Some of these people make my skin crawl – Roger Ebert
The only thing memorable about ‘Sex and the City 2′ is the number two part, which describes it totally, if you get my drift … it’s so bad you can’t even watch the trailer – Rex Reed
‘Sex and the City 2′ isn’t a feature film as much as it is consumer porn – Bill Goodykoontz
Wow.
WWTW missed the sole screening for the film on Monday and will have to catch up with the movie ASAP (it opens tomorrow, May 27).
But the level of vitriol here – mostly from male film critics – took me aback.
Sure, the movie could stink. The first one all but desecrated the excellence of the HBO series but still had its moments.
That doesn’t explain the animosity leveled at the film. Methinks some critics may be less comfortable with sexually aggressive women – one critic called the Samantha character a slut. So is James Bond, right? But does he ever get tagged with such an ugly slur?
Critics also aren’t happy to see a movie shine a light on the unequal treatment of women in the Muslim world – part of the action here is set in Abu Dhabi. How dare the movie make a social comment that’s not in line with their thinking?
The gals’ conspicuous consumption also is rubbing critics the wrong way, something made worse by the fact that the country’s economy remains stagnant. But shouldn’t films be all about escapism? Do we want Carrie Bradshaw to clip coupons while Mr. Big drops by Costco?
(Photo: New Line Cinema’s comedy “SEX AND THE CITY 2,” a Warner Bros. Pictures release, is drawing some hateful comments from critics. Photo by Craig Blankenhorn)
Related posts:
on 
on 
on 
on 
{ 1 trackback }
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
For what it’s worth, USA TODAY critic Claudia Puig also trashed the movie (saying it “mocked the religious beliefs of Muslims”) , which may end up being the summer’s most reviled “product” (given all the companies that were said to pay to have their items appear, there’s now way I can call this a film or even a movie)…
I think it will be huge all the same … and the critics are further alienating themselves from movie goers by trashing it with such abandon.
I have no problem trashing a movie … but there’s something special about the way they’re treating this film. Will blog about this in a few days.
I have no doubt that this will be a big hit (though not likely as big as the first IMO) ala last year’s equally soulless Transformers sequel, but I find it interesting that the fact it clocks in at nearly 2 1/2 hours(!) seems to be the least objectionable aspect among reviewers, seeing how Judd Apatow and Quentin Tarantino’s movies (to name two directors) regularly get cited for being overlong (whether deservedly or not)…
Does USA Today ever trash a film that mocks the beliefs of Christians? Somehow I doubt it.
Not only can James Bond be tagged as a “slut”, he could also be accused of indulging in “consumer porn”, too. Remember the opening of Quantum of Solace, in which a cop declares that an Alfa Romeo is chasing an Aston Martin? The Bond movies are full of that sort of brand-naming.
Call me a chauvanist but the word slut can’t be applied to a man, if for not other reason than the actual meaning of the word.
Pronunciation: \?sl?t\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English slutte
Date: 15th century
1 chiefly British : a slovenly woman
2 a : a promiscuous woman; especially : prostitute b : a saucy girl : minx
Once again Opus elevates the conversation and makes me a tad smarter!
And why are movies suddenly an issue if they provide consumer escapism?
….or, the movie just sucks.
This is nothing new. People – mostly men – have dogged on SATC since the first episode premiered back in 1998. I’ve long felt that there is an undercurrent of contempt for the show/movie because it portrays women as being smart, funny AND beautiful – a combination that one rarely finds in media and pop-culture and that far too many men believe does not exist in nature.
When it comes to TV and movies, beautiful/funny women abound, but they’re rarely portrayed as smart, and the funny is almost always of the ‘let’s laugh AT her’ rather than ‘let’s laugh WITH her’ variety. Smart, funny women are less common but still easily identifiable, but they’re rarely perceived as beautiful (and if they are, it’s in an “untraditional” way. Whatever that means). Beautiful, smart women are the rarest breed, with nary a funny in sight, for reasons that aren’t hard to identify.
But SATC is one of very few vehicles that accurately portrays women as all three to some extent, which not only explains all the man-hate, but also all the woman-love.
And I mean, come on. Samantha’s a slut? Conspicuous consumption? Have these people SEEN the show? Samantha has ALWAYS been a slut (as have the other ladies, quite frankly. Even Charlotte slept with something like 15 men during the course of the show’s run). And Carrie has ALWAYS been a shopaholic. If I recall correctly, in one episode the value of her shoe collection alone was said to be $40k.
So perhaps the premise of the movie isn’t particularly original, but neither are these critics’ reviews.
Yawn.
There is no doubt that SATC is harmful to women, because in reality, a fifty year old guy like Alec Baldwin can and does hook up with a twenty something hottie, while a fifty plus woman like Kim Cattrall or Meryl Streep will not. Unless they pay plenty like Madonna.
Men and women are not the same, sexual standards are not the same, and that is totally fair. Men age better and remain desirable far longer, and up to a certain point, don’t get devalued in the sexual marketplace for more partners. On the flip side, women do get devalued for each additional partner, age out of desirability rapidly. And on the flip side again, most women are attractive to most men, while only a few socially dominant Alpha males are attractive to women.
The least dominant gal in SATC, played by Kristin Davis, is probably the most attractive to men, while the most dominant, Samantha, is not even minimally arousing. Meanwhile Big and John Corbett are far more attractive than the milquetoast husbands of the redhead and the Davis characters. Those guys probably don’t even generate the slightest arousal among women.
However, the straightforward, without any fuss, criticism of Muslim society and its strictures on women is to be condemned. I don’t want to live in a SATC world. I like the Muslim world even less and if forced to choose sides I’ll take the SATC one. I’d choose Samantha over Islam every day of the week.
And I’m an arch-social conservative.
“Critics also aren’t happy to see a movie shine a light on the unequal treatment of women in the Muslim world – part of the action here is set in Abu Dhabi. How dare the movie make a social comment that’s not in line with their thinking?”
Hmmm, me thinks you are on to something…
i’ve always disliked SATC because i did not find the women smart and sexy. i thought they were dumb and ugly. it’s funny how critics of SATC critics think the reason is because the 4 women are sexual. But that is not the case for me. indeed, i liked the show Girlfriends (check it out) who are very sexy and smart. And Black and nicer to each other! But what gets my goat of SATC is the way it’s marketed, highlighting SJP and ignoring the other women 90% of the time. the other women get side lined (the less fancy clothes, less dialog, less attractive boyfriends).
my friends with happy lives and good relationships with men (and fun, active sex lives) scoff at SATC. My friends with men and money issues relate to SATC.
Maybe the critics are tired of seeing pointless sequels.
I’m guessing the critics who are having issues with the girl’s sexuality, and throwing out the word “slut,” are laying that down as smokescreen– so they can have a check-list of sorts as to why they don’t like the movie. But let’s be real, when have liberals ever had a problem with promiscuous women? I’m sure it’s the negative depiction of Muslim culture that is the real reason behind the harsh criticism.
” … my friends with happy lives and good relationships with men (and fun, active sex lives) scoff at SATC. My friends with men and money issues relate to SATC.”
Kate – that comment will leave a mark … thanks for sharing your thoughts on the film series.
The first film also was critiqued and criticised with a noticeable sexist slant.
It may be highfalutin to read gender and sex issues into an entertainment medium, but as this series now twice has elicited ugliness from (ironically) even the liberal film critics, it is worth investigating.
I am looking forward to your blog on this, WWTW.
D.
Once again Daggy says it better – and in far fewer words – than I could.
Over at RWN, Lori Giganto has an amusing write-up on the Muslim controversy in this film:
“They are breaking with the Stepford Feminist lockstep, wherein American liberal feminists hypocritically ignore the misogyny in the Islamic world because they want to be cool and enlightened and embrace diversity. Because Shut Up, Racists. Also, George Bush.”
Oh, C’MON TOTO
Be a man and just trash this filth. I’m SOOOOOO glad this movie is getting terrible reviews. I can’t stand this braindead-female socialite, BS. Hope this is the last we see of these god awful characters who should’ve kept their legs shut 30 years ago.
Ebert and Co have trashed SATC for the same reason they trashed the awesome HIT GIRL in Kick Ass.
They are NOT victims. They aren’t raped or abused by “dwedful”, men.
They aren’t miserable, sad slags that can’t get out of bed in the morning because “it’s all too hard”.
These women make their own choices. Horrible bloody sheilas they are!!!
And no, I am not a fan of SATC. I’ve never seen the movie, and have only seen a few episode of the series. But, like the four women in the show, it was MY choice not to watch.
Well, what Pogria said!
To whiskey- What “twentysomething hottie” has Alec Baldwin hooked up with (onscreen OR off)? Quite frankly, given his loathsome personality (his admitted talent only PARTIALLY obscures that), I don’t see many women of any age attracted to him at this point…
Oh, if Ebert hates it, I must go see it. Damn him!