Fan Rant: I Absolutely Hated 'Sex and the City'
Over the last year, I have written most of Cinematical's posts on the big-screen version of Sex and the City. This is because I know most of the Carrie Bradshaw-verse inside and out. I'm not a rabid fan of the series, but I end up popping the seasons in at least once a year, as background noise, while I clean/cook/relax. I ignore the fashion and some of the more floofy romance, and enjoy a show that not only has a collection of successful, professional women as its stars, but also covers a number of real-life scenarios and conversations.
That is, I did enjoy it all until I watched the movie travails of Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte, and Miranda on Friday. I have never, ever been so disappointed in an adaptation or move to the big screen.
(There are only minor descriptions of plot points in what follows, but if you haven't seen the film and don't want to know, don't go through the jump.)
These women, who were once icons of smart and professional success in New York City, who pushed the envelope on sexuality, had become nothing more than modest women whipped by men, and wealthy fashion caricatures. Gone were glimpses into their professional lives, or any bit of their lives that didn't focus on romance, family, or fashion. Sure, we got a momentary glimpse of Samantha's new office, and we saw Miranda sit at her desk -- but the only working bits that were really shown were about Carrie, and that meant that every "professional" scene was her either talking about her wedding or about the thrills and woes of love.
Many have said that the film is like a condensed season, but it is without any depth -- shocking for a film that is over two hours long. Imagine an outline of a season put to film and beefed up with shopping and fashion and romance woes rather than plot development and character depth and strength.
And it was all commercialism. Samantha goes with her friends to an auction for jewelry priced higher than some nice cars, she spends insane amounts of money in the blink of an eye while flying to New York at every chance. (I guess she hasn't heard of carbon footprints.) Carrie's assistant rents accessories to be fashionable. Fancy robes, exotic locales -- money has become no object.
Yes, the ladies have always loved the labels, and done expensive things, but it was still grounded in some sort of far-reaching reality, rather than a flashy showcase of life when money is no object. Let the women have their success, but let that success be filled with depth and balanced by the rest of what life offers.
As most of the women are very unlike myself, I loved the series because in spite of all that; it was easy to connect with them. Even when they did or thought things that I couldn't relate to, they did it with heart, and I enjoyed it. This movie, however, I completely hated. I kept waiting for them to pull me in. It never happened. There were a few moments I really loved, especially the all-too-brief bits of Stanford, but most of it felt empty.
When the girls kept squealing every time they were in the same room together (which was a lot), it seemed fake. When each of them struggled, it seemed superficial. Over and over it felt like a showy performance without heart. To be fair, some of the bits that I hated were "resolved" in the end like romantic stories and mainstream films often do, but I don't watch a film for almost 2.5 hours to get a momentary blip of fulfillment after hours of money, fashion, and weakness.
Sex and the City was nothing but a consumer-filled frenzy of fashion where the men were men and the women just shopped and obsessed over their men. It is what I thought the show was until I started watching it. It's a film that erased every bit that I loved about the show, and left every superfluous bit in tact.
Jeremy Renner Wants To Be An Avenger
Directors We Love: Jim Jarmusch
Indie Roundup: 'Sweetgrass,' 'Clarkworld,' 'Broken Embraces'
Shelf Life: Fight Club_thumbnail.jpg)
Watch: Famous 'Matrix' Scene Re-Created with LEGOs
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
5-31-2008 @ 10:18PM
Matthew said...
Amen.
Reply
5-31-2008 @ 10:38PM
wow said...
well aint that a bitch. Does that mean it's Womens' Transformers?
Reply
6-01-2008 @ 8:31AM
Pudge said...
Why does everyone hate on Transformers? I loved that movie, and that love was magnified by my years and years of watching G1 and Beast Wars that preceded it. It was a perfect interpretation of the Transformers world.
5-31-2008 @ 11:04PM
Mr. R said...
I thought the product placement craze had spoiled a good deal of movies with it's blatant "go buy this to be this person" modus operandi. Now it seems it has began to modify the stories themselves by creating a world in which self centered characters spend their time thinking of wedding celebrations and shoes with no true message beneath. I haven't seen the movie but this was already something I got from the TV show. Sounds like it got worse, will wait for DVD rental...
Reply
5-31-2008 @ 11:41PM
PC said...
I agree with your opinion to some extent.
The 'condensed season' did seem rushed with no depth into the characters or plot which was dissapointing but you must remember, the objective of the movie was to have a final 'wrap up' of the show and provide the fans/viewers with relief of the show, not to provoke them to become more involved with the series which we all know, officially ended a few years ago.
As for the money-with-no-limit issue, being a movie to end the series for good (or so we know) I'm sure the producers wanted the viewer to not feel connected to the series. I know it is a bit of a stretch to believe but if you ponder it, it begins to make sense. In reality, we all know the movie was made to get the 'final buck' because it'll eventually go into history with the sales because of women who will see the film more than once, purchase murchandise, etc.
Just wanted to get my two cents in, and unfortunately I disagree with your opinion that the movie was a bust; it will go down in history and it was perfect for what the objective was (wrap it up the best way without having the viewer wanting more).
Reply
5-31-2008 @ 11:57PM
Kim Voynar said...
Totally disagree (but you know that, if you read my review). For me, the character arc of this film was about these women trying to adjust to the demands of relationships, kids, and marriage while trying to still hold onto who they were as independent women without those obligations.
After six seasons of trying to get to a place of being able to balance being smart, independent women with having stable relationships, once they have all that, they don't know how quite how to deal with it. Carrie's wrestling with insecurity accumulated through 10 years of on-again, off-again with Big; Miranda's trying to balance a career with marriage and her sex life with Steve; Samantha's attempting to stay with one man; and Charlotte can't trust in the happiness she's found with Harry and their child.
I'm in year 13 of my relationship with my husband; we've got five kids, and I did five years of giving up my career to be a stay-at-home mom, only to find that I needed work to retain my sense of self and independence. Perhaps it's because I'm about the age these characters are now, and have been through exactly the issues each of them are dealing with, at different points in my own life, but I completely related to it.
Reply
6-01-2008 @ 10:33AM
Monika said...
The thing is, I saw barely anything of them trying to stay true to who they were, save Samantha. Some of Carrie's non-Carrieness, so to speak, made sense, but only would have worked to me had the others picked up the slack. Miranda's scenes were all about obsessing over Steve, or getting judged for her actions re: Steve. And Charlotte, god, I could barely watch her bits -- between her over-done foreign paranoia to the fact that it seemed that any mental stimulation seems to have left her life. It's great to have a family and an amazing relationship, but then balance that by her still going to see art, or using her brain in some way.
6-01-2008 @ 11:54PM
Cagey said...
Kim....I totally agree with you comment and observations.
Like you, I felt the story focused very well on these four women and the struggles they were going through and how they each were figuring out how to deal with them.
Most of the nasty comments and reviews I have read (and there are many) seem to insist that the film is shallow and that all the women are concerned about is shopping and fashion and problems with "their men."
Obviously, fashion is a big part of the draw of "Sex and the City", and there were at least two awesome montages regarding that. But the consumerism and shopping complaints.....I don't understand it. That was very minor, as far as I am concerned.
If anything, it was a gorgeous ad for New York City tourism......how about that skyline?
I just don't understand the venom that is being spewed toward this film.
This is a movie....adapted from a half-hour cable comedy series. A comedy.
It concerns the lives and loves of four very strong-willed, independent over-40 female characters.
Seriously people. Get a grip. It's a movie. Let us enjoy it, and keep your misogynistic feelings to a minimum.
It's silly, sad, dramatic, fun and frivolous. Why are so many people creating such a fuss?
I hope it's not because it is 4 women. That would be scary.
There are certainly plenty of films released with male leads who spend a lot of money, live frivolously, have women who are arm candy, and they have fancy cars, electronics, etc.
Michael Douglas, Jack Nicholson, Richard Gere, Ben Affleck and many others, to name just a few.
Huh......don't remember an uproar about any of those flicks -- or anyone calling them "shallow" or consumer-driven.
I'm just sayin'.........
I find Monika's assessment of the film completely missed the mark, almost as if she saw an entirely different film.
6-01-2008 @ 12:09AM
tb said...
For a show that supposed to showcase the "female experience"...why is the TV show and movie so devoid of reality? Four female best friends...yet NOT ONCE do you see them act the way typical females act.
When one "friend" leaves the room, why don't they gossip about her personal life and ridicule her attire or make-up...as in REALITY. Of course, these are four women in 3 billion who don't do that.
When one of them discovers her boyfriend is cheating, why isn't the "slut" one of her best friends...as in REALITY...since sixty percent of cheating men are with their girl's best friend.
When they go out and one of them is getting hit on...why aren't the others acting super petty and jealous and become COCKBLOCKERS and do everything in their power to make sure she doesn't hook up and be more happy than they are...like REALITY.
Why does the writer impart that these women know their own minds, when most women haven't a clue about what they want or what constitutes "character" in a man or anyone else?
Why is there never a show on emotional blackmail, the number one technique used by women to get men to sign marriage contracts as in REALITY...and instead...always have some drip chase them around just oozing with desire to marry THEM?
Why are these women portrayed as "sophisticated", yet no one ever speaks the language of politics, science or psychology or is there ever a show focused on the subjects. Seriously...the writing is for the slow minded and I've heard better scripts on the Simpsons.
Reply
6-01-2008 @ 10:22AM
Kim Voynar said...
Wow. Either you're a guy who knows nothing about women, or a chick who's had some really lousy female friends. What a distorted view of women.
As for the last part of your question, the show was called "Sex and the City," not "Politics and Philosophy in the City."
Sometimes women discuss stuff like that when they get together for drinks, but mostly, on a girls' night out? Not so much. Kinda like how men getting together to watch a football game are talking women and game plays and not analyzing Voltaire. Doesn't mean they don't know who Voltaire is, or that they're shallow idiots -- just that sometimes, you just want to chill with your pals and relax.
6-01-2008 @ 12:59AM
Victor said...
Now you know how Star Wars fans felt after watching Episode One (unless you were a huge Star Wars fan, too). That sick feeling in your stomach, the burning lump of coal eating away at your insides as you realize that, Yes, this film really is as bad as you fear it might be.
Hopefully, you'll be over your anger in nine years. Most of us still aren't...
Reply
6-01-2008 @ 2:02AM
Jake said...
Just like a woman to trash the most successful woman's movie ever to open. It is why it is no small feat that time and time again it's a rarity that women win on dancing with the stars and why Hilary Clinton is well.....
Point is, no need for women to trash other women when men do that already.
Reply
6-01-2008 @ 10:35AM
Monika said...
I should be happy with questionable portrayals of women because they are portrayals with women? No thanks.
6-01-2008 @ 2:57AM
PST said...
True. But no need to support a bad movie just because it's the bad movie that women 'opened.' Even if it ends up being the turning point in Hollywood history, erasing gender bias in mainstream filmmaking, its importance won't change its quality as a film; a poor film is a poor film. But it would probably take a poor film to punch through that particular barrier.
By the way, when you begin a post with 'just like a woman...' and end it with a plea for women to stop trashing each other because men do it enough already, you somewhat undercut your own point.
Reply
6-01-2008 @ 3:11AM
Jill said...
Jeeez, do I sense a little petty jealousy here? The show debuted ten years ago on HBO in a pre-9/11 world when materialism was alive and well. In fact, it still is, just not as ostentatiously. If there had not been a demand for a movie like this, it probably never would have been made.
"Sex and The City" the movie is after all fiction and the movie was an excellent escapist two and half hours for me. Do I live like that? No! Do I want to? Some days, yes! It's a story and if there are those of you who think there are not women like Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte living amongst us, then think again. There are! So get over it already!
What Michael Patrick King, Sarah Jessica Parker, et al sought to do with this film was to tie up loose ends from the 2004 TV finale. I don't think they were looking to produce a deeply thought-provoking epic that pandered to the have-nots in our society. This movie was more about entertainment and less about how middle income America cannot live. What is wrong with people being rich and living their lives the way THEY want to as opposed to the way everyone else thinks they should? I saw this movie to be entertained and I was. I didn't expect the movie to be a Zen moment in a search for higher ideals to live my life by.
I was, I am and I always will be a fan of "Sex and The City." Sadly, this is probably the last we will see of the franchise. It's the end of a wonderful era.
The movie was excellent and I applaud everyone involved with this wonderful endeavor.
Reply
6-01-2008 @ 10:39AM
Monika said...
Not jealousy -- just a desire for balance. Sure, I'd love to be wealthier and free to buy/do what I want, but I don't want that at expense of myself, and I wouldn't want that to be the biggest thing that defines me.
And in the show, as much as they shopped and went crazy for romance, that wasn't all there was to them.
6-02-2008 @ 12:03AM
Cagey said...
Amen sister!
I guess we'll just have to let the haters hate.
So sad.
6-01-2008 @ 3:11AM
shane said...
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I completely disagree. I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, and I don't think your review is really fair. Movies are different beasts from serial TV shows, and you certainly have more freedom in a tv show than in a movie. I think the movie was true to the series, while still being a movie. A bit long? Maybe, but it was still SATC, and I was more than happy to have it back.
Frankly, I don't think you could be pleased. It doesn't sound like you were a big fan of the series itself, so why would you enjoy the movie? What exactly did you want? The English Patient in NYC? Give me a break, and go back to letting it play in the background while you cook and clean.
Reply
6-01-2008 @ 10:43AM
Monika said...
Perhaps I should have been more clear -- I've watched each episode at least twice without distraction, and still love to listen to them as I do other things without giving 100% attention.
All I wanted from this is more heart and depth and less spectacle. No, it didn't have to be The English Patient, but I would have rather had it have the spice and diversity of the show. With that time frame and better editing, a lot more could have gone into the story.
6-01-2008 @ 3:49AM
pete thomson said...
I disagree too. I enjoyed the movie, it was disposable nonsense but no more so than most of the rubbish that comes out of Hollywood. Yes there was blatant product placement but it fitted into the materialism of the characters and in the end Carrie does get married in a registry office thereby excusing her closet of couture. Where the movie fell down was in its treatment of men. The gay men were ridiculous, what happened to Stanford's partner? The straight men were weak. Also it was great to see a cinema full of women with hardly any men. And it was great to see male nudity bearing in mind how terrified you americans are of willies. Its certainly the only chick flick of this type I would see and it was a fun night out.
Reply