Sex and the City 2. Thumbs up or thumbs down?
I’ll leave it to the experts with their proclamations of yeah or nay. And I will repeat what I said after viewing the movie. I was delighted to spend a few hours with Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte, Miranda and the gang.
Yet I was disappointed.
I’ll echo the promotional promise of the film: fun, fashion, and friendship. I’m an avid fan, but summer fluff though this is – with no pretense of being anything else – the film falls flat on every dimension.
We were doused with too much and underwhelmed with not enough: Too much “fun” (without New York), too much fashion (the head swims); too little of the friendship that we love among these women. And by the way – if there was a storyline at all – at best, it was Morse Code.
Add in too much (caricatured) exotic locale, too much running from the recession, and far too much pretending that time doesn’t catch up with all of us.
Too much fashion?
Is it possible to be bored by what the Fabulous Four are wearing? Hardly. But blinded is another matter. Might I say “vertigo” when it comes to the whirlwind pace of costume changes? Add in the excessive Arabian Nights-themed wardrobe, and we’ve passed from fanciful to ridiculous.
The designer who’s who? It reads like the list of luminaries we would expect – Yves Saint Laurent, Chanel, Dior, and Cavalli – and shots of shoes flash signature soles of ruby red (Louboutin). As much as I appreciate unconventional couture, there is so much here that we hardly have the time to blink before the next concoction appears on the screen.
Does that mean there isn’t couture to covet in this film? Not at all. But I compare SATC 2 to the first movie, in which fashion played a major role and the results were spectacular. Time enough (on screen) to appreciate, and more than enough to salivate over.
But this go-round? We may have to purchase the DVD when it comes out and hit pause frequently – in order to process. (Given the overloaded product placement in this film, one wonders if that’s one more commercial possibility purposely planted.)
One of my favorite fashion statements in the film? The much publicized and quirky J’adore Dior t-shirt paired with a bouffant and whimsical skirt. Not only does it seem suitable to the Carrie character, but it remains in view long enough for the retina to do more than scan and say “next.”
Fun?
Too much fun? Fun at all?
Yes and no. While the producers cooked up Abu Dhabi to lure us to a setting where excess would seem palatable in recessionary times, neither the thin plot twists nor tidbits of conversation come close to qualifying as fun.
- A camel ride in the desert, with man-servants who bring multiple wardrobe changes along? Fun? Not so much.
- Samantha in trouble for her proudly sexual appetites in a culture that disallows overt acts of affection? Fun? Not so much.
- Discussion between Miranda and Charlotte about the difficulties of motherhood? A good moment – insufficiently plumbed.
- Carrie and Aidan’s encounter? Again, not enough.
- The wedding scene? Over-the-top – but yes, fun.
- The 80s flashbacks when the women met? Not fun. I would’ve preferred voice over to the (mortifying) visuals.
As for Carrie and Big? There were genuine moments dealing with marriage, with potential to offer us a glimpse into a maturing relationship. I would have liked more of these scenes. They felt authentic to the characters, to their age, to their imperfections, while honoring both the series and the first follow-up film.
Girls may “just want to have fun,” but therein lies part of the problem. The girls aren’t girls any longer. They’re mature women. We could have enjoyed a supremely satisfying experience if we’d been given women having fun, rather than women trying to be girls having fun.
Friendship
No one has to convince us these women are soul mates. It’s in the dialogue (unnecessarily), and we share a decade long history. But in this extravaganza, we could have used more coffee shop and less Abu Dhabi. We see little of the heart of the series – the friendships among Carrie, Samantha, Miranda, and Charlotte – or for that matter, the development of their familial relationships. The exception? A handful of fine moments between Carrie and Big.
While many disliked the first movie, I found it to be far superior to this chaotic confection. While too serious for some, it had a plot, as well as compassionate exchanges among the characters which were not cut short for yet another romp in wild wardrobe. Sex and the City 2 offers opportunities for poignant discussion: Charlotte’s insecurity about her marriage and motherhood, Carrie’s confusion over what comes after “I do,” Samantha muscling her way through menopause, and more. Flickers of authenticity. Sparked, then ignored.
The Samantha Effect (A cougar by any other name?)
As for Samantha, I’m all for a woman of any age wearing what she pleases and owning her sexuality. However, had the script adopted a more European approach to a woman aging gracefully, I believe we would have been less embarrassed, and possibly enlightened.
Older woman-younger man relationships are nothing unusual; we’ve simply turned a spotlight on them in recent years, with a distasteful label to match: Cougar, along with the notion that a woman with money who enjoys fit and sexual (younger) men is somehow predatory.
The scenes of Samantha successfully sizzling as seductress are not believable – even for the SATC Candy Land in which we willingly “suspend disbelief.” There is no mutual spark, no connection of any sort, and I find myself embarrassed. This is a character who is nothing if not smart; at 52, she would have learned to get what she wants with a slightly different – dare I say, European – approach. More “total woman” of which sexuality is a healthy component, and less blatant come on, which simply no longer works.
A rekindling with Smith Jarrett? That could have provided an interesting diversion. Sam’s Danish architect? Again, a bit of Euro-smolder would have served up more simmer and less silliness. Instead, we get old Samantha, well… seeming old. And yes, like a Cougar. Not only does it pain me to say it, but it irritates me immeasurably that SJP and writers alike would toss away the opportunity to show us a smart, sexual, beautiful woman in her fifties who can rock it – with a bit more subtlety.
Reviews of Sex and the City 2
Generally, the reviews haven’t been good.
The film has been panned for all sorts of reasons. Among them: the flagrant excess of product placement to which I alluded earlier, lack of plot, anti-Muslim sentiment, and dissatisfaction with the messages of female identity and feminism, slamming the handling of Miranda’s work-life balance struggles, and the precarious no-woman’s-land of married last names.
I agree that the variety of identity issues present potentially fertile ground for funny and intelligent fodder for the audience. And once again, missed opportunities. That said, I found the work-life conflict, last name dilemmas, and motherhood or mother-not moments to be among the more authentic in the movie, however superficially addressed.
I also found myself moved by several scenes between Carrie and Big, finessed with a nod to the series, as well as the situation in which these characters find themselves in 2010. There simply weren’t enough of these genuine interactions. And that’s a shame.
Ready for a Sex and the City 3?
Would I be up for a Sex and the City 3?
Of course. But with more mature handling, and yes, perhaps with a European twist to women aging magnificently, but honestly.
Did the movie live up to my expectations? No. It lacked the whimsy, spirit, and tenderness of the series. Moreover, we could have done with less desert and more New York. Yet one article I skimmed this morning nets it out for me, suggesting that the reviews are irrelevant. I agree. The bottom line? We’re happy to be with these women, under any circumstances.
Image of Kim Catrall, editorial use, purchased via Bigstockphoto. Debby Wong, May 24, 2010, Sex and the City 2 Premiere.
You May Also Enjoy
I think I’m saddest to hear there’s not more of Aidan. I could look at him all day. And Samantha, a cougar? Oy. But, as you said, I’ll see it anyway, because I love those four women … under any circumstances.
Stacia, I am such a fan of the series. And the first movie. I went fully expecting to love the film, plot or no plot. And then I hesitated to write what I really think, not wanting others to stay away. I will buy the DVD when it comes out, and probably enjoy the film more on the small screen. In part, so I can stop and enjoy the parade of fashions. And also, because these women are like family. To millions of us. That alone makes any visit with them very precious.
And I’m looking forward to a third installment. One in which the writers might turn their heads to European examples of women maturing with wit and elegance, and still embracing their sexuality.
(And by the way – Aidan is hot hot hot in the film. John Corbett is a pleasure for the eyes and more, in whatever role he takes.)
I was a late coming fan to the series. And I have not seen either of the movies. I love your descriptions. I agree that John Corbett is lovely in any role.
Ouch!
Sounds like it was predominantly NUF! (Now, Uncomfortable, Frustrating).
Your pan was a great one. Will you please write SATC 3? How can I help make that happen (expecting anything is possible)?
Have Fun (opposite of Nuf) and enjoy the weekend,
Jim
I could not agree with you more. The series, and movie 1 to some extent, dealt with real issues in a smart, female-oriented way. This movie could have done so much and just fell on its face.
I agree that the best part about the series was the friendship aspect of it–the close connection between four very different women. Sad to hear that there’s not more of it in the movie–I think I’ll wait for the video.
I have honestly not seen a single episode of the show or either movie.
And after reading your review, I am as compelled as ever to keep that unusual record strong.
I adored the series and cried pitifully when I watched the final episode, just because I had come to so love my time with that friendship and to depend on it as clever and thoughtful entertainment (and escape). I was a tiny bit disappointed in the first movie, which I found a little underdeveloped in some key parts, but I loved it on principle and as a matter of fun – and I expect I’ll feel the same way about this one. And my heart beat faster when you mentioned a third installment – do you really think it’s in the works?
Whether SATC 2 gets panned by the media or not, those of us who love the series – and these women in it – will go see another. And I don’t regret seeing #2. But I was disappointed by it. I’m sure it will rake in GOBS of money, which means the only reason there wouldn’t be a #3 is if one or more of the key cast members wouldn’t want to make it. That’s my thinking.
I simply hope if / when they make a #3, they give us more of the flawed, wonderful relationships among the characters we came to know.
Thanks for the low-down on this picture I’m curious about from a sociological viewpoint more than as anything I’m drawn to… HOWEVER, your review made me think about my father-in-law who always insisted that movies and plays start with character. It sounds like the series let you fall in love with four friends and their relationships with each other, but now spent of actual inspiration, your beloved characters are being used to sell not only movie tickets but clothes and shoes (no longer fetish objects to the characters, the characters become mannequins to display the merch… it sounds like you lose your suspension of disbelief).
With so much good will from fans coming in, this must be a dreadful movie, given what you say about it.
I like what you say about women maturing in a real way (which would be more appealing to real women), and wonder if this is yet another window into America’s struggle to grow up in all sorts of ways. If the movies won’t show us how it’s done, we’ll all have to just grow up without the movies and maybe show them how it’s actually done.
Having been around Hollywood too much for my own good, I can report that if we’re looking for authentic grown-ups we might be best off to look elsewhere.
“… It sounds like the series let you fall in love with four friends and their relationships with each other, but now spent of actual inspiration, your beloved characters are being used to sell not only movie tickets but clothes and shoes… “
The irony, Bruce, is that there was ample potential inspiration, and considering the massive audience for this movie, product placement could have better succeeded with a modicum of moderation alongside further development of character and/or even a minuscule portion of plot. The injection of one younger character (perhaps a foil to one of the women) could hold the younger female target market. The parade of couture would’ve been better served by slightly fewer offerings and more time on screen. Likewise, even the gorgeous interior shots (NY and so-called Abu Dhabi) didn’t allow the eye to linger and enjoy. The ensemble cast and their individual circumstances provided many opportunities: work-life issues, parenting, marriage, aging, romance, former loves, and recession – much to mine in that list! And each of these topics was given 30-seconds to a few minutes, directly or indirectly.
That’s the problem. The potential for inspiration, and none of it developed. Nothing to pull us into the pluck, power, and personality of the characters who captured our hearts all those years ago.
I’d been waiting to hear your thoughts on the film after seeing the review in NYT! (I’ve been more unplugged this week than usual, preparing for the next two weeks of travel, so I’m slow checking in.) Insightful review here — much more in-depth than the usual analyses from the critics (lucky you, no word count limits).
Film is a wonderful escape from reality sometimes, but when it’s overtly so, it only seems to heighten our awareness of life in the real world, eh?
My old editor would’ve shot me with such wordiness! (I was given 350 words for some articles, 500 for others, and magazines ran 350 to 1500, depending on topic and audience.) Fact is, I never would’ve turned in copy so loosely edited! Glad you found the write-up valuable in some way.
I am aware that lots of people enjoyed this movie, but I just can’t comprehend why. I saw it with my girlfriend last night and I seriously think it’s one of the most awful movies I’ve ever watched, absolutely no offense to anybody that enjoyed it.