(Guest movie review by Erin Riska)
“I really hope my past hasn’t screwed up my future.”
So says Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) after a regretful night out with a former flame in “Sex and the City 2,” the sequel to the 2008 megahit.
Whether or not that turned out to be the case, I won’t reveal. But I will say this: I’d be more concerned about my present screwing up my past if I were her – or Parker to be more precise.
“Sex and the City 2″ has been panned by critics the world over, and last week I defended it right here at WWTW, on the grounds that what many find so objectionable about the film and the characters is exactly what made so many people fall in love with the show over a decade ago: Carrie’s woe-is-me neuroses, Samantha’s in-your-face sexuality, the over-the-top fashion and the unbreakable bond that these women share.
Suffice to say that where the film is concerned, the gang’s all here! And therein lies the problem, and the root of the harsh criticism that I now believe to be largely justified.
There’s just too much of everything. Too many absurd outfits, too many puns, and most of all, too many minutes of my life spent in a theater watching it all unfold.
Or implode, as the case may be.
Carrie is more neurotic and self-defeating than ever, Samantha (Kim Cattrall) more sex-crazed, Charlotte (Kristin Davis) more incapable of viewing the world – or letting others view her life – through anything other than rose colored glasses, and Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) more…well, Miranda has no plot here, so your guess is as good as mine.
In short, the characters are more caricature and the fashion more costume than was ever the case in the show.
All that said, there is a good movie that honors the show’s legacy hidden in there somewhere. Buried beneath the gayest gay wedding ever and Liza Minnelli’s painful performance of ‘Single Ladies,’ unnecessary cameos by the likes of Miley Cyrus and Tim Gunn, and a truly awful and absurd karaoke performance of ‘I Am Woman’ that I still can’t believe made the final cut, there are nuggets of truth that reminded me of why I loved the show so much.
From Carrie and Big (Chris Noth) navigating marriage and making mistakes, to Samantha struggling with her sexuality mid-menopause, to Charlotte and Miranda lamenting that motherhood is hard while acknowledging that it’s even harder for women without the luxury of financial freedom, there are moments that so accurately portray the forty-plus female experience that I’m almost willing to give them a pass on everything else.
Almost.
Ultimately, creator Michael Patrick King and the ladies should have hung it up after the first movie, which in retrospect was the perfect swan song, tying up each character’s loose-ends perfectly. But in typical Hollywood fashion, they couldn’t resist the promise of more money and leave well enough alone.
And now, I fear, they’ve done the show’s legacy a tremendous disservice.
(Photo: Cynthia Nixon, Sarah Jessica Parker and Kristin Davis reprise their most famous roles in “Sex and the City 2.”)
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
After having several days to think about it, I do think this movie is worthy of the SATC title. It’s pretty, it’s funny and there are things in it that every woman would love to have: closets bigger than most of our kitchens, hot semi-naked men all over the place, and most of all a group of girl friends so near, dear and essential that we almost can’t make major decisions without them. You can’t tell me that most women don’t feel like the 5th friend on that show, just by nature of being loyal followers of all the dramas that have unfolded throughout the years. And the silly caricatures, narration and puns that reviewers are hot over, as you said Erin, are all part of the original show and its irresistible charm. These male reviewers who are tearing it apart are not, I would imagine, the bodies who sat in front of their TVs every Sunday night year after year. Should they make a SATC 3? No. But if they do, you can bet your sweet ass I’ll be there in theater to see it.
I watched nearly every ep of “Sex and the City” and found it highly entertaining. I think the show was far more than a vehicle for girly hijinks – the script, the storylines and the acting were all excellent.
But the first film pandered to its audience, I thought, and left the high quality writing behind. A shame. I haven’t seen “2″ – thus the guest critic here – but I’m guessing it’s more of the same.
Saw it.
Bridget Jones, p2, redux. (or IJ and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, to use a dick-flick example)
Sequel for the sake of making one – and the writers should have known better.
D.