The Big Picture

Patrick Goldstein and James Rainey
on entertainment and media

« Previous Post | The Big Picture Home | Next Post »

'Sex and the City 2' reviews: How many ways can you say 'This movie stinks'?

Sex_city The reviews are still flooding in for "Sex and the City 2" and guess what? They're as bad as ever. The film's Rotten Tomatoes fresh rating is now residing at 12, which is higher than 0, which is where it was a day ago, but still lower than any other major release this year, and that's including "Tooth Fairy,"  "Valentine's Day" and, yes, even "MacGruber."

The critics have been having a field day, notably the New York Post's Kyle Smith, whose review ran under the inspired headline "Sucks in the City." Smith didn't mince words, putting it this way: "As tasteless as an Arabian cathouse, as worn-out as your 1998 flip-flops and as hideous as the mom jeans Carrie wears with a belly-baring gingham top, 'Sex and the City 2' is two of the worst movies of the year."

There are theorists who have claimed that the movie is getting pummeled especially hard by male film critics who weren't fans of the show in the first place (though that's hardly true of the Post's Smith, who boasted on his blog that he'd watched every episode of the TV show). But even my colleague Betsy Sharkey, who reviewed the film today, wasn't any more enthusiastic.

Here's how she led off her review: "If only they'd called it 'Almost No Sex and Very Little City,' at least we would know what we were in for with 'Sex and the City 2.' In this second screen incarnation of the fabulous HBO series, the satire is sagging, the irony's atrophied and the funny is flabby."

This is the kind of movie that actually makes you want to know what Rex Reed had to say, since the ageless New York Observer critic practically invented the art of film bitchism. He doesn't disappoint. Taking a big roundhouse swing when I'm sure a couple of jabs and a tiny left hook would do, he writes: 

"The only thing memorable about 'Sex and the City 2' is the number two part, which describes it totally, if you get my drift. Everything else in this deadly, brainless exercise in pointless tedium is dedicated to the screeching audacity of delusional self-importance that convinces these people the whole world is waiting desperately to watch two hours and 25 minutes of platform heels, fake orgasms and preposterous clothes. It is to movies what fried dough is to nutrition."

I'm hoping that no matter how much money the film makes over the holiday weekend that Michael Patrick King and company will be too ashamed to ever breathe a mention of "SATC 3." I think it's time this franchise got a chance to rest in peace. 

Photo: The leading ladies of "Sex and the City 2." From left: Kristin Davis, Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall and Cynthia Nixon. Credit: Craig Blankenhorn / Warner Bros.

 

 
Comments () | Archives (15)

The comments to this entry are closed.

I don't always believe in one man's opinion or reviews. I read a movie review one time and it was a bad one but when I saw the movie, I actually loved it. That's why I don't care about what other people thinks because not all people are the same and has the same taste.

First, a TV show about four whiny, selfish, neurotic losers, stinks. Then, a movie about the four whiny, selfish, neurotic losers, stinks. Now, the second movie about the four whiny, selfish, neurotic losers is out. What should we expect?? It stinks? You're kidding. Would never have expected that.

I agree. Eventhough I'm a huge fan of the show, I got bored just by watching the trailer. You can tell how bad it is just in a few minutes. But it's like junk food, isn't it? Full of empty calories, but it's good for a few minutes. After all, we watch this for the clothes and the fantasies, not the plot!

Ewwww! I'd rather have a root canal!

i'm guessing that with some tv/ film franchises, the fans of the show just want to see another storyline and "episode"... and, the actual quality prolly matters much less than the fact that it got made... tho of course, with quality comes the opportunity of expanding the franchise and extending it's screen life... sorta say.

i, for one, am still wishing that Paramount would make another ST:TNG film- or even better a ST:Voyager film. but, one can only wish... most likely they're going to just to do more ST films in continuation of where the most recent film left off...

I thought the movie was wonderful and entertaining! Over the top yes! But that's what Sex and the City is all about. All these people need to get over their uptight selves! Go out and enjoy the movie! Don't bother listening to all this Debbie Downers!

Wrong movie, wrong time.

I just got back from walking out and wrote a review of it myself.

http://reviewsforjake.blogspot.com/

Hey Buhay—

The point of the "fresh rating" is that it is not "one man's opinion". It is many. There is a consensus on this—the movie is an embarrassment. No matter what you thinks or what taste you has.

Thank you poster Sandy. You said it. I'm not sure why it's shocking this movie sucks. Sex and The City sucks. Period. I can only believe that what makes women (other than myself) want to watch these screeching, annoying, self-absorbed people is a very low sense of self-esteem.

 
1 2 | »

Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Stay Connected:



About the Bloggers


Categories


Archives
 


Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: