| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 05/29/2008 : 20:03:03
Sex and the City
When the show came out on tv it appealed to two key audiences -
1. contemporaries of the 4 women - early 30s, been around the block a couple of times, established career path, maybe/maybe not quite ready to move on from BIG NY SEX to love, relationship - what Ella et al used to sing about in I Want A Sunday Kind of Love [the kind that lasts past Saturday Night]
and
2. people already past that stage but who'd once been young in NYC themselves.
Unlike the friends in Friends, these dames mixed with money and seemed to wear the American Dream from the panties out. And blahdy-blahdy-blah they got in deep and floated out, they laughed and cried, and oohed and ahhed, symbiotically attached to the fashion industry. And then they didn't anymore.
The show was never top of the 20-somethings' list because it was too big a stretch for thinking creatures halfway between girlies and women whose post-modern take on life is more comfortable with labia than labels. No big deal.
Now the long blabbed-of film struts its stuff on the big silver catwalk, but lo and behold. It's a letdown. This year's collection turns out to be -- not quite rags, but no where near riches.
There are lots of reasons -- all the ones I don't need to remind you of. But I think the biggest is zeitgeist. The plain fact is - like the four actresses - we've all moved on.
Well all except those diehard fans and fannies still caught up in the sequin dream.
Just one gotta mention though - Jennifer Hudson, the one who wowed the world in Dreamgirls - has had a part hand-knitted for her, and she's the only one not in the original series who's earned enough screen time to remind us all she's got an amazing career ahead of her.
The most refreshing thing about SatC - a long and arid road - is that it ends with a sweetly delivered warning about looking beyond Labels. I tried, ladies, I really did - but the flick is so overdressed it was a big search to the buff of truth.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 17:54:16
A particular small thing I liked about this film is that the catch-up at the beginning is done much better than they usually are. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 07:29:53
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Broderick?? No way. No way. The "Get Smart" role calls for a buffoon, not a ballsless wimp, which is all Broderick seems to play nowadays. This is why he was exactly wrong for Inspector Gadget too -- his persona neither has the stupidity nor the confidence for it.
On second thought, you may be right. What he did to the remake of The Producers was so painful, I couldn't watch for more than 5 minutes.
Still, I can't stand Carrell, and my vivid memories of Don Adams in that part just won't allow me to see the movie of Get Smart. I'm also totally unsure of Hathaway playing Agent 99, as I'm sure she'll try to immitate Barbara Feldon, and I just don't see it working. Although Alan Arkin will probably be a very good Chief. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 06/12/2008 : 19:53:13
quote:
It�s just a rom-com, for Pete�s sake. How seriously does anybody need to take it?
It wants to be romantic and it's not. That's how seriously I want to take it.
If you say they've entertained thoughts in the series, I can't contradict you, but the tone of the movie, and apparently the series as far as I can tell, is very crass and ugly. I don't buy that it has heart or soul or romance or relationships or anything like that.
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Steve Carell is awesome, and I can't think of anyone better suited for the Get Smart remake.
I totally disagree about Carell being awesome. However, I can agree that there probably isn't anyone better suited to do Get Smart and that's why I refuse completely, totally and utterly to ever go see this remake!
(If they couldn't find anyone better suited than Carell, then they shouldn't have made the movie at all.)
(Actually, I take that back. Matthew Broderick would have been far better suited to do a remake of Get Smart.)
Broderick?? No way. No way. The "Get Smart" role calls for a buffoon, not a ballsless wimp, which is all Broderick seems to play nowadays. This is why he was exactly wrong for Inspector Gadget too -- his persona neither has the stupidity nor the confidence for it. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 06/05/2008 : 06:04:37
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Steve Carell is awesome, and I can't think of anyone better suited for the Get Smart remake.
I totally disagree about Carell being awesome. However, I can agree that there probably isn't anyone better suited to do Get Smart and that's why I refuse completely, totally and utterly to ever go see this remake!
(If they couldn't find anyone better suited than Carell, then they shouldn't have made the movie at all.)
(Actually, I take that back. Matthew Broderick would have been far better suited to do a remake of Get Smart.)
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/05/2008 : 01:05:15
Reply to Wheelz: They had to end up together, though. The audience would've gone demented otherwise. I don't see him as such a bad guy. He had a moment of doubt, after Carrie had made his third wedding a big society affair. She should've appreciated the fact that he would be embarrassed at the thought of everyone wondering how long this one would last. She punished him way more than not talking to him -- she refused to talk to him on the wedding day when they passed each other. She ought to have thought "Whatever his reason, I should hear him out, especially as I didn't bother to last night" and then they could've just got married then.  |
| Wheelz |
Posted - 06/05/2008 : 00:25:50
And to Salopian: The character I'm referring to is Big. I always thought he treated Carrie very shabbily over the years and was disappointed they ended up together on the series. And running out on your wedding -- even for only a minute -- is a pretty HUGE deal if you ask me. His penance? She doesn't return his calls. And the very next time she sees him all is forgiven. So all in all, yeah, I thought he got off way too easy. |
| Wheelz |
Posted - 06/05/2008 : 00:20:35
It seems my opinion is in the minority here, but I stand by it.
Is this the Citizen Kane of Romantic Comedy? Of course not. But I still don�t understand all the venom. quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
The series, as far as I can tell, was largely a glorification of the shallow pleasures in life -- well, two of them, anyway, sex and designer fashion. I can't imagine entertaining the notion that anything else is the show's or film's primary focus.
Fashion � OK, I�ll give you that one. But, despite the title, I maintain that the series and movie both were more about relationships than sex. In fact, each of the 4 principals is coupled with exactly one man throughout the course of the film, which covers several months� time. Not exactly a celebration of promiscuity. quote:
These women clearly have never entertained a single thought about politics, religion, spirituality, morality, art, nature, philosophy, etc.
I suppose I may have watched more episodes of the series than I care to admit, but I recall virtually every one of these topics being touched upon during the show�s run. Big, serious, thought-provoking stuff? Nah. But they did indeed �entertain thoughts� at some point. quote:
God knows I watch a lot of shallow movies, but they usually don't try to get me to take them seriously as romances.
It�s just a rom-com, for Pete�s sake. How seriously does anybody need to take it?
I can�t believe I�ve even spent this much energy defending this movie. It�s not great. It�s not everybody�s cup of cosmo. I�m just saying that if you have to get dragged to a chick flick, this isn�t the worst couple hours you�ll ever be forced to spend.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/04/2008 : 00:15:59
Sex and the City: The Movie
Wheelz: That is not a spoiler! I saw the film today and still have no idea to whom you're referring! (And beige text is unclear enough against grey boxes -- it doesn't need to be impossible to read, just impossible to read accidentally.)
RockGolf: It's not really supposed to be a comedy per se.
I thought it did a good job of changing to a film format. I don't see how there could be a second film, though, as there has been discussion of.
And could Gilles Marini be any hotter? Jason Lewis is ageing really badly, though. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 06/03/2008 : 09:55:01
Steve Carell is awesome, and I can't think of anyone better suited for the Get Smart remake. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 06/03/2008 : 07:57:29
quote:
Originally posted by wildheartlivie
I won't be seeing Get Smart either, but that's based on my casual dislike for Steve Carrell.
I'm with you there, but I think my dislike of Carrell is far from casual - more like really good friends! |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 06/03/2008 : 05:36:45
I just never could get into the series, it seemed so very shallow to me and I was less than interested in the things that interested these women. Well, men do interest me, but not the way the subject was dealt with in the show. I won't likely be seeing this film at all, but I won't be seeing Get Smart either, but that's based on my casual dislike for Steve Carrell. |
| RockGolf |
Posted - 06/03/2008 : 05:03:18
There are some comedy shows I have simply never got. SatC is one. Same with Two and A Half Men, or Married With Children. Its not that I'm a prude. I don't think I've ever laughed harder than when watching There's Something About Mary or The 40-Year-Old Virgin.
Usually, I'll give a comedy show two episodes, since every series has its dogs. But I don't think I ever even smiled at one thing in either of the two SatC episodes I ever saw. That was enough. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 06/03/2008 : 02:28:40
Gentlemen: Do not, under any circumstances, see this movie. Heck, that goes for you ladies, too. It is AWFUL.
These women are beyond irritating and I couldn't stand a second of their airheaded girl talk. The series, as far as I can tell, was largely a glorification of the shallow pleasures in life -- well, two of them, anyway, sex and designer fashion. I can't imagine entertaining the notion that anything else is the show's or film's primary focus. These women clearly have never entertained a single thought about politics, religion, spirituality, morality, art, nature, philosophy, etc. They are dedicatedly shallow, for all purposes they're teenagers, gossiping about clothes and boys. That's not a bad thing on its own, God knows I watch a lot of shallow movies, but they usually don't try to get me to take them seriously as romances. It's like watching Patrick Bateman from "American Psycho" fall in love.
Also, the dialogue is awful. I feel like kind of a schmuck for calling "Juno" overwritten, I certainly enjoyed it more than the anemic dialogue of "Sex and the City: The Movie." |
| Wheelz |
Posted - 06/03/2008 : 00:32:16
I find it amusing how stupid some men are being about the very existence of this film. I listened to a radio call-in show today soliciting guys' "horror stories" about having to see it over the weekend. A Chicago Tribune columnist wrote that he'd prefer a hot poker to the eyes over watching it, and printed a coupon which supposedly excuses the holder from any obligation to accompany his significant other the theater. I don�t think he meant it as a joke.
For cryin' out loud, folks, it's just a movie, and not a bad one at that. Mrs. Wheelz always loved the TV show, and I watched it with her when I happened to be in the room, and I didn't hate doing so. (Gee, I guess I'm not supposed to admit that. What I mean to say is I accidentally caught a few glimpses of the show while walking through the living room wearing my tool belt and grunting.)
Anyway, the little lady just had to go see it on opening weekend, and let me tell you, I've been dragged to MUCH worse than this. Mrs. W thought it was great, and I thought it was... pretty good. I felt they did a fairly credible job of creating an actual cinematic film featuring characters from a TV show, rather than simply projecting a TV show onto a big screen. My biggest beef was the same complaint I had at the end of the series' run (small spoiler): A certain character, in my opinion, gets off a little too easy given certain of that character's behaviors... (and THERE'S A POOP JOKE!)
Sure, if you never saw the show, there's little reason you'll care to see the movie, but if you've seen even a few episodes and didn't want to run screaming from the room, chances are you'll enjoy this flick. And it provided fodder for some real conversation later on in the evening. There really is more to it than shoes and handbags.
Guys -- don't be afraid!
|
| Wheelz |
Posted - 06/03/2008 : 00:29:59
Place holder to get to a white background...  |
|
|
