





Turns out the Sex and the City movie is long and kind of limp. According to one reviewer, it’s not exactly the thrill-a-minute fun fest you might be expecting in your Magnolia-frosting-and-Cosmo-fueled craze:
You want a review? Watch the DVDs of the series. There is not a single idea in this film that was not conceived, discussed, and beaten to within an inch of its life during the run of the show on HBO. Not ONE!
Nor was there a tick or a schtick or a flick that these four very good actresses haven’t done to within an inch of my vomit reflex on the show that isn’t recalled here… with little more. Maybe… maybe… SJP will exhaustion make-up is the only new thing… but maybe they already did that… I know Mr. Broderick has. (All husbands have.)
Well, poodle, that reflex eventually goes away. Relax the throat and think of puppies:
And let me add this… Mr. King is perhaps the worst writer of dramatic dialogue that I have witnessed so far this year. Sparkling wit… yeah, he can do that. Drama? Horror. The only genuinely emotional moment I experienced in this film came to pass in a moment where the characters actually shut up for a couple of minutes and had what seemed to be a genuine moment. And yes, King wrote that too. But whoever told him to fill his movie with at least 50% an effort to be dramatic was very, very confused. It’s not what he does well.
Have I mentioned that this movie is not a spritely 98 minutes… or a long 110 minutes… or two frickin’ hours followed by long credits?
And then there’s the cock:
And of course, we get another utterly meaningless penis sighting! Thank God for women (and gay filmmakers) being able to objectify men just like men have always objectified women! That penis was really a major political moment for cinema!
We’ve never though of anyone on the series as being anything other than an object, regardless of gender. Oh, and by the way? Thanks for ruining the ending. We just knew that, meanwhile, on the other side of town, Kim Cattrall was taking “meat packing” literally.
Comments On Sex & The City (Though There Really Isn’t An Embargo) [The Hot Button]

I’m in
Posted by jrod | May 16, 2008
“Mr. King is perhaps the worst writer of dramatic dialogue that I have witnessed so far this year.”
I disagree. I hopped over to the NY Observer to read the original SATC columns by Candace Bushnell where I experienced little gems such as:
“Carrie never goes to movies—she had a WASPy mother who told her that only poor people with sick kids send their kids to the movie theater—so it was a big deal for her. She got to the theater late, and when the ticket taker told her the movie had already started, she said, “Fuck you. I’m here for research—you don’t think I’d actually go see this movie, do you?””
and:
““I think I’m turning into a man,” said Carrie. She lit up her 20th cigarette of the day, and when the maître d’hôtel ran over and told her to put it out, she said, “Why, I wouldn’t dream of offending anyone.” Then she put the cigarette out on the carpet.”
and:
“Around the same time, an unfortunate item came out about Carrie in one of the gossip columns. She was trying to ignore it when Cici called up all excited.
“Ohmigod, you’re famous,” she said. “You’re in the papers. Have you read it?” Then she began reading it. Carrie started screaming at her. “Let me explain something. If you want to survive in this town, never, ever call anybody and read something terrible about them from the papers. You pretend you never saw it, O.K.? And if they ask you if you did, you lie and say, ‘No, I don’t read trash,’ even though you do. Get it? Cici, who’s side are you on here?” Cici started crying and Carrie hung up the phone and felt guilty afterward.”
So the point is that anyone who could turn the unreadable drivel that Bushnel wrote (and I’m serious, you can’t get through that crap), and turn this horrible, bitchy, cocaine-doing Carrie into someone slightly endearing if not slightly annoying is indeed a VERY good writer.
Posted by Maria_Elena | May 16, 2008