Sex in the City - review

up for anything

This should probably go in a different forum but I thought it might go down well here. It made me smirk and snigger and put into words what I have always felt about that program. I don't know why but I never saw the appeal in it.


Burkas and Birkins

Wibbs

Brilliant




but just to say may contain spoilers so don't read if you want to see said movie. I know I know I'm a killjoy :D

Vinta81

Loved the TV Show but I haven't really heard any positive press about the film, scurred to see it.

Blush_01

As someone who thought the first movie was insipid nonsense I am so glad to hear that things have not changed. Go team!

That review is lovely - SJP et al will definitely have it stuck up on their dressing room mirrors!

WesternNight

I know it's nitpicking...but the name of it is Sex and the City. Not Sex in the City.

miss5

The reviews for the movie are dreadful, Despite that everyone (including myself)
will go and see it.

liah

I really don't get why anyone likes the series or films. Truly don't.

CorsetIsTight

miss5 wrote: »

The reviews for the movie are dreadful, Despite that everyone (including myself)
will go and see it.

Incorrect.

miss5

I guarantee at any cinema it will be the most watched film, I don't
think it's because it's going to be any good, I presume it's more to do
with nostalgia than anything else.

Dudess

Apart from her objections to all the sex Samantha is having, wonderful, wonderful review!

Saw the first movie the other night - fairly bad. I liked the series though, even if it was completely unrealistic and Carrie made me want to put my fist through the TV every time she opened her self-obsessed, narcissistic gob.

up for anything

WesternNight wrote: »

I know it's nitpicking...but the name of it is Sex and the City. Not Sex in the City.

Nitpicking is good. I've only ever watched bits out of very few episodes (enough to annoy me though) and laboured under the illusion that it was called Sex in the City. I've even wondered from time to time why it's shorted to SATC. I'm a Rodney.

Dolbert

Posted this on my facebook yesterday, brilliant! It seems we're in the minority though girls, if I dare mention the fact that I am indifferent to SATC to my female acquaintances, I get looks of disgust much like I had just admitted to the regular slaughter of tiny kittens for sport.

iguana

Dudess wrote: »

Saw the first movie the other night - fairly bad. I liked the series though, even if it was completely unrealistic and Carrie made me want to put my fist through the TV every time she opened her self-obsessed, narcissistic gob.

In the episode where she wanted her shoes replaced and the woman told her that she couldn't afford $400 for new shoes but she whined and whined for the rest of the episode until she got new shoes I wanted to smash her into a bloody pulp.

ibarelycare

I absolutely LOVE SATC....the TV show. Thought it was a bad idea when they said they were making a movie, but went along and enjoyed it. Was looking forward to this one and went along last night and that review is absolutely bang on! It's actually ruined the whole show for me now. Truly awful!

Dudess

iguana wrote: »

In the episode where she wanted her shoes replaced and the woman told her that she couldn't afford $400 for new shoes but she whined and whined for the rest of the episode until she got new shoes I wanted to smash her into a bloody pulp.

It's unrealistic that her friends would be so patient with that crap.

WesternNight

Dudess wrote: »

It's unrealistic that her friends would be so patient with that crap.

You're forgetting who her friends are... :P

Handsome Bob

I hear it's a racist hollow load of ****e.

smallerthanyou

My boyfriend offered to go with me to see this tonight. I turned down the offer cos after wasting 2.5 hours of my life on the first one I'm not going to repeat the mistake this time around! Article is hilarious though! Spot on. Films have ruined my memories of the programmes though. I did like them. But 35 mins was just the right lenght to put up with them. Over two hours makes you want to hurt them.

bronte

up for anything wrote: »

Nitpicking is good. I've only ever watched bits out of very few episodes (enough to annoy me though) and laboured under the illusion that it was called Sex in the City. I've even wondered from time to time why it's shorted to SATC. I'm a Rodney.

One of my male friends was at him wits end after a week of nothing but media for the film and posted a rant about "SITC" on his facebook. I was so proud.

I was unfortunate enough to get dragged to the first one, won't be happening again. Nice to see nothing has changed.

Dunno why people complain about Samantha having an active sex life though.
She's just doing what many, many blokes do?

candy-gal1

brilliant fun!
In comparison to the first one, which i thought was great but more serious which makes sense as it was their first attempt and they had to continue on from the story from the 6th series, i think this one was made to be more fun, girlie and made me lol even more.

heard theres going to be a third, hopefully!

Nervous Wreck

bronte wrote: »

One of my male friends was at him wits end after a week of nothing but media for the film and posted a rant about "SITC" on his facebook. I was so proud.

I was unfortunate enough to get dragged to the first one, won't be happening again. Nice to see nothing has changed.

Dunno why people complain about Samantha having an active sex life though.
She's just doing what many, many blokes do?

I reckon it's because, presumably, the initial idea of her character was that she was a self-empowered, sexually liberated success-story of a woman who wasn't afraid to have, or admit to having, casual sex and, while this is definitely a good basis for a character in such a show, they let the plotlines run away with that idea of the character, transforming her into a promiscuous sluh rather than the forward moving sexual revolutionary. It's a pity the writers didn't have the cop-on to keep her sexual freedom as a positive character trait rather than allowing it to turn into a defect.

bronte

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I reckon it's because, presumably, the initial idea of her character was that she was a self-empowered, sexually liberated success-story of a woman who wasn't afraid to have, or admit to having, casual sex and, while this is definitely a good basis for a character in such a show, they let the plotlines run away with that idea of the character, transforming her into a promiscuous sluh rather than the forward moving sexual revolutionary. It's a pity the writers didn't have the cop-on to keep her sexual freedom as a positive character trait rather than allowing it to turn into a defect.

Hmmm..maybe you've got a point. I'm just thinking of the Charlie Sheen character in two and a half men... blokes seem to idolize him...what's the difference..except that Samantha is a lass?

Truley

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I reckon it's because, presumably, the initial idea of her character was that she was a self-empowered, sexually liberated success-story of a woman who wasn't afraid to have, or admit to having, casual sex and, while this is definitely a good basis for a character in such a show, they let the plotlines run away with that idea of the character, transforming her into a promiscuous sluh rather than the forward moving sexual revolutionary. It's a pity the writers didn't have the cop-on to keep her sexual freedom as a positive character trait rather than allowing it to turn into a defect.

Yeah I mean I'm all for sexual empowerment too but Samantha's character is a complete joke. Does anyone remember one of the earlier episodes where she was really horny in a yoga class and started walking up to random guys going 'wana f*ck.' She got a few horrified 'no's' before finally finding a guy. If a man had done that he would probably end up on the sex offenders register! Hardly a realistic symbol of sexual empowerment.

As well as that, it was always the practicalities of it that concerned me. Is it even physically possible to have that much sex without doing ... damage to yourself? :eek:

Panthro

bronte wrote: »

Hmmm..maybe you've got a point. I'm just thinking of the Charlie Sheen character in two and a half men... blokes seem to idolize him...what's the difference..except that Samantha is a lass?

neither myself nor any of my male friends do!
(but thats because 2.5 men is a terrible, terrible show!!)

Truley

papagormo wrote: »

neither myself nor any of my male friends do!
(but thats because 2.5 men is a terrible, terrible show!!)

Yeah and totally unrealistic. I would never sleep with someone who dresses so badly :pac:

tinkerbell

iguana wrote: »

In the episode where she wanted her shoes replaced and the woman told her that she couldn't afford $400 for new shoes but she whined and whined for the rest of the episode until she got new shoes I wanted to smash her into a bloody pulp.

Yah and she had every right to whine about her shoes. They were stolen because of her friend's house rules! And darn right that they be replaced.

bronte

papagormo wrote: »

neither myself nor any of my male friends do!
(but thats because 2.5 men is a terrible, terrible show!!)

It sucks! I agree....I just see a lot of men(none I choose to spend time with) going on about what a legend he is?

Handsome Bob

I don't think anyone is really hung up on that anymore surely? It's just fiction, so anyone freaked over what Samantha gets up to should lighten up a bit. Just like anyone who treats her as an idol need to get out more and experience real life. I'd say the same thing about Charlie in Two and a Half Men.

shinny

I never really watched the show when it was on the TV. Not an avid follower like a lot of women were so I've never had any expectations of the movies.

But do people really think this is supposed to be based on reality? Come on. It's hyper fiction at it's very best.

My sister won tickets for a special showing of the movie in Liffey Valley so we went yesterday. I quite enjoyed it because A) I'm not basing it on reality (!), I didn't have any expecations and C) I took it with the tongue in cheek way it was made.

WesternNight

shinny wrote: »

But do people really think this is supposed to be based on reality? Come on. It's hyper fiction at it's very best.

It's not so much of a problem here but I think in America it's seen more by young women as some kind of "guide for the modern woman". It's also mistakenly assumed to be somewhat feminist, which I don't think it is. At the end of the day it's light entertainment, and shouldn't be taken particularly seriously.

shinny

WesternNight wrote: »

It's not so much of a problem here but I think in America it's seen more by young women as some kind of "guide for the modern woman". It's also mistakenly assumed to be somewhat feminist, which I don't think it is. At the end of the day it's light entertainment, and shouldn't be taken particularly seriously.

That's exactly how I see it too.

amacachi

bronte wrote: »

Hmmm..maybe you've got a point. I'm just thinking of the Charlie Sheen character in two and a half men... blokes seem to idolize him...what's the difference..except that Samantha is a lass?

I've yet to meet someone who likes 2 and a half men. "LOL, he has sex, he's a kid and doesn't know things, he doesn't like that he's having sex." There's a few seasons of material right there.

I hate 2 and a half men. It's true however that anytime I flick past it, chances are he's in bed with some woman. I don't watch it enough to know, but I'm pretty sure it's not the same woman each time...

Feeona

I love Lindy West's description of Big - 'after eleventy decades of chasing his emotionally abusive jowls through Manhattan'

And

'Thus, traditional Middle Eastern sexul mores are upended and sexism is stoned to death in the town square'

. Reminds me of that little known film where

women in the streets of Iraq were removing their burkhas in delight after the USA freed them from the binds of their social upbringing. What was the name of that film? Oh now I remember, 'George Bush II-This Time It's Personal'

Art imitating life!

Wibbs

amacachi wrote: »

I've yet to meet someone who likes 2 and a half men. "LOL, he has sex, he's a kid and doesn't know things, he doesn't like that he's having sex." There's a few seasons of material right there.

I like it the odd time, *runs* What surprised me about it especially for a US show is the lack of moralising or consequences for the sheen character. He gets drunk, shags gorgeous women, has loads of money for little work and never gets his comeuppance. His brother, the "nice guy" always gets shafted no matter how decent he tries to be. Then again Im a cruel bastid.

Nervous Wreck

WesternNight wrote: »

It's not so much of a problem here but I think in America it's seen more by young women as some kind of "guide for the modern woman". It's also mistakenly assumed to be somewhat feminist, which I don't think it is. At the end of the day it's light entertainment, and shouldn't be taken particularly seriously.

I'll have to stop ye there mate...


:pac:

WindSock

Good review. I did cringe at the Abu Dhabi plotline though, but then again, I really think that the film/show is just about taking the piss. I don't get why people take the show so seriously.

WesternNight

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I'll have to stop ye there mate...


:pac:

Haha, sorry.. it's *intended* to be light entertainment

sallysaucer101

I thought it was brilliant! I laughed the whole way through!!

There was fabulous clothes & shoes!! I mean did you see those black & pink stiletto sandles Samantha is wearing at the very end! FAB!

It was class...will defiently watch it again.

Dudess

The reviewer seems to find all the sex Samantha has to be objectionable - I personally don't consider it an issue if someone has a lot of sex with a lot of partners, but it ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it. Samantha goes about initiating it with a lack of dignity at times - very good example is the one Truley gave of her in the exercise class. On the one hand, as Bronte points out, it's more accepted when men are promiscuous, but on the other hand, if a man was depicted as behaving similarly to Samantha, he'd be considered a "player" and a complete sh1t.

Feeona

Sex and the City=Star Wars/Star Trek for women. It's acceptable to dress up as a Klingon/Yoda and speak Klingon/speak like a German, but women who dress up in stilettos and designer dresses just to watch a silly movie are quite frankly being ridiculous! How very dare they! :pac:

Coming soon-Sex and the City conventions where you can dress up as your favourite character and meet Jilted Lover from Season One

Dudess

WesternNight wrote: »

It's not so much of a problem here but I think in America it's seen more by young women as some kind of "guide for the modern woman". It's also mistakenly assumed to be somewhat feminist, which I don't think it is. At the end of the day it's light entertainment, and shouldn't be taken particularly seriously.

+1

It can be what it wants to be, but the way it's being received as female empowerment is just cringey.

wicklowstar

Well I loved the movie, funny in parts, but made me really really hate Carrie..
OMG I have to call him and tell him, runs into the bathroom to get Samantha out of the bath just so she can whine about how she is a slut.. Hmm..

No it definitely has nothing to do with female empowerment because of their ridiculously unrealistic lives. And how are they all so rich, affording the most amazing clothes and houses, when they can all go to Abu Dhabi for a week at the drop of a hat!

But I do love Charlotte, she is the only half normal one. Wanting kids and to get married and she struggles with her girls. And by far the best looking!

WesternNight

wicklowstar wrote: »

But I do love Charlotte, she is the only half normal one. Wanting kids and to get married and she struggles with her girls. And by far the best looking!

Charlotte's always been my least favourite. The insecurity, judgementalness and hypocrisy just annoyed me. She was the most realistic character alright, because of all of that

Scarinae

I'm amazed that this thread has got to page three and nobody has mentioned the 'Irish' nanny. Where did she pick up that awful accent? Why did diddly Irish music play nearly every time she was on screen? Did they only call her Erin so that one of the other characters could refer to her as 'Erin-go-braless'? I half expected her to say "Top o' the morning to ya!" and do a wee jig :mad:

wicklowstar

Fishie wrote: »

I'm amazed that this thread has got to page three and nobody has mentioned the 'Irish' nanny. Where did she pick up that awful accent? Why did diddly Irish music play nearly every time she was on screen? Did they only call her Erin so that one of the other characters could refer to her as 'Erin-go-braless'? I half expected her to say "Top o' the morning!" and do a wee jig :mad:

Oh my god she was so bad.. What the hell was that accent? A yank clearly wrote her lines and told her to be 'extra' Irish!!
And the Irish girl called Erin.. How original! (no offence to anyone called Erin!!)

4zn76tysfajdxp

Wibbs wrote: »

I like it the odd time, *runs* What surprised me about it especially for a US show is the lack of moralising or consequences for the sheen character. He gets drunk, shags gorgeous women, has loads of money for little work and never gets his comeuppance. His brother, the "nice guy" always gets shafted no matter how decent he tries to be. Then again Im a cruel bastid.

That is a very dark programme for an American sitcom. I don't really mind it too much, actually.

iguana

wicklowstar wrote: »

And the Irish girl called Erin.. How original! (no offence to anyone called Erin!!)

The only people I know called Erin are American.

WindSock

Or soup

FunkZ

/cliche alert

Sarah Jessica Parker walks into a bar. She clearly isn't getting better at show jumping.

:P

wicklowstar

Ha ha..
Nice one!