There is a God! (Sex and the City 2)

mike65

Second weekend figuers in the US show it stalling badly with just 14 million dollars added to its first week of 37 million. At that rate of decline it'll be lucky to breach 80 million in the US. Thats clearly 80 million dollars too many
but it should mean thats that for the, ahem "girls".

Hang on I need to write this out again. Its the first weekend but an extended one (five days) still a dissapointemt though as compared to the first film (90% of the admissions were female so not even the boyfriends are willing to sit through it)

DrumSteve

whats all this aboot?

Karl Hungus

What is this?

pwd

I'm guessing sex and the city 2

mike65

title edited

Its not as big a failure as I hoped but the overseas tally is also modest for a blanket release at 27 million

johnny_ultimate

The continuing adventures of four increasingly absurd parodies of the female sex I'm guessing?

bnt

I haven't seen it, but I did listen to the Kermode review on the BBC. He starts off saying "you're not going to get a rant ... I'm not angry, I'm disappointed." Was he able to keep his cool? What do you think ..? :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daOfhAGGuo8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGsOxC2T6U8

edit: I do understand the vicarious thrill of these films, how they show the audience the kind of lifestyle they may never experience. I watch Top Gear for that reason, because I never expect to drive a Ferrari at high speed etc. Nothing wrong with a bit of escapism. But it sounds like the writer was trying to make the characters "socially relevant", and made a real pampered pooch's dinner of it.

mike65

I heard that live, I felt he was far too kind myself. Various 5live shows dipped into it whenever SATC2 got a mention over the first few days of release so he did catch the mood.

pwd

shhh stop talking about "that film"
The fewer women notice it's out, the fewer guys will end up sitting through it.

Ghost Train

That rant would almost make you want to see how bad it is :pac:

All the bad publicity probaby makes people more curious about it.

But no, won't be seeing it

liah

I feel bad for the guys who'll inevitably get dragged to it. Gotta wonder why they're with girls who'll do that, though..

Definitely not something I'd ever see. Bleh.

bonerm

liah wrote: »

Gotta wonder why they're with girls who'll do that, though..

The answer is the first word of the movie in question.

marwelie

Starting the week after next and the following four weeks, the taking for Girly movies will go through the roof! It will break even, I'm certain of it.

Come on, anybody but France!

mike65

True, I'm surprised they didn't have the wit to wait, while the WC will pass the Yanks by the rest of the male world will be sat in front of it.

Sleazus

I'm a little surprised at all this schadenfrauden (sp.). I don't doubt it's terrible, but surely all this talking about it is a little counter productive? Best thing we can do is pretend it never happened, no?

bnt

I'm not going to pay to see it, or the first film: I can wait till they arrive on TV, which I think is highly likely.

DublinWriter

What's worse that Sex in the City 2? Sex in the City 3D. It's the inevitable sequel.

Zero-Cool

Sex and the City 2.

A film about 3 hookers and their mom.

bonerm

DublinWriter wrote: »

What's worse that Sex in the City 2? Sex in the City 3D. It's the inevitable sequel.

I dunno about that!

Could be pretty cool seeing Carrie Bradshaw running towards the camera 3d-style & maybe shaking her hair around in an exagerated way to take advantage of the technology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhDDybv8_Ro#t=0m20s

phasers

sheehy83 wrote: »

Sex and the City 2.

A film about 3 hookers and their mom.

Which one ios the Mom? :eek: They look pretty much the same age

bonerm

phasers wrote: »

Which one ios the Mom? :eek: They look pretty much the same age

I'd imagine the trysexual is the mom.

phasers

bonerm wrote: »

I'd imagine the trysexual is the mom.

Urgh

faceman

Is it wrong of me to say, that I couldnt wait to hear Kermode's review of SATC2?

bnt

DublinWriter wrote: »

What's worse that Sex in the City 2? Sex in the City 3D. It's the inevitable sequel.

O RLY? Imagine a SATC prequel: the "girls" when they really were Girls. Starring Miley Cyrus. It's being discussed, apparently. :eek:

Though E! Online has some different names in mind e.g. Lindsay Lohan as ... Magda!

Dudess

mike65 wrote: »

I felt he was far too kind myself.

Maybe he was trying to be unpredictable? Doing a mild Cosmo Landesmann on it?

I think far too many people are missing the bigger picture, yes the film is more than likely woeful but the fact remains that the more successful the film the more money the production company can invest in smaller, more risky investments.

As for Kermode, he's a joke at this stage. His reviews are rarely on the ball and he tries far to hard to be witty more often than not failing miserably.

PoMo Grrrl

I am at a loss to understand the level of animosity felt towards this film. I read a number of reviews before actually seeing it, and expected it to be dull, unoriginal and offensive, but I didn't find this to be the case at all.

Numerous reviewers have commented on the excessive wealth and sickening consumerism throughout, but part of the appeal of Sex and the City has always been the opportunity it offers viewers to vicariously experience a life of glamour. It offers escapism and a little fantasy and that's exactly what the fans want to see. Each of the girls convienently works in a career which enables them earn big bucks, but this was the case in the tv series and in the first film. I don't understand why reviewers have suddenly decided that this is a ridiculous setup. Anyone who goes to see the film knows exactly what they are signing up to. I think there are some definite flaws throughout and some elements of the story seem a little pointless, but overall I found it quite witty and entertaining. I thought the main storyline (Carrie's concern about her and Big's diverging ideas on how best to spend time together) was well done and pretty realistic.

Overall, I feel the criticism is unjustified and, for anyone who has been put off by the vitriol, ignore it and go see a fun and enjoyable film!

Renn

Deleted User wrote: »

I think far too many people are missing the bigger picture, yes the film is more than likely woeful but the fact remains that the more successful the film the more money the production company can invest in smaller, more risky investments.

But would the same not apply if you gave your hard earned cash to other movies/production companies?

jaykhunter

I find it pretty funny that my older sister was giving out about Sex and the City! She says that it's actually really tragic that (i'll have to take their word on it, i refuse to watch this program) the protagonists are all desperately unhappy; there's always an unstated rule that they're unhappy with their lives because they're single, and only a man/relationship can/will make them happy. Apparently they're really desperate for it; but hide it in a sea of innuendos, one night stands and rich clothes/dinners etc. She says it's the last thing single women want to be told.

Maybe it's supposed to be empowering to have (job-wise) successful, glamorous friends but it sounds depressing that overall these women aren't happy on a basic level.

She loves the fashion in the show and says that (whichever is the one that looks like a foot) is only there because the show's producers want to push a girl who is (relative to Hollywood) ugly because she seems more attainable.

I dunno, there's my (or her) two cents

Renn

Renn wrote: »

But would the same not apply if you gave your hard earned cash to other movies/production companies?

technically no, as I won't be spending hard-earned money on Sex and the City.
A
*film as such as Sex and the City means that New Line will earn money which they can then use to gamble on riskier films such as Pride and Glory or the superb Appaloosa which spent years searing for backing. If Sex and the City bombs then you can watch a slew of projects go into turnaround, while the film may not be to our liking it's obvious that a large portion of the world's population seem to enjoy it.

G-Money

I don't watch the show and have no interest in the films either. Although I was listening to a review of it on Newstalk and it got pretty much slated. The girl who seen it described the Sarah jessica parker character as "Shrill and a bit of an oul nag".

I think the day after I was listening to another show on Newstalk and they were discussing the film and they had this woman on who was a fan of the show and she became very annoying as she was talking about how she brought her friends to NY to show them the sights from the show and she kept referring to them as "my girls". It was very annoying and smacked of someone who was desperately trying to be like one of the characters in the show.

Renn

Your posts just reminded me of how terrible that 'reviewer' is. That's the girl on the Monchrief show, right? Have to turn off the radio whenever she's on. I think Monchrief even realises how terrible she is.

Renn

Deleted User wrote: »

technically no, as I won't be spending hard-earned money on Sex and the City.
A
*film as such as Sex and the City means that New Line will earn money which they can then use to gamble on riskier films such as Pride and Glory or the superb Appaloosa which spent years searing for backing. If Sex and the City bombs then you can watch a slew of projects go into turnaround, while the film may not be to our liking it's obvious that a large portion of the world's population seem to enjoy it.

Well what I was saying that if you don't spend it here, you'll spend it on another movie, from this film studio or another film studio, no? And I'm not even sure if 'like' is the correct term to use for people's opinion on the movie. I know people who will go to it, even though they're expecting it to be sh*t. And they've gone to the first one as well. I'd imagine it's akin to watching tv adverts for 160 minutes.