Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
05.28.2008 10:36 pm

“Sex and the City”: One man’s opinion

St. Louis Post-Dispatch
  • Email this
  • Print this

I always try to view a movie through the eyes of its intended audience. But sometimes it’s just not possible for me. Case in point” “Sex and the City,” which I saw tonight at Ronnie’s with an overflow crowd that was 90 percent female (some of whom were drinking $11 cosmopolitans in light-up martini glasses).

I was grateful that my colleague Gail Pennington volunteered to review the movie for the newspaper, because she’s a woman who is familiar with the series, which I’ve only seen by accident while flipping to the mud-wrestling and beer-chugging channel.

I not only couldn’t relate to the movie, I disliked it so thoroughly that I walked out before the halfway point. (I’ve heard it gets better, but I couldn’t spare 148 minutes to find out.) With the country at war and gas at four dollars a gallon, a ‘90-style celebration of designer labels and penthouse apartments struck me as bad taste. “Sex and the City” makes its quartet of big-city sophisticates seem like such superficial nitwits, it feels like it was created, written and directed by men.

Oh wait–it was.

Honestly, I’m heartened that there’s still a market for what some of my brothers call chick flicks, and I’m sure that this one will pack them in (at least for the first week). But in this man’s opinion, “The Devil Wears Prada,” which was written by women, cuts this thing to ribbons.

19 comments

Comments are closed.

I like to think of myself as a “Guy’s Guy”. I like sports, beer and cars as much as the next, but even I would have to say that you are looking a little to much into this movie. Take this one for face value, light hearted summer entertainment. It doesn’t have anything less to do with the current cultural climate than say…Arciologists , robot trucks, or any typical summer movie. Best not to over think this one…

— Patrick
9:55 am May 29th, 2008

Joe,
I disagree. I was one of the 10 percent last night and have seen most of the TV episodes. It was a good movie, entertaining and exactly what the audience wanted. The country is at war and gas prices are high, but what does that say about people who go to ‘Iron Man,’ ‘Baby Mama’ or ‘Indiana Jones?’ I think a little escapism is a good thing.

I thought ‘Devil’ was more shallow than ‘Sex,’ which was about relationships instead of climbing the corporate ladder.

— Charles Williams
9:56 am May 29th, 2008

To my buddy Charles (above): Actually, “Iron Man” IS about the war, at least peripherally. I didn’t like the film when Tony Stark was whooping it up as as a billionaire playboy/weapons dealer. But he grew as the movie progressed.

And “Indy” would have been intolerable if the whole point was to hoard jewelry instead of acquire knowledge. In the Indiana Jones movies, the hoarders are the villians.

But I grant that “Sex and the City” is escapist fare that is likely to please its intended audience. There’s a place for that. Just not on my calendar.

Joe W.

— Joe Williams
10:45 am May 29th, 2008

Personally, I’m a littl etired of all the “SEX” in the city. This type of movie and TV shows have done nothing but exploit sexuality in underaged children and teens (read illegal). Commercials and media are responsible for this tacky way of making money - at the expense of the self-respect, self-esteem, and character of our young girls.

This type of movie just glamorizes the have-it-all-now at ANY COSTS. We really won’t know the fallout until these sex-bombarded children grow up and begin displaying issues as adults, possibly lots of divorce, affairs, and an insatiable appetite for kinkiness because they will be bored with something they’ve done since being 15.

— Uncle Ben
10:51 am May 29th, 2008

“exploit sexuality in underaged children and teens” Really??
This movie/show is about the a bunch of middle-aged women. Furthermore, the movie has an R-rating making it off limits to viewers under the age of 17(read illegal). Give it a rest Uncle Ben…

— Patrick
11:14 am May 29th, 2008

First 6 comments all by males. And as many as 5 are straight. Who knew??

— sej
12:04 pm May 29th, 2008

Sarah Jessica Parker is just too butt ugly to look at for 148 minutes. That nose must have taken up the entire screen!!!!!!!

— Barak Davote
12:47 pm May 29th, 2008

I don’t blame Sex and the City for its overindulgences. If it wasn’t this show, it would have been something else.
But do you know what this series and movie have done to popular culture? It’s made the average night out out of reach for many of us. Instead of spending $20 on booze before a girl finds me attractive, I’m out at least $40.

— Josh
2:32 pm May 29th, 2008

During the Great Depression movie studios cranked out light-hearted “screwbaall” comedies with lots of glittery fashions and penthouse settings, presumably to take people’s minds off the country’s economic woes.Maybe that’s what’s going on now.

— Audrey
3:25 pm May 29th, 2008

I was a BIG fan of the show, and I really liked this movie. I think it’s fun to escape the drudgeries of reality at the movies. What’s wrong with a few laughs during troubled times?

— scrap
3:47 pm May 29th, 2008

The entire concept of this show, as the author pointed out, is completely ludicrous. The way these absurd characters strut around New York, with there would-be witty dialouge, martini-sipping, and boring over analysis of their lame relationships contribute to this being what it is: The worst show in the history of television. How can anyone stand to listen to their same tiresom conversations without wanting to kill them? I simply do not understand what the appeal of this smug bunch of crybabies is. They seem to me to be very whiny, and overestimate their ability to maniuplate anything in their lame excuses of poorly written lives. Horrible, plain and simple.

— scott
4:44 pm May 29th, 2008

I have not seen this movie but I have seen previous episodes when it aired on HBO. My ex was addicted to the show and in order to spend time with her, I would watch it too. That’s what guys do for their ladies, make sacrifices. And let me tell you, this was a HUGE sacrifice. Every character on the show was so materialistic, shallow, self-centered, self-righteous; I didn’t know how anyone could get into it cause the characters were so unlikable. I think I even threw up once after watching it cause it made me so nauseous. You’ll never catch me wasting $8 bucks to see this trash.

— STLmike
4:55 pm May 29th, 2008

I find it amusing that the “designer labels” you found offensive during war times and high gas prices. I’ll bet you really get into the the movies that are shoot ‘em up or are car chases which destroy more cars (nice ones at that) then most people can afford - much less put gas into them. Oh - and let’s not leave out the blowing up of ANYTHING (bridges, buildings etc.)
I think if you are a film critic - you need to change job fields.

— Nancy
6:46 am May 30th, 2008

To Nancy (above): No, I generally dislike movies with car chases and buildings blowing up, and I despise movies where human beings are reduced to cannon fodder. When Schwarzenegger or Stallone unleash their machine guns on a nest of henchmen, it makes me ashamed to be a man. One of my responsibilities as a critic is to counter such nonsense.

(Didn’t you know whose blog you were visiting?)

— Joe Williams
10:35 am May 30th, 2008

well, I liked the series & will see the movie but I disagree about it being in ‘bad taste’. some people can still afford designer labels - not me, but some people. ‘escapism’.

also, uncle Ben, they are in their 40’s, one is 50 - what are you TALKING about!?!?!?

— Carol
1:41 pm May 30th, 2008

Joe Williams–that is awesome that you actually come back to the blog and call people out for making inaccurate/ridicuolous statements.

I am a gay man who has only seen the show on cable as repeats…I have LOTS of friends who were (are?) addicted to it, so I made it a point to at least watch a few episodes before criticizing it.

I found SATC to be on the WORST written and un-funny shows ever. Granted, comedy is subjective, but I found the plots/characters/dialogue incredibly LAME and amateurish. I know that a gay man wrote and developed the show…but NEWS FLASH…not all gay people are the same–just as all staright people are not the same.

Can’t we all agree that bad shows are simply bad shows? It doesn’t automatically make someone a misogynist just because they find this show intolerably awful.

— toby keith
2:56 pm May 31st, 2008

I have to say that the movie was everything I hoped it would be. As a fan of the series, it’s definitely a “must-see” for fans of the show — but if you didn’t see or didn’t relate to the show, why would you bother going to the movie? It picks up with the characters we loved, and it was a nice, extended episode for devoted fans. No, guys - it’s probably not for you, so don’t waste your time going to see it and grousing about the movie afterwards.

— StLbelle
10:38 pm June 3rd, 2008

This is my first time reading your blog. I am enjoying the comments. I am a SATC junkie myself. I can understand why those who have not and do not intend to watch the movie have and will not. LOL Like one of the bloggers stated, it is a continuation of the series. Pretty good stuff. I laughed, cried, and sighed throughout the movie.

Keep it coming everyone, thank you for the laughs.

— Vkoolade
1:29 pm June 10th, 2008

By the way, why are they calling you “Uncle Ben”?

— Vkoolade
1:30 pm June 10th, 2008