The early 'Sex and the City 2' reviews are really, REALLY bad
No one's saying that "Sex and the City 2" won't be filling up the Warner Bros. coffers when it hits the theaters this weekend, but oh boy are the early reviews bad.
As in so bad that, as of right now, the film has a zero fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, meaning that not one good review has even posted yet. That number will surely go up, since it can't exactly go down any farther, but I'm betting that "Sex 2" will be in the running for one of the worst reviewed films of the year.
In his just-published withering review, New York magazine's David Edelstein called the movie "an epic eyesore," saying that "the most depressing thing about 'Sex and the City 2' is that it seems to justify every nasty thing said and written about the series and the first feature film." It sounds like writer-director Michael Patrick King aimed for high (or maybe low) camp: "The thinking behind the movie is undisguised," writes Edelstein. "Let's start with an over-the-top gay wedding! Then we'll send the girls to Abu Dhabi so then can rile up the fundamentalists with their sexuality! ... Won't they look great swishing around the desert being waited on by smooth young Arab men?"
But to hear Edelstein tell it, the film's starlets come out looking the worst, saying that the cinematographer lit Sarah Jessica Parker in a way that simply brings out "the leatheriness of her skin" while Kim Cattrall "is costumed to look like a cross between (late) Mae West and (dead) Bea Arthur."
He concludes by saying: "For all the sniggery double entendres, virtually all of 'Sex and the City 2' is a pale shade of vanilla." And that's one of the nicest reviews that I've read so far. I think that if I need to see a movie this weekend, I'll check out "Babies." At least no one can claim that its cinematographer made his stars look bad.
Photo: from left, Cynthia Nixon, Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall and Kristin Davis in "Sex and the City 2." Credit: Warner Bros. Films