The Travers Take

Newer Older Latest

"Sex and the City" at the Multiplex — Will You See It or Skip It?

April 24, 2008 11:16 AM

As everyone knows by now, Sex and the City—The Movie, will open on May 30th after four years of dicking around about how to get it made. Long story short: Kim Cattrall wanted to get the same money Sarah Jessica Parker was getting for the movie and held off until she came close. Presto: The Movie.

Now comes the major quandry: Can we still get it up for Sex and the City and at multiplex prices? Here's a take from Deb Dragon, the ab fab Rolling Stone photo editor whose job it is to slap me around when I make too many outrageous demands like, "Can I see a photo of that damn Crystal Skull that Indiana Jones is supposed to be chasing?" Deb, who takes no shit from us writer-editor types, had this to say when I asked her about Sex and the City:

"I will see it."

"I will see it early."

"And I fully expect it to suck."

There you have it. Ladies are going. Ditto metrosexuals. Macho posers will too, though they will insist that they had to be dragged. But why do Deb and half the other women I talk to expect the movie version to suck?

The first trailer didn't help. Talk about hardsell. It seemed to hammer all the plot points until your head ached. On TV, the show always took its time. Its charm came from letting the humor and the drama sneak up on you. The just-out second trailer is a big improvement. By going slower, easier, sexier, it seemed to be presenting characters we could recognize.

And the characters are all back: Parker as Carrie Bradshaw, the sex columnist who often speaks right to us through the camera. Cattrall as Samantha Jones, the near-nympho publicist (most pr flaks I know wouldn't have the time). Cynthia Nixon as Miranda Hobbes, the lawyer juggling career with single motherhood. And Kristin Davis as Charlotte York, the conservative at war with her hotter urges (hey, at Smith she majored in art history and minored in finance—what do you expect?).

Let's start with the CONS regarding Sex and the City on screen

  1. It's time has past. (Maybe)

  2. The characters are too old. (Will you stop with this crap? Sex and the City has always been about women who are real, and like most real women they can look great one day and whupped the next.)

  3. Maxim named SJP "the unsexiest woman alive." (This is just crass, rude and wrong).

  4. MADtv parodied the show as Sluts and the City, saying "It's not TV, it's porn with Emmys." (Funny, but when is there ever too much sex?).

  5. On The Simspons, Marge's sister described it as "a show about four straight women who act like gay men." (OK, there could be some truth in that).

Now for the PROs

  1. These are characters you still want to spend time with.

  2. These are women you still want to spend time with. (How many summer '08 movies from major studios are about women? None, unless you count Angelina Jolie in Wanted and she's playing a hired killer).

  3. Sex has pretty much dropped out of movies except as a joke (anything by Judd Apatow). This is a movie that takes sex seriously without losing the ability to laugh at it. Neat trick.

  4. There are guys in the movie, too. (Chris Noth, Evan Handler, David Eigenberg, Jason Lewis, and Willie Garson are all back and ready to show that men aren't all complete dickwads).

  5. Michael Patrick King, who wrote all the show's season finales and premieres since the second season, serves as writer and director on the movie. (That's good news given King's opinion that the show and the movie are set on the "battlefield of trying to be in love—whether it be with another person or with yourself."

Now's your chance to weigh in: Sex and the City: The Movie—See it or Skip it?


Newer Older Latest

12 Comments


Yay Jonathon | May 22, 2008 9:42 AM

right on, jonathon. my roommates in college watched all the episodes in order...beginning to end...its just wierd. for me, its like not liking a food, being forced to eat it because its everywhere in your face and you are supposed to like it, and everyone is cooking it and eating it all the time, stashing it in fridge until its really, really, really OLD, then being forced to eat it again. i'll be so glad when this kidneystone of a show passes. i love how people get all defensive about it, too. like there is something wrong with me because i dont like shitty acting by lower than sub-par looking women watching their youth dissapate like a fart in the wind and covering it up with a quart of foundation and industrial-strength bodyshapers...kinda gives me the same feeling as when grandma made a sex joke...geritol in the city...

Kerry | May 21, 2008 7:22 PM

As a college student, I will say that at least 90% of females my age started really getting into the show via dvd once it was already cancelled, and that pretty large group of us are all still attached to the characters and storylines. The movie will be the first time we are exposed to the new material when it's actually new, and I think that's why a lot of us are really excited to see the movie just to see how the story wraps itself up. Does it have the potential to suck... sure. But so does most everything that has years of build-up. And the fact that it's the only legit lighthearted movie that girls can watch this summer without superheroes isn't bad either.

Renee | May 11, 2008 1:57 AM

who cares about Sarah Jessica Parker seriously and sex in the city, this movie is going to be a waste of money, but not for me, i wont bother to watch some old hores and sh*t
the seris should have been cancelled years ago

Insider | April 30, 2008 12:13 PM

I think Deb should take HONEY BEAR.

Deb | April 28, 2008 11:51 AM

#3 Cons (see above)Totally agree....hatchet-faced Celine Dion clone.

Anonymous | April 28, 2008 3:17 AM

never watched the series. no interest in the film or characters whatsoever. no way i can be dragged to see it.

2dogwoman | April 27, 2008 4:57 PM

I'll pass on this one, and remember it like my vanished husbands -- fab at the time but no longer.

steve -o | April 26, 2008 10:09 PM

Yo, These chicks my be getting older but ,Dame !!!!!

DAK | April 25, 2008 6:56 PM

Responding to the cons/pros:
CONS:
1) Yes, it's time has past. However, I think that about the X-Files movie and I'm still going to see THAT, so....
2) Yeah, that's lame.
3) Rude and crass, yes. Wrong...not so much.
4) Agreed.
5) Truer words were never spoken.

PROS:
1) No, actually- they're not.
2) See above. Yes, I know about the deficit of movies about women; I'll wait 'til an interesting one comes along.
3) Hey, don't blame Judd- blame the ratings board.
4) Yep, big fan of Noth and Handler. Again, I hope they do something interesting again soon. This ain't it.
5) Well, it'll still be uninteresting, but FAITHFULLY so.

Early 20s Girl | April 25, 2008 9:58 AM

I want to see it because since the show's been off the air I've forgotten how to act like a self-centered, boring person who only cares about buying shit and getting off.

Newton | April 24, 2008 6:45 PM

I suppose I'm one of those "macho posers" who will insist he was dragged. And yes, I also insist that I only watched the show because my girlfriend did, and only enjoyed it when I was drunk. And when my girlfriend (who readily admits the movie will probably suck) drags me to it in a month, I'll bitch and moan all the way to the theatre, walk out of the theatre with a smile on my face (unless it really does suck), and then deny my enjoyment up and down. Hey, she did the same thing to me on "No Country For Old Men"...

Jonathan | April 24, 2008 5:21 PM

Fuck no.

Leave a comment



Advertisement

Advertisement