Was Sex and the City 2 Really That Bad?
From what I’ve read online, in the New York Times, and pretty much every review out there, it’s as if the most recent Sex and the City movie is pure evil, and perhaps was even conjured up and distributed to movie theaters by the devil.
“Call this sequel callow, garish, ghastly, grisly or grotesque—and it is all of those things, plus borderline-interminable at 146 minutes,” read the Wall Street Journal review.
Gosh, it wasn’t Hitchcock or Preston Sturges, but I’m not sure it was the worst movie ever made. It was overly long, but the audience my friend Liz and I saw it with (at the very pleasant Regal Cinema in Conshy) were laughing pretty much throughout the two-plus hours.
While SATC2 was certainly silly and rather pointless, frankly I enjoyed it a lot more than the first SATC movie that came out two years ago. In that one, Carrie was left at the altar, and then for the next hour-plus of the movie she was depressed and trying to survive a snowy, rainy New York City winter. It had a narrative arc, which Sex and the City 2 doesn’t have, but the first movie was so incredibly dark and dreary that it left you feeling vaguely suicidal. (We can get that right here in Philly in the winter, why would we want to see that in a Sex and the City movie?)
The current SATC might be complete fluff, but since most of us aren’t going on any trips to Abu Dhabi or Morocco this summer, and aren’t able to get away with wearing low-cut gold caftans and giant jewelry, the movie seemed to me a fun bauble of a pastime, like a trip to Las Vegas, but much less expensive. Camel rides through the desert in full makeup, heels and jewelry? As one critic put it, it’s sort of Ishtar, but nonetheless amusing if you take it lightly.
The main problem I found with the movie was the stage set for Carrie and Big’s apartment. All that money, and such a dreary decor? No wonder they had to go to Faux Abu Dhabi!
Read our Friday Movie Blog’s he said/she said review of SATC2 here.