convincingly labelled as the world's unsexiest woman, could they? A reed thin plot, horrible ending and one dimensional acting adds up to quite a big boob at the cinemas this summer. To quote Heidi Klum, "you're eizer in, or you're out." I think you know where I'm going with this.
  • I will preface this comment by saying that my wife and I have been going through some rough patches in our marriage. So needless to say, we needed a night out with just each other. So we decided on dinner and a movie. The dinner was very nice. We had a great time and appeared to be headed toward a very "exciting" finish.

    With that said...guys, DO NOT TAKE YOU WIFE OR GIRLFRIEND TO THIS MOVIE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO ARGUE!!! My wife was a huge fan of the series and I was only an occasional watcher. I really didn't follow it so I wasn't 100% familiar with all of the characters and recurring plot lines. So I just figured it would be a funny, romantic movie to go to and also to appease my wife...she isn't a big Indian Jones fan.

    20 minutes into this piece of garbage, I realized that this might have been a mistake...although you wouldn't have guessed it by my wife's reaction...she seemed to be thoroughly enjoying it. Even to the point of laughing...even though a lot of it seemed some of the worse jokes ever put on film. Seriously, the jokes in this film made Police Academy 6 seem like a Woody Allen movie.

    But the worst was yet to come. After almost 2 1/2 hours of watching four, emotionally and mostly physically UNattractive 40 somethings bitch about men and try on clothes that should not be purchased by anyone during our current state of economy, I had to face the inevitability of actually talking to my wife about this movie on our drive home.

    So now I had two choices: lie to her and tell her what a good movie it was...this would have made the movie drag on even further for me. Or, tell her the truth and hope that the conversation would stop there.

    Well, I chose the latter...and guess what...the conversation did NOT stop there.

    Apparently, men are not allowed to tell women that the characters in this farce are devoid of any heart, incapable of real love, and are just spoiled bratty wenches. And that any woman who watched this and thinks that their life can end up like this is in for a sad, demoralizing surprise.

    Needless to say, I ended up sleeping on the pull out bed that night.

    Men, please do yourself a favor...stay away from this piece a crap.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    First of all. It's bad. Really bad.

    I have seen all of the series and this movie really has nothing from the TV-episodes except for the characters and their names. It's flat, embarrassing and very shallow. The story was pointless even for this genre and wouldn't have taken more than an hour to write. The unique feeling in the series was not even close to appear in the movie. I hope that I will be able to keep watching the series after this.

    The horrible music and all the product placement of various brands, with tedious and flat-minded scenes thrown in the mix made it almost impossible to sustain throughout the entire movie. The feeling i got from it was MTV.

    What kept me watching this was the hope of a good twist back to the real sex and the city.
  • On the big screen this 4 drag queens are unmasked. There is nothing appealing or revolutionary about them. They are a walking, reactionary embarrassment. That's what happens when the small TV screen is transplanted to the big Cinema screen. The truth comes out. Remember Bill Cosby's translation? Over 2 hours of the most excruciating dissection of characters I hope I'll never meet. The Make Up, the wardrobe, the dialog! Really depressing. I was admonished by a Sex and the City devotee because I was appalled at the movie without having ever seen the TV series. Okay, I plead guilty to that and that's only why I'm giving it a 2 and not a 1.
  • BIG MISTAKE! I should have begged her to pull the trigger. This movie is nothing more than an emotional fix for females. For me, it was sheer torture. I thought it would never end. It simply goes on and on with one emotional "crisis" after another. In other words going nowhere. At 145 minutes, it was a form of punishment. Of course SHE LOVED IT. Do yourself a favor and fake illness, or a death in the family, whatever it takes to avoid having to endure "Sex and the City". It's going to take me a week to recover. Oh, did I mention this movie is 145 minutes? You have been warned. Start thinking of excuses immediately, or you will be very sorry. I know I am. - MERK
  • Being a fan of the series for years, I had pretty high expectations for this film. I was not disappointed by what I saw, and most other SATC fans I've talked to agree with me.

    The film jumps ahead 3 years in the characters' lives, and then intertwines the stories of the four women throughout the course of a year, as they each come to terms with the ending they found at the series' completion. I liked this approach, because it demonstrated the longevity (or lack thereof) of the happy endings the characters attained.

    The girls are translated well into film--I didn't feel like any of the 4 was rewritten or misrepresented from her role on the show. The male counterparts were all present--Big, Steve, Harry, Smith, Stanford, etc. The movie doesn't spend as much time on them as they do the trials of the female characters, naturally, and no relationship is depicted as closely as Carrie and Big's.

    I found the plot to be compelling and heartfelt and the female characters just as flawed and human and funny as they'd always been. And, of course, it wouldn't be SATC without the staples of designer bags and shoes, classic cocktails, and of course, a splash of nudity.
  • Yet another TV show {yawn} becomes a film. A gaggle of successful late thirty something women bitch, moan, and in general treat men like dirt as they wear designer clothes, try on shoes, live in overpriced apartment in gentrified neighborhoods,, advance their careers, attend fashion shows , go shopping ,and in general do the same thing they did in the late-and unlamented series. This disaster is overlong- 2 and a half hours- and, believe me it IS a chore to sit through. For die-hard fans only. The kind of movie that men get dragged to, and have to admit they liked to please their dates. It gives "chick flicks" their bad name. You've seen it all before-and better too. At least the girls are good to look at{and fantasize about} and provide decent eye candy, but thats about it.Now don't get me wrong. I can enjoy a well made and well acted "woman's film" just as much as the next guy, but this one just ain't it.If all this is not bad enough, there are more product placements in this film then you can shake a stick at. WARNING!! men, check your upper chest size after you leave the theater. The high estrogen level combined with the long running time may cause you to develop boobies! One star-and I'm being kind to it.Stay away-stay very away! Another P U movie review from Lou.
  • Fans of the show will be happy to see the ladies from the HBO series unite once again, but really it would have been better for all concerned if they hadn't bothered because this plot less and pointless big screen rehash diminishes the series. The transfer to the big screen at 2hrs and 25mins exposes the hollowness of the characters that the breezy 1/2 hour episodes concealed, and the film is truly 40 minutes too long. And while the ladies and the world have changed in the ten years since the series began, the movie barely acknowledges this fact. Yes, Jennifer Hudson is on board to demonstrate cultural diversity, but the character is unnecessary. SATC:The Movie appeases its target audience with fashion montages, male nudity, spacious closets, and American Pie humor for giddy schoolgirls. The men are upstaged by the Louis Vuitton bags and Mr. Big is passive and colorless. The director's inexperience in the medium is palpable, and the movie feels like 5 episodes of the series drained of blood, and played back to back. The movie isn't very funny; it lacks true wit and polish, and some of what the script thinks is funny, is embarrassing, and apparently SATC2 is all of the above and worse, so I'll finish the franchise with this limp vehicle. All of the 4 leads have their moments, the girls still have the same chemistry that made the series popular, and as on the series, Cattrall's Samantha is still my favorite.
  • There's something distinctly misguided and wrong with Sex and the City and it lies in its atmosphere as well as its approach to its material. I don't think it knows what it wants to be and ends up several things, usually all at once. Is it a light and fluffy comic piece about contemporary life in one of the world's largest cities? Or is it some sort of harrowing look at breaking up with someone? Or maybe it's supposed to be some kind of escapist fable about friendship and pulling through amidst thick, thin and everything in-between. The thing is it's so all over the place, and at over two hours long the film most definitely outstays its welcome, that it's everything before ending on a note that reeks of some kind of false, circular journey we're supposed to think the lead characters have been through.

    The gist of the bizarre clash of ideas is best illustrated during the opening half an hour or so during which we get a lot of fluff and a lot of sugary establishment of characters and the world in which they live before, at random intervals, cutting to explicit sex scenes between people we've spent all of about ten minutes with. It's an odd jump in content and consequently, changes the atmosphere from one that is syrupy and light hearted as these women establish their lives before changing tact and giving us the raw human form. It's a bizarre, bizarre blend of the innocent and the explicit that sets in motion a pretty bland chain of events.

    The film obviously wasn't made for me or the audience demographic that I fall into but I'm not sure if it even appeals to the audience demographic it thinks its being made for. The film is 'Bratz: The Movie' for adults, featuring colourful and casual female leads strutting through a New York City that exists purely within the universe of iffy movies and it sees them getting into dainty little situations and exchanges. The women are Carrie Bradshaw (Parker); Samantha Jones (Cattrall); Charlotte York (Davies) and Miranda Hobbes (Nixon), whom during the film will indulge in a variety of activities and exchange a number of dialogue tidbits to one another to do with how often one must shave below the waist and how shops and fashion labels are really great things to live by.

    The film is about four women and how they live their life but it is directed by a male named Michael Patrick King. I was wary of this going into the film and unfortunately, rather than act as an interesting or constructive piece as the guy at the helm attempts to deconstruct the gaze and present these women in a positive light of some sort (something I was optimistic it might've done), he has them say some pretty nasty things about one another and to one another while there are plenty of examples of product placement buried within the dialogue. Companies such as Netflix, Prada and Dior all getting a mention, which is quite sad. Additionally, other characters cannot help but feel disappointed that they're "eating everything, apart from a certain male character's genitalia" and when one other male partner states, following one of those many out of place sex scenes, that they feel 'distant'; one of the women snaps back: "Distant? You're still in me!" Dialogue like this shoots down any of the above hopefulness/general theory.

    It's difficult to describe, but you know when you watch a Saw sequel and you witness these traps that crop up at certain points and you think 'Blimey, who thinks this stuff up?' Well, the same can be said for lines of dialogue like the ones just mentioned. It's out of place and the focus isn't actually on the fact that they may possibly be 'distant' from one another but more so on the snappy comeback, echoing the disjointed tone the overall film has. So once all the sweet and nicey, nicey pleasantries have been set up, we quite crudely get whacked around the head with a proverbial hammer when it appears Carrie's long term partner Mr. Big (Noth) doesn't want to get married after all and after all the proposals, stands her up on the big day. Needless to say, she isn't pleased and heads off to should-be honeymoon destination Mexico with her three buddies.

    I thought the film was going to branch off into something else. The distinct change in tone is obvious: colourful and flowery to gloomy and depressing as Carrie tries to recover from her breakup and I thought it might look at what it's like to get over a relationship from the perspective of a late thirties, American woman who's successful in her own right. But what we get is a series of crass sex jokes; more Apple Mac.; Mercedes-Benz and Gucci product placement as well as just a general feeling of tedium as the film drifts towards its non-event of a study and then completely cops out with a nicey, nicey finale.

    The film tries, it so desperately tries. Mr Big has been married twice before and that's supposed to be a precursor to Carrie's catalyst; but a catalyst for what, I ask. One other male partner early on has an affair and some contractual issues create friction for another couple but there is no love lost here and there is no real empathy with anyone, just colourful, flowery people ditzying around a sugar coated New York that doesn't see much happen. What does it teach us? Well, as long as you have a huge wardrobe for all your clothes and skills in cooking Sushi for you husband then nothing else matters. There must be more to late thirties life as a female journalist in contemporary New York than that.
An error has occured. Please try again.