Rex and the City: Carrie’s Ladies Who Lunch Aren't The Women
Where have you gone, Joan Crawford? The big-screen version of SATC (caution: spoilers below!) is long on strenuous orgasm talk, short on compelling drama. In other fortysomething news: Julianne Moore marvels as a mad mommy
MORE On the Town
Sex and the City
Running Time 145 minutes
Written and Directed by Michael Patrick King
Starring Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Cynthia Nixon, Kristin Davis
There’s nothing wrong with Sarah Jessica Parker that couldn’t be cured by wart-removal surgery. That growth on her face just gets bigger with every close-up, and in the full-length movie version of Sex and the City it’s so distracting you can’t concentrate on anything else. It’s not a beauty mark. I guess you can’t tell a co-producer anything, but listen up, girl. At this point, you would make a wonderful Halloween witch. Unfortunately, to fix all the things wrong with Sex and the City, you need more than a scalpel.
So what can I tell you? It’s a chick flick about sex and the city and I’m not a chick, I’m not getting any, and I live in the country. I guess I’m not the target audience. (Who is? Candace Bushnell, who invented Sex and the City right here in the pages of The Observer, lives on the next road.) But I was a follower in the days when it was a series of autobiographical newspaper columns (the heterosexual East Coast equivalent of Armistead Maupin’s “Tales of the City” in The San Francisco Chronicle), and I admired the liberties it took with sexual politics when it became a book in 1996, then a 94-episode HBO series from 1998 to 2004. I chuckled over the nudity, the witty one-liners and the sophisticated smut dreamed up weekly by four cosmo girls who eat endless salads, blather nonstop about their orgasms and believe there is no crisis in life so serious that it cannot be solved by Manolo Blahnik. It was inevitable that the detritus of their sex lives would end up pasted into a full-length movie. What’s next? A Broadway musical?
Weary of comic-book escapism, alien invaders, flying superheroes in corny costumes and computer-generated images masquerading as entertainment, I was anxious to embrace a movie about real people. But there’s nothing real about Sex and the City, or anyone in it. The movie has retained the services of the TV series’ writer-director, Michael Patrick King, who lacks the talent and imagination to sustain the pace for two hours and 25 minutes on the big screen. The girls who munch are now ladies who lunch—in all the wrong places. They’re supposed to be hip barometers for everything fresh and trendy in the Big Apple, so why do they hang out in Bryant Park and the Four Seasons? Real trailblazers would be photographed at the Beatrice Inn, Rose Bar in the Gramercy Park Hotel, Café Cluny and Gemma in the Bowery Hotel. If you want to see the on-target Sex and the City, watch TV’s new insider sensation, Gossip Girl. They really get it right.
Next, there’s the age problem. Too long in the tooth to pout, whine and babble about their wet dreams, they’re affluent and successful for reasons that are never clear, but rarely seen working at whatever it is they do to pay for all those poker games with $300 Hermes playing cards. Carrie still searches for labels and love, and her loyal gal pals are still joined at the libido. Samantha (Kim Cattrall), the group slut, has moved her PR career to a fabulous glass beach house in Malibu, where her only client seems to be her No. 1 squeeze, Smith (Jason Lewis), who works as a hunky TV doctor (think Patrick Dempsey) while his girlfriend spies on the naked hunk next door. Smith is a real catch with a sense of humor (he presents Samantha with a $5,000 diamond ring inside his jockey briefs by pretending it’s an erection). Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) is a wife and mother, too preoccupied as a lawyer (although she is never shown trying a case or filing a brief) to realize she’s jeopardizing her marriage to nice-guy bartender Steve (David Eigenberg). WASP-y, uptight Charlotte (Kristin Davis) exchanged handsome husband Trey (Kyle MacLachlan) for fat, bald, Jewish Harry (Evan Handler) and adopted an Asian daughter. The problem: No longer girls but too shallow to be women, they are now predatory 40-somethings (Kim Cattrall is 52) who have learned nothing restorative about their past mistakes in the Porthault sheets. They’ve turned into what the girls in The Devil Wears Prada would call cougars. Worse still, for experts on glam, it’s amazing how many unflattering shots all four women are forced to endure. The accessories glitter more than the cast.
Still, I give them credit. They’re not angels, but they’re still here, working hard to please their fans, like plow donkeys wearing lipstick. Why are they so obsessed with orgasms? Can you imagine Grace Kelly in Rear Window telling Jimmy Stewart “Well, now that you’re in a wheelchair I have to dump you—you can no longer give me orgasms.” Even the women in The Women never sat around discussing their orgasms (and if there was one women in Hollywood who was actually having them, it was Joan Crawford). With so much about sex and so little about life, what little there is of the plot has been chloroformed. After laying what seemed like all of the eligible bachelors in Manhattan and half of Brooklyn, Carrie Bradshaw (Parker) has at last agreed to marry the dullest of them all, Mr. Big (Chris Noth). (A chick who once spent a week in Paris with Mikhail Baryshnikov, settling for dull? I doubt it.) Carrie is a neurotic black-belt shopper and occasional columnist who types on her laptop in marabou feathers. She’s also the only freelance writer I ever heard of who can afford to hire a personal assistant to separate her Manolos from her Jimmy Choos. (A flimsy excuse to give Jennifer Hudson her first job since Dreamgirls; she spices up a few scenes, but fails to save the movie.) When Carrie’s Vogue editor (Candice Bergen, who is finally showing her age but still can’t act) recruits her to model wedding gowns for a gala bridal issue, it’s an excuse for another fashion show. Predictably, Big, an unreliable egomaniac with mysterious millions (something to do with Wall Street, natch), dumps her at the altar in a Vivienne Westwood bridal gown that looks like a cloud of lemon meringue pie. Well, would you want to get married in the New York Public Library? Next Page >
Thank God someone has the guts to say that Sarah Jessica Parker is what they use to refer to as "homely". I will probably see the movie and really did enjoy the TV show. Great, fun writing. However, once in a while on the show they would do a close-up of Carrie and I would wince. Her career should have been exclusively playing Glen Close's daughter.
judy garland throws a bottle of compound w onto parkers face and she screams out 'i am melting . where are the ratings? '
What a bitchy review! It should read "SPOILERS below" instead of "spoilers below" .. Can anymore of the plot be revealed?
One of the most truthful and wittiest reviews I've read in ages! To most, the whole series was meant as campy, fun, fantasy. For real women (with both sensible-shoed feet on the ground), it was nothing more than a guilty pleasure. (Kind of like guys relating to Tony Soprano…of any of the Three Stooges.) Unfortunately, it seems way too many women "relate" to these four spoiled, obnoxious, middle-aged, emotionally stunted brats. The series – and in particular, the movie - speaks volumes about today’s crippling belief that, if you don’t “have it all” you life is lacking. As for me, I’ve got a full-time job and a house to clean so this Saturday I’m off to buy a new vacuum. The mani-pedi will have to wait (again.)
I liked the series, it was fun and as everyone says, a guilty pleasure. However, being of a certain age allowed me to know that it was just fantasy. The real truth is, and check with any forty + woman, there is nothing sadder than an over the hill forty something old bag on the make. And truth be told, if any younger man is actually looking at her, he's some fucked up loser. Any guy 65 or younger is looking for a 25 year old. He might not admit it, but if he got the chance, he'd go for it. Any guy 66 or older is looking for a nurse, and a young nurse at that.
Anyone who actually believes that a rich man like Mr. Big would actually settle for some dried out piece of work like Carrie, needs a trip to the real world. Chris Noth said it best on the "pink carpet". Mr. Big only had two women during the course of the show, how many men did Carrie screw during the same time? Let's face it Carrie's a whore. Sorry, but any woman who goes out with an evening purse stuffed with condoms is exactly that, a whore. No guy is looking at your shoes, or your face for that matter.
Carrie's doctor should have had a part on the show since she laid half of Manhattan. Carrie's next gig, doing commercials for herpes medications.
Wow. I think the reviewer really hates women. This TV show, and I'm sure the movie, are about fantasy and irony. It is not about sluts...it is about four women looking for love. Even Samantha is looking for love, but she's been hurt in the past and she has chosen her best friends as the loves of her life. And while SJP may not be Nicole Kidman, we all know that she is a great example of how to look great even if your DNA didn't come in a Tiffany's box. This review is offensive to women. And to the fans who would have preferred not to have the entire plot spoiled for them. Thanks a lot! In the future, I will be avoiding reviews from the Observer since there is no respect for the audience.
I do agree the SJP is way past her ingenue status. I saw her a few years ago and she was looking pretty bad then. That is not to say that I do not like her or that she doesn't have some acting abilities. How about surrendering your girlish ways and becoming a woman that we all could relate to? Is it ego that refuses to let you grow up? As far as the rest of the ladies, I know plenty just like them. Yes, woman and men do not want to grow up. Let's step aside and give the next in line a chance!
It's nice to see that Rex's wit is still firmly in place. Someone please publish a collection of his very best bad reviews.
It's nice to see that Rex Reed has not mellowed with age. His review is bitchier than ANY conversation the gals on Sex and the City EVER had.
How sad that you are such a pathetic creature (and not a good looking one by the way) that you have to insult a woman's looks. To insult such a wonderful acting performance because you don't like the person's looks does not make you a good film critic. I t makes you a lazy one. I think this review is positively misogynistic and reveals you to be a scared loser who probably makes less money than your wife -- if anybody was stupid enough to marry you.
I haven't seen the film yet, but I've seen every episode. It's fine as escapist fantasy, but the really odd thing about the show is its insistence on dolling up relatively universal human desires and fears (companionship, abandonment, loneliness, etc.) in layers of the most aggravating, craven materialism that I just can't stand it. For 99% of the women I know, spending twenty minutes with a woman like Carrie Bradshaw would make them apoplectic: she's self-centered, obsessed with material objects that are way out of line with her earning potential, and she dates an investment banker who could care less about her column and her skills as a writer. To recap: she's an aging, arrogant gold-digger. Can you name one other TV show that centered its entire run on fans personally identifying with such an unsympathetic character?
rex is a sad,pathetic little queen..
I honestly cannot understand what all you idiots slating this film were expecting. "Rex" goes on about how the film is all about sex. The film is called....SEX and the city. I also agree with what a lot of the people (not the bitter bastards slating SJP) have said above. Its pathetic to slag off SJP because of her appearence. First of all if you don't like the way she looks then why go see the film? Secondly you cannot think of someone as being ugly and think this makes them a bad person. This does not give you the right to rant on about them in such a negative way. Fans of the show should realise they are not going to see a deep and meaningful film. They are going to watch their favourite characters dressed beautifully, talking about sex and relationships. Also dachshundsrule basically thinks carrie has slept with half of new york but big has only slept with 2 women during the whole show. How would you ever know this seeing as though his character was not always featured in every episode? This review is such aload of bollocks and it baffles me that so many obviously very insecure people have also agreed with it. Why not allow people to enjoy this for what it is?
I honestly cannot understand what all you idiots slating this film were expecting. "Rex" goes on about how the film is all about sex. The film is called....SEX and the city. I also agree with what a lot of the people (not the bitter bastards slating SJP) have said above. Its pathetic to slag off SJP because of her appearence. First of all if you don't like the way she looks then why go see the film? Secondly you cannot think of someone as being ugly and think this makes them a bad person. This does not give you the right to rant on about them in such a negative way. Fans of the show should realise they are not going to see a deep and meaningful film. They are going to watch their favourite characters dressed beautifully, talking about sex and relationships. Also dachshundsrule basically thinks carrie has slept with half of new york but big has only slept with 2 women during the whole show. How would you ever know this seeing as though his character was not always featured in every episode? This review is such aload of bollocks and it baffles me that so many obviously very insecure people have also agreed with it. Why not allow people to enjoy this for what it is?
YES!!! it's about time someone bad mouths these trandy tv shows and movies that have no style or grace. joan crawford and vincente minnili lives---sarah jessica parker should go back to broadway, where she got her start playing the dog in "ANNIE."
Rex, while I agree with your review in general, COME ON, it's not 1945 anymore. Crawford and her like have been dead for 30 years. You were making similar complaints way back in the '70's.
Time to enter the 21st century.
My favorite twist is that Kim Cattrall, while playing the always-wet Samantha, admitted in print that she'd almost never had an orgasm until she met her (now ex-) husband. When she was 40. Remember her in Bonfire of the Vanities? She played Charlotte, basically.
The movie is tired, the actresses should have moved on, and Rex is right.
Three words to Rex Reed: BITCHY OLD QUEEN.
While some of us are out enjoying watching "Sex And The City" (or, actually having "sex in the city") you can sit home with your Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, and Judy Garland DVDs and try to remember what it felt like to be relevant.
I'm still getting over "dachshundsrule"'s post above. Wow. Such woman-hating. It's sad.
Rex Reed is certainly correct when he writes that it would take more than a scalpel to fix this wart of a movie, but I certainly wouldn't credit the HBO series as being any better. The very idea of four "professional" New York women in their 30s squealing and giggling like middle-school bimbettes is not only ludicrous and appalling, it's downright vilifying to women. The idea of Miranda, the Harvard Law graduate, squawking and squealing with lips over teeth about a cocktail, some fruity bottled water, or a man is actually offensive.
The "Gossip Girl" teens are more mature, besides knowing where the real hot spots may really be. Sarah Jessica Parker's "fashion sense" is about as believeable as her playing a doctor in the almost equally lamentable "Smart People." How about that ridiculous "gown" she wore in Paris while sprawled across a bed after having been "screwed" by the Russian once again? And let's not even start on the patronizing homophobia from out gay writer-producer Michael Patrick King, who apparently suffers from a little self-loathing.
I realize many films require the "suspension of disbelief," but come on. The bimbo queen as a doctor would require the "nuclear devastation of disbelief." She apparently has way too much regard for her "sex appeal," in addition to her acting ability, as well as her fashion sense. It's possible she considers her wart a "beauty mark" and proof that she isn't as shallow and inane as she comes across. Should she decide to have a surgeon attack the wart, he should take the opportunity to take a few whacks at the "schnozz." That was enough to bear on TV, but on the big screen it recalls "The Eiger Sanction."
SATC never made sense to me. All that sex and no chemistry! None. The Carrie/Mr. Big plot was the worst ; it was "Eugene Onegin" with a happy ending. Just one big trip on the vapid transit.
Mr Reed is spot on frank, funny, realistic and my review hero for his honesty and calm in the storm of utter stupidity put out there as film entertainment. The point and purpose of this film was to like the characters.. you can't. They are not loveable or worthy of trust, much too capricious, selfish and set on destructive behavior..and you have the sad feeling they are blowing off their lives with superficial sexual exploits that are dangerous and deadly, they not friends, but cling to something they think is friendship.. [tolerance] for the rest of the world would give up on listening to trivial bragging could care less about their foolish inanity.
How original. How FHM of you. To poke fun at SJP's looks as your 'hook'. And this guy gets paid to write?
"I think this review is positively misogynistic and reveals you to be a scared loser who probably makes less money than your wife -- if anybody was stupid enough to marry you."
Marry him? Honey, this is Rex Reed. Not exactly a fan of the vagina.
Best - movie review - EVER!
As a real woman, I totally agree with the review above and with what many other people have said. Why can't these women grow up? Screwing around and blowing all your money on consumer goods is cute when... well, I don't think it's ever cute but it's forgiveable in your 20s. After that, isn't it time to be mature and make some commitments in your life?
Why doesn't anyone make movies about women's real struggles and worries? Something like "Mona Lisa Smile", with a different plot line of course (and better acting), but analyzing the relationships between women and the real choices we have to make in life. I am sick of seeing women in movies who have no point in being there other than to be the pretty face that gets drooled over or the kidnapped victim. Bo-Ring.
And I won't even get started on the topic of black women in movies today... but let me just say that the director of this movie thought that he found the perfect "younger woman" who wouldn't make the 4 stars look bad - tall, fat, black Jennifer Hudson. Turns out that most men who saw the movie think that she's the hottest thing in it. Nature, 1; Botox, 0.
Rex, this review is you at your bitchy-best.
Enjoyed the show specifically for Kim Catrall's over the top cougar portrayl.
Have absolutely no plans to see this movie and be party of Sarah J's money machine. Cannot stomach her. Have you ever see anymore full of her self and for what reason? Can't blame Kim for holding out for $$$ being Sarah's got money coming in from all directions: Garnier skin & hair commercials, Bitten fashion line, two perfumes. How nauseating!!!
Mr. Reed,
You are a bitter, bitter old QUEEN who is no longer relevant.
Please retire.
Thank You.
Mr. Reed, you are a genius whose wit, like very fine wine, gets better with age. Thank you so much for telling the truth about this movie monstrosity. I've seen the film, and I think you were too kind. And if, like some of the losers above have written, you really are a "bitter old Queen," then can I please go to dinner with you and listen to your fabulous stories? I'll treat.
SATC is a long, padded, boring, meandering, less than funny stinkeroo. It invents situations to give it some plot, but it's really running on empty.
Please, please, please; somebody publish Rex Reed's reviews in book form, especially the reviews in which he pans movies.
His scintillating critique of Sex And The City is funnier than the movie, and much more realistic.