…it’s not as if the zeigeisty observer in this critter isn’t sorely tempted, and more than mildly curious. On the one hand, I’m a SATC hater from way back, despite the fact that the series provided my pal Allison Anders with much-desired employment back in the day, and did similar favors for talents such as Nicole Holofcener, Martha Coolidge, Alison McLean, and Susan Seidelman. And apparently this new one, in which duh gals bring their flaunt-it fabulousness (“fabulousness” strictly putative) to Abu Dhabi and create all kinds of scandale, pushes some intriguing buttons. Stephen Farber, while liking the picture overall, tut-tuts about its “anti-Muslim” content in his Hollywood Reporter review, finger-wagging at a scene in which “a bunch of Muslim women…strip off their black robes to reveal the stylish Western outfits they are concealing beneath their discreet garb.” One’s response…I should say, my response, really…to all this is a little ambivalent. On the one hand, I think, tell it to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Farber. And on the other hand, you know what’s really anti-Muslim? Bombing the shit out of countries containing lots of Muslims. And again, when someone like Jeffrey Wells condemns the likes of this movie by referring to it as a Taliban recruitment tool, or some such, he’s really putting the cart before the horse. As if Western sexual libertinism is the sole raison d’être for Muslim extremism. That’s kind of a breathtaking combo of self-congratulation and historical ignorance.
So it seems that the movie might well offer “stuff,” as some call it, to chew on. And on the other hand, A.O. Scott’s review of the picture in today’s Times seems to bear out a suspicion that I was nursing. When he mentions how much older one might feel after sitting through it, and describes one early sequence as not only “desperate, grating, and a little sad” but as a “harbinger of what is to come,” that spells things out: who gives a rat’s tail what buttons the thing is pushing if the thing itself is so very awfully tired?
Adding more weight to that side of things is the fact that the damn movie’s almost two-and-a-half hours long, which means a nearly four-hour hell multiplex experience is required for me to see the damn thing. And right now I haven’t got the time-time, as Lou Reed would say. So it’ll have to wait for the DVD, as the first one did. Remember that one? With its shocking reverse-cowgirl Cynthia Nixon shot that messed up the afternoons of several SCR readers who had grown accustomed to this being a consistent SFW site? Ah, fun times.
“That’s kind of a breathtaking combo of self-congratulation and historical ignorance.”
Are you tapping into your inner-Zizek with this brilliant barb?
Classic.
I appreciate the reasoned defense of not engaging with this piece of cinema. I considered seeing it this weekend until a less demanding experience (ie, dental surgery) arose.
I really don’t get the infatuation with Jeff Wells. You could, like, stop reading man. (Your insults are more of a compliment than an actual compliment could ever be anyway.)
Isn’t writing about not seeing and/or reviewing this film as much a waste of time as actually reviewing it?
Maybe this was a topic worth discussing when the first film came out (and that’s arguable), but to go through it again?
There’s got to be something more interesting things to talk about. Like belly-button lint.
Sarah Jessica Parker looked great in her Alexander McQueen black strapless dress and Philip Treacy hat at the UK première of Sex And The City 2 in London’s Leicester Square. The movie reviews might not be brilliant but the girls brought out the crowds in London! http://www.fashionjournal.org
^ I love this. I have to wonder how “fashion journal” managed to come upon this blog and decide “This thread is a perfect place to post my weird, stilted non sequitur!”
I’m surprised you sat through the first one Glenn, and even more surprised that, having seen the first one, you would consider sitting through another. This is the perfect example of the kind of thing Terry Gilliam referred to as causing “scurvy of the soul”.
“And again, when someone like Jeffrey Wells condemns the likes of this movie by referring to it as a Taliban recruitment tool, or some such, he’s really putting the cart before the horse. As if Western sexual libertinism is the sole raison d’être for Muslim extremism. That’s kind of a breathtaking combo of self-congratulation and historical ignorance.”
I hate this argument. Even if all that wasn’t true and they did just hate us for our freedom and bad movies, what follows? That we should stop making them, Wells?
The Taliban is like Michael Bolton.
“Why should I change, he’s the one who sucks?”
That reverse cowgirl shot of Cynthia Nixon is still the thing I think about when I think about that movie. Don’t worry, I’ve seen this turkey and you’re not missing anything.
As someone who hated living in New York (1997−2001), I was always pleased that my despised city had gotten the show that it deserved. However, I never really hated the episodes I watched, even though I was indifferent toward the characters. That list of directors might explain why. What happened to McLean? Isn’t she the one who did that adaptation of Jesus’ Son?
oh man – have you seen Lindy West’s review in Seattle’s The Stranger? http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/burkas-and-birkins/Content?oid=4132715
it is one of the most hilarious take downs of a flick like this I’ve seen in a long time. No matter how easy the shots are, she nails them all.
She had me at:
What is the lubrication level of Samantha Jones’s 52-year-old vagina? Has the change of life dulled its sparkle? Do its aged and withered depths finally chafe from the endless pounding, pounding, pounding—cruel phallic penance demanded by the emotionally barren sexual compulsive from which it hangs? If I do not receive an update on the deep, gray caverns of Jones, I shall surely die!
Why are reviewers offended by the notion that insanely wealthy Middle Eastern women wear designer clothes under their robes? I’ve read about this in dozens of articles on Saudi Arabia, Dubai, and other places where oil wealth meets muslim dress codes. Isn’t the sheik with the hundred Mercedes a familiar enough cliché? Reviewers seemed to think that the movie is offensive because it posits that entitled people behave the same way in New York as they do in the Middle East. With so many critics getting offended on behalf of muslims, I expect a Big Hollywood piece, any minute now, on how this is the greatest women’s picture since Cukor died.
My god – just about every example of the movie’s “wit” and “humor” that’s quoted in the linked reviews is horrifically lame, even for a Hollywood film. Especially one from a franchise which prides itself on its supposed sophistication. I remember enjoying some elements of the series episodes that I watched, but now it’s hard to even remember why.
I liked the series up until the last season and a half. The original feature film showed that there were no new ideas for these characters and only cupidity could have motivated this one. That said, I suspect the franchise gets kicked around as viciously as it does in no small part because the audience for it is about ninety percent female (and critics who are women are by no means immune, as the extremely unpleasant review by Lindy West reveals).
“The closest I can come to describing the effect is if you flew down to Tijuana and suddenly saw a painting on black velvet of Auschwitz. You’d just think, ‘My God, wait a minute! It’s not funny, and it’s not good, and somebody’s trying too hard in the wrong direction to convey this strongly held feeling.”
That quote from Harry Shearer, on The Day the Clown Cried, sounds a lot like that ending of SATC2.
Honestly though, such a black velvet painting sounds like such an apotheosis of bad taste that I would want to buy it and display it forever in my house. Or maybe sell it to Harmony Korine.
She looks So Hot.…
http://www.vivamagonline.com/CoverStories_Cynthia.php