Eric D. Snider

Sex and the City

Movie Review

Sex and the City

by Eric D. Snider

Grade: C

Released: May 30, 2008


Directed by:


I never watched HBO's "Sex and the City" because it didn't appeal to me. It seemed to be about four superficial, materialistic women who pranced around New York talking about men and shoes. My interest was diminished further by the way so many people tried to adopt the show's lifestyle as their own -- a shallow copy of something that was shallow to begin with. I guess it's not fair to hold it against the show that some of its fans sought to be as artificial as it was, but hey, I'm not a TV critic. I don't have to be fair.

So I approach the new film version with something less than enthusiasm, well aware that it wasn't made for me anyway. My reward? A few laughs, a couple of likable characters, and a running time of nearly 2 1/2 hours.

Two and a half hours?! Who thought it was a good idea to turn a 30-minute sitcom into an epic-length film? An epic-length film that feels like -- you guessed it -- five episodes strung together. There's no reason for this to be a movie. Nothing happens on the big screen that could not have happened on HBO, and the characters' lives are not changed any more dramatically than they could have been on TV. It's a movie only because movies make a lot more money than made-for-HBO specials do.

The film picks up four years after the show's 2004 finale. Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) and Big (Chris Noth) are still together and considering marriage. Charlotte (Kristin Davis) and Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) are both married to nice guys, with varying degrees of happiness between them. Samantha (Kim Cattrall) is living in L.A. with her far-too-young movie-star boy toy Smith (Jason Lewis) but misses the girls back in NYC.

It is my understanding that giving away any details of the film's plot will result in my death at the hands of Manolo-knock-off-wearing SATC wannabes, so I shall refrain. I sure was sad when Carrie died, though! (Just kidding, ladies! Put the stilettos down!)

From as objective a standpoint as I can manage, the film is not put together well. The story (written and directed by regular SATC collaborator Michael Patrick King) is episodic and lurching; it has a beginning and an end, but the 90 minutes in the middle don't have the peaks and valleys that a story ought to have. Much of it feels like fashion porn: No matter what's happening, there's always time to grind things to a halt and play dress-up for a few minutes. A subplot with Jennifer Hudson as Carrie's new personal assistant goes nowhere and serves no purpose. I know this was made for the fans, but geez, was there no attempt to make it a good film?

The women's problems range from the melodramatic to the infuriatingly superficial. "I have to spend all the advance money I got for my new book on an interior designer!" "Oh no, I accidentally left a $400 pair of shoes in my old apartment!" "My picture is in Vogue magazine, and now I'm embarrassed!" "This luxury penthouse is beautiful, but the closet is too small!" Wait a minute, those are all just Carrie. Tell me again why people like her? And come on, Sarah Jessica, lighten up. Why the long face?

(I'll tell you who I like, though: Charlotte and Samantha. Charlotte seems optimistic and sweet, and Samantha's tart frankness makes me laugh.)

The film tries to tell us that the most important thing, ultimately, is love, but I'm not sure it really believes that. Designer labels and clownish couture and funny-looking purses that cost hundreds of dollars seem to be every bit as important to the women's lives as finding their soulmates. And again I wonder: Why would I want to spend a protracted 148 minutes with people like that?

The answer is that I wouldn't. A movie review isn't really relevant, though. Viewers of the TV show will see the film either way, and non-viewers won't see it either way. Will the fans like the movie? Probably. Some of the elements that I cite as minuses might be pluses to regular SATC devotees. I can only report my experience, as a "Sex and the City" novice, which is that I was bored a lot of the time, laughed now and then, and wouldn't repeat the experience without first drinking several cosmos.

Grade: C

Rated R, some harsh profanity, a fair amount of nudity and strong sexuality, some vulgar dialogue

2 hrs., 28 min.

Stumble It!

This item has 57 comments

  1. Matt says:

    Wow, I got the first comment. You are right about the regular viewers watching the movie and non viewers won't watch it. But who wantsto watch 4 women who have unrealistic lives and no real problems to speak of, they should rename the show (and movie too) to four whores and the city.

  2. Holly says:

    "And come on, Sarah Jessica, lighten up. Why the long face?"

    Tee hee!

  3. marilyn says:

    Calm down people! This movie is not supposed to be philosophical and deep!- it's light hearted entertainment- and why bother to write a nasty review if you never truly watched the show or have decided to hate the movie from the get go? I for one want an escape from my serious life and serious problems and want to go and relax for two hours. ..

    By the way I own no $400 pairs of shoes or purses or couture clothing and my life doesn't revolve around material things at all. I am not in any way superficial-but I can appreciate from an artistic point of view (I am a photographer) the wonderful, over- the- top- fashions.

    But, in the end what I love the most about the series (and I am sure the movie will be the same) is the enduring strong friendships between the women. The kind of friendship that makes life worth living no matter the drama, the tragedy, the mundane that the rest of one's life may bring. Those kind of friends are always there for you and always uplifitng and supportive. I think most women can identify with that part of the series- men simply usually don't have those kind of intense, share every detail, analyize everything to death kind of friendships...So anyway- just stay away if you aren't a fan of the series and stop dissing what you don't understand or have set out to refuse to enjoy!- and let us fans enjoy it for what it is - for most of us a departure from our regular lives and lighthearted , fun entertainment...

  4. Linda says:

    I think you have to live the lives of these women (6 series worth) to really understand that, albeit superficial, not shallow, and far from unrealistic. And why so many women (and perhaps a large part of the gay population) connect with these 4 characters, is because there are qualities in each of them that we identify with on a personal level and in many ways, don't realize until we see it in others. I am talking not just about the good and glamorous, but the bad and the very, very ugly.

  5. Entintado says:

    Marilyn: Still, Eric has seen the movie and you haven't (or at least that's what transpires from your words) - so I'm sorry, but I'll have to give Mr. Snider the upper hand here, $400 pairs of shoes notwithstanding.

    And the fact that you think that this is a nasty review when it actually agrees in spirit with pretty much everything you write in your comment tells me that, perhaps, you didn't even bother reading it.

  6. Evie says:

    No disrespect, but perhaps Snider's review should be taken as light heartedly as he took the movie. He opens by saying he never watched the show because he thought it was about shallow women wearing high heels. He even admitted to being less than thrilled to see the movie from the start.

    It's not even worth reading the rest of the review once you get passed the second paragraph, you pretty much know where he's going from there.

    So with that said, I rather take the time to read someone's review who his more familiar with the characters and their background then someone who already decided how the review was going to be written before even seeing the actual movie. It's like trying to write a review on a sequel and you never saw the original movie.

    Perhaps if you are going to write reviews about movies based on TV shows it would help to do your homework next time.

    I don't mean to come off as if observations and points aren't valid, but I would respect them better if he was more familiar with the show.

  7. kevith says:

    I think it's pretty nice of Eric to give you his background with the "Sex and the City" so that people know where his review is coming from. My thoughts about the show are pretty similar to Eric's so I know that his review is likely indicative of whether I would enjoy this movie. If you're not in the same boat, read somebody else's review. You'll generally agree more often with critics who are similarly situated to yourself.

    Also, I don't feel that a critic generally needs to "do homework" in order to see a movie. They are critiquing the movie and not necessarily all of the baggage that comes with it. That being said, I would still encourage you to look for a review from a critic who is in your same position. In this case, try to find one who liked/watched the show. If reading about the review of a sequel to a movie you liked, look for a critic who also liked the original. That way you may be better able to determine whether you would enjoy the movie (not necessarily whether it is a good movie).

    A critic is never really "wrong," they just have a different opinion than you.

  8. chris says:

    The last post is right: this review takes the movie seriously, but only a little bit more seriously than the movie expects itself to be taken. This is exactly the right tone to take. Nobody supposes that the legions of fans who flock to the movie will care what the reviewer really has to say, but the review at least adds some perspective to a genre which seems to have lost it entirely.

    I mean, men can watch movies like "Lethal Weapon" or "Blade" to vicariously live out fantasies of violence, and no one cares because the indulgence is momentary and fleeting. Similarly, no one should care if women want to indulge a short, fleeting fantasy in shoes and girl-talk. So, I totally sympathize with Marilyn et al. But what's troubling about the whole SATC series is that it has fed this indulgence for far too long and turned a momentary prurient interest or short-lived guilty pleasure into a conceited and mind-numbing addiction. Imagine a parallel show for men in which a cop beats up people in a cruel sadistic fashion episode after episode -- eventually people should start to question any man's continuing interest in that kind of schlock. And the reviewer is exactly right to question why women have become obsessed with this sexist, unrealistic show (maybe the show's friendships are realistic, but why would anyone pay to vicariously experience someone else's friendship? Go out and get your own friends!) If Samantha were a man, she wouldn't be seen as sexually liberated; she'd be seen as a commitment-phobic womanizer, and however much fans of the show may want to revel in the former facet of her character, they need to recognize the latter as darkside that they should be wary of emulating.

    This show's target demographic isn't single 30 and 40 year olds like the women portrayed in the show itself; it's teenagers and twenty-somethings who crave their financial freedom and carefree lifestyle. It's ok to vacation in fantasy-land, but this show's continuing influence seems to encouraging women to move there.

  9. Jacob says:

    So, Chris, you don't think there should be a "24" or "Lost" movie?

  10. Jane says:

    Chris: "Imagine a parallel show for men in which a cop beats up people in a cruel sadistic fashion episode after episode [...]"

    There is such a show already - "The Shield" - and it's a fantastic series! However, I like it for its gripping plotlines and strong character development- the beating people up parts are just a bonus. :-) (Just kidding!)

    I've only seen about half of one episode of "Sex and the City" ever, but it's *possible* that the show has redeeming qualities beyond shoes and gossip.

  11. Catina says:

    Chris: What about the ultimate fantasy film circuit? Pornography......and legions of fans(mainly men) over and over and over....... :-)

  12. Jessica says:

    It wasn't a 30 minute sitcom. If you don't like this type of story- don't go see it.

  13. Messica says:

    If you don't like this type of review, don't read it. (See how easy that is?)

  14. Jeff says:

    I didn't care for your review, but I didn't read the whole thing.

  15. Brian Otterson says:

    Something tells me this comment section could end up being as long and impassioned as the infamous(?) Titanic review. Just as with that vastly overrated movie, it seems there are far too many people who for some strange reason regard SATC as something that touches a very deep part of their soul and as such is too sacred to be criticized in any way. Thus any comment that seems to imply it is less than fabulous will bring out the claws.

    I just hope that everyone remembers (as #7 kevith pointed out) that Eric gave us his background before ever diving into the heart of the review. Most reviewers simply give their take on something without such disclaimers, so that you never realize Reviewer X blasted Movie Y about child abuse because he was a victim of same... or whatever.

    Above all, please keep in mind that this movie - like the TV show it came from - never claimed to be "deep" or "life changing." It's a show that was never meant to be more than entertainment - aimed mostly at women - and if it's not everyone's cup of tea, so what? To quote kevith one more time: A critic is never "wrong," they just have a different opinion than you.

    By the way, yes, I am another typical man who ranks what clothes to wear at about the same importance level as what I'll eat for lunch tomorrow, and shoes a bit lower than that. Regardless, if SATC is what floats your boat - go for it! I hope you enjoy the movie as much as Eric himself said you probably will. Vive la difference!

  16. Brian Otterson says:

    A slight correction: I was not referring to a "review" of Titanic, but rather a mini-play Eric did that spoofed the movie - mostly by making all the main characters look like shallow idiots. I believe that was in his pre-blog days, but it got a LOT of hate mail. Those over-the-top responses to something that was all in good fun was what I was comparing the strong opinions starting to show up here to.

  17. April A says:

    I really don't think these 4 fabulous girls care about what any of us think of the show or the movie... they made lots of cash doing what they love. so like it or hate it!! and to this person that wrote the long review I have 3 words for you.... get a life

  18. Jeremy says:

    I saw the movie last night and loved it!!! If your a fan of these type of shows go see it. If your the serious, boring, all about the "reality" of life type you will be better off watching CNN or FOX for the night, don't forget the popcorn. If i had to compare myself to the four girls. I would be Charlotte, and a little of Samantha. I believe in True love, Optimistic, and love to have some fun!

  19. Brian says:

    Okay, I'm busted. I do tend to go on far too long about absolutely anything I choose to talk/write about. Still, to me that IS living life. I love writing, and blogs are just my newest way to get my views out there, regardless of how much they are (or aren't) appreciated.

    P.S. I forgot to mention the fact that I have watched 20-30 SATC episodes; just because it's not "deep" doesn't mean it's not entertaining, because it usually is - with or without clothes ;)

  20. Lisa says:

    Show rocked, movie sucked. What happened to the female writers, MP King? You blew it without them. My beloved show! How could you?!

    My main probs:

    1. Samantha NEVER would have left her life in NYC to manage a boyfriend's career in LA.

    2. Carrie NEVER would have considered wearing that fug suit to her wedding! ????

    3. Samantha's big "gut" issue? How dare they all freak out over her gaining 1/2 a pound! As if real women don't have enough of a time gaining sex appeal in this perfection-obsessed culture. Thanks a lot!

    4. Big's lame "proposal" (if you could call it that!) would have been unacceptable to HBO-Carrie, and worthy of hours of coffee shop girl therapy, not celebratory phone calls and dress bids. The proposal sums up why women everywhere loved this show....they were tired of such B-rate male behavior and wanted women to want more for themselves!

    4. Carrie gets her dream wedding but Big refuses to go in because it just isn't his thing (poor baby). Carrie spends 6+ months in misery. In the end when Big wants her back on his lame noncomittal "justice of the peace, this is just business" marriage terms, Carrie concedes and wears the fug suit to what amounts to a court hearing? Oh no they didn't! The message here? Men do exactly what they want, and get exactly what they want. Women figure out how to deal with whatever that is and shop to feel better about it. Try anything else ladies, and you'll be left at the altar.

    SO NOT SATC! Thanks for throwing us back 20 years MPK!

  21. Shea says:

    5. People who can't count probably aren't very smart

    6. People who spoil a film's plot on a movie review web site suck :(

  22. Beth says:

    I love Sam, and I think this movie did not do her justice, Sara Jessica Parker just got too much screen time, she is not nearly as amazing as she appears to think she is, I definitely would have liked to have seen more of Charlotte as well. Se la vie....

  23. Sarah says:

    This movie illustrates how petty and unrealistic many women in society really are. It's all about thinking with violently fluctuating emotions and shows women to be unstable creatures not capable of any sort of a professional life. 0.5 / 5; stay away from movies like this.

  24. Angela Borgia says:

    I'm very upset with your review! Although I didn't finish your whole review, I get it. I've watched all the seasons and I'm a hardcore fan, I don't think you should have seen the movie if you never watched the show. The show is more than "four superficial, materialistic women prancing around New York City". There's humor, events that most could relate to, drama, sex gossip, its much more than just fashion and girls being materialistic. I loved the movie, it was a perfect ending in my eyes, rather than just five epidosdes tied together. When I saw the movie the theater was packed with mostly women, of all different ages, and a few men, I really wouldn't expect a straight man who didn't watch the show to like it, so why would you see it? Sorry for the length but I was heated with all the bad reviews, and yours was a low rating so I decided to take my anger out on you haha. That's all.

  25. Marcos says:

    All I know about the movie is the short bit of script that I heard on NPR in which Carrie says to the other three (about her marriage and living in a penthouse), "Just tell me you're jealous!" Is that the kind of comment one would expect from the primary star to her three best buds? Where's the realism? That comment strikes me as nothing but cruel, and therefore, inconsistent with their four-musketeer mentality. Am I missing something?

  26. Maria Petersen says:

    Wow.... anglo anger is boiling seem particularely upset. Could you be afraid of the big "O"?

  27. Wanda Sue says:

    I watched exactly one episode of this show, and thought it was about four prostitutes. My bad...

  28. peter says:

    well well, i never watched a tv episode in my life,i don't know who the characters or the actresses/actors are, i've never watched '24' or 'Lost' either (what are they about?) and i'm going to see the film this afternoon only because my wife doesn't want to go alone. ... full of trepidation but with an open mind ... we'll see................

  29. Sarah says:

    Huh, there's a lot us on this site posting under just "Sarah." Yet I am too lazy to change my screen name.

    Anyway, I will never cease to be amused by people that berate the movie critic for seeing a movie that the critic knows he/she won't like going into it.
    Yes, shame on you, Movie Reviewer, for doing your job and earning a living! Shame on you, indeed.

  30. Denise says:

    I hate Big!

  31. Ezra says:

    "And come on, Sarah Jessica, lighten up. Why the long face?"

    Haha, I loved that. It reminded me of one of my favorite Family Guy quotes:
    "They let Sarah Jessica Parker on t.v., and she looks like a foot!"

  32. Carrie says:

    I wonder why you went to see it so quickly if you were not a fan.

  33. Amp says:

    #32: Because he's a movie reviewer. It's his job.

  34. Beau says:

    1. Yes it is your job as a movie critic, but why would you even bother writing up a movie review for a movie you know you wouldnt be intersted in and wouldnt understand, it just makes it confusing for the fans who want to see it.

    2. i agree with an earlier comment that you would've had to watch the episodes before the movie because you would understand more about the lives they live.

  35. AMY says:

    I am a HUGE FAN!!! I watched every episode every sunday night! It was my little get away for 1/2 hour!! So if its not your thing no need to bash it just dont go see it!! for me I was at the first showing in my town and LOVED every minute of it!!!

    those 4 woman ROCK!! and I dont care what some critic (a man critic at that) says!!!! WHOOOO FRICKIN HOOOOOO!!!!!! SEX IN THE CITY!!!!!

  36. dream says:

    People if you haven't seen the show...why would you go see the movie???

  37. Aaron says:

    People, if you haven't ever read any of this critic's reviews, why would you read -- and freak right the hell out about -- this one?

  38. Matt says:


    #34 he gets paid for it, that's why he does it and how would it make it confusing for anybody, the movie is cut and dry 4 shallow whores live in the city. the ugly one gets married. the end.

  39. GP says:

    I love these comments, except I really can't distinguish the trolls from the SATC fans. Either the fans need to try harder, or the trolls lessen up a bit.

  40. big says:

    Big should have left her for good during the finale of the show. series sucked after season 3. Movies sucked after 3 minutes go enjoy

  41. Tomi says:

    The ending was too predictable and goofy.

    Seems like every chick flick has the same plot…they fall in love, break-up then live happily ever after; they fall in love, break-up then live happily ever after… even the appearance by Jennifer Hudson has the same circumstance ~ falls in love, breaks-up then lives happily ever after. WHATEVER!!

    How about some reality for ONCE in one of these shows…not everyone gets their happily ever after!!

  42. Shanana says:

    I thought that I had life figured out. That it was about being humble and doing whatever we can to help those in need. I finally got to watch Sex and the City season two and three, then the movie, and I have had an awakening!!! Now I know what my purpose is! I LOVE to shop! I love shoes, and clothes that make a fashion statement of sexiness! I want to have sex with almost every average looking middle aged man I see with lots of money! I talk about sex, fashion, and drama with my very best friends and that is all I talk about with them! I've lost forty-five pounds by picking up smoking and drinking coffee. Best diet ever! Thank you Sex and the City! You have saved me from a loser, depressing, life!

  43. sarah says:

    I loved Mr. Ed so I thought I might like another movie with a talking horse. Not soo, very disappointed.

  44. Farrah. says:

    Shanana- I want to be your friend. Seriously.

    This movie was HILARIOUS. I've been laughing over Charlotte Poughkeepsie-ing on the daily for about a week now.

    If you've never poured over Vogue and dreamed the art of couture or felt afraid of losing yourself to a man in a relationship or taken a trip you cannot afford just to show a friend how much she means to you, it will be difficult to relate and the offhanded quips of humor WILL appear shallow. But those of us who have experienced these moments will know how truly funny it can be to announce that SHOES are more important than the man you've been with for 10 years. It's a JOKE. And it's that kind of humor that shows support and love and kindness in a time when the last thing you want to hear is someone else talking about your real-life problems.

    The only thing to be taken seriously in this movie is the commitment to friendship. Everything else is just frilly pink icing. See it again. And this time- take it as a joke.

  45. Dani says:

    I was a fan of the show. Enjoyed each season. Just for the "entertainment" of it. I have heard from those who have seen the movie, that there were many times when either a microphone or lighting equipment was visible in the film. I believe it would be distracting. Something to think about. I haven't seen any reviews anywhere that mention it though. Did no other audience notice? News of the distracting production type elements came from my 22 yr old daughter. She loved the movie ... minus the production errors. She said it was a little spoiling and would have liked to have the movie on DVD if it were "fixed" in those areas. She said it made the movie feel a bit "sloppy". Has anyone else heard the same?

  46. Eric says:

    #45 Dani: Roger Ebert's explanation:

    "When you repeatedly see a boom mike in a movie, 99.9 percent of the time it is NOT the fault of the film's director, but of the projectionist in your theater, who has framed the film incorrectly. Many films contain additional real estate above and below the frame, to allow the picture to bleed off the edge of the screen. A complaint to the theater manager may do the trick."

  47. Angela says:

    This movie was sappy and cute. Sex and the City is supposed to be snarky and sarcastic. They spend looooong portions of the movie avoiding the messy relationships. The story is supposed to come out of the messes. They make the fashion stand out with all the awkward product placement instead of just letting it be a part of the girls' lives as it is part of every girl's life.

    There were one or two glimmers of the dialogue we used to love the TV show for. Everything else was trite and forced. So if you like sappy romantic comedies, this will fit the bill. If you're looking for your four friends Carrie, Miranda, Charlotte and Samantha to show up, you'll be disappointed.

  48. fan says:

    I am questioning the arguement that Eric the movie critic did not require to see the series to judge the movie. This movie is based on the series and so for Eric to fully critique this movie he must have some background knowledge of this show. It demonstrates that he is not well prepared. So my question is how can you fully judge this movie without background knowledge to these four women story line. Sex and the City is not about four superfical women but rather the bonds they share. It may have revolved around fashion and shoes but the backbone is friendship and love. Fans of this show watch this for these reasons. It is also about the women's right to do with their lives what they will. If this implies they chose to sleep with every man they date then this is their choice. It advocated women right to make their own decision.

  49. Elie says:

    I’m a fan and I found the movie incredibly dissatisfying. It is supposed to be entertainment and it was boring, cartoonish and predictable. Maybe they should have changed some of the characters to spice things up and the Samantha I remember from the series would have “done” the neighbor.

  50. Mary says:

    Sometimes it's okay for entertainment to be shallow. Real life is deep enough. Sex in the City is the ONLY fun show all about women besides Desperate Housewives which has it's fans but doesn't even compare. If you watch the series you understand why so many people fall in love with New York City...the restaurants and cafes, the colors, the clothes, the nightlife. The fun upbeat atmosphere of the city is as addictive as the witty back and forth comments the ladies make as they sit around discussing life and men.

  51. Evie says:

    I honestly don't care if the critic hates or loves the movie. What matters is if he can elaborate and explain his point of view clearly. For the person who said doing your homework is not neccessary to reviewing a movie. You are wrong. Point Blank. Would you trust someone who never read the Da Vinci Code, but decided to review the movie based on the book? How could that person honestly assess the movie? It's the same for watching a movie based on a television series. It helps to be familiar with the background and the characters.

    Also, people don't have to just read the reviews of a critic who they know they will agree with most of the time. It shows intelligence and open-mindness to read what others have to say. I'm not looking for someone to agree with what I think of the movie. I just want some who objectively steps into a movie and doesn't allow pre-conceived notions to interfer with a fair judgement.

    And as far as, he'd doing what he gets paid to, he absolutely is and no one argued that he wasn't.

    There is nothing wrong with people not liking Sex and the City, whatever your reason or your opinion.

    And the same goes for if you loved the movie.

    My main point is that I'm not going to bother to digest the opinion of someone who sets out write bad or even good reviews before they actually see a movie.

    The best critics are the ones who step into a movie as clear headed as possible.

  52. Chelsea says:

    You shouldn't have to watch a tv show or read a book before seeing a movie for that movie to make sense. The film should stand on its own. Like Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings series or the Harry Potter films; they don't assume that everyone who is watching has read the books first. If it's impossible to appreciate SATC the film without being familiar with SATC the show, then that speaks volumes as to the quality of the film itself not being very good.

  53. Sue says:

    Oh, the Critics.............

    When books or other forms of media are adapted onto the big screen, there is always controversy with critics. But you cannot argue against a filming grossing $400,000,000. This has made SATC one of the most successful romantic comedies of all time. Movies, you see, are meant to entertain.
    The "target audience" who went to see the film wanted to see, plain and simple, a romantic comedy. The trailer could have not oozed out "chick flick" any clearer. It was sappy, superficial, cliche........ and I personally loved every minute of it.
    Let me indulge, as many women do, in my chick flick. I could care less about the performances, or character developements. I don't care if its nominated for 500 awards, an oscar, or none. I just want some laughs, familiar characters from the series, and a happy ending. Enough with the harsh critiques! This movie was not meant for that.

    I never read reviews, frankly because critics have their preconceived notions (see the above example). They base their reviews on their sentiments, not what the target audience likes, therefore dismissing a film that would have never appealed to them anyways.

    Is it entertaining to ME, the 21 year old? Yes. Does it have an enjoyable plot? Sure! Does this mean that its "setting me back" as a woman? Oh please. Not at all. Critics, I just want a sappy moment or two. I'll go back to reality later!

  54. Jules says:

    LADIES! For those of you who loved the movie.... we all knew these reviews were coming! Even though the men hate it....they comment on it! Oh come on guys....admit it! Your so curious..... but you gotta bash it!! We may drool over shoes...just as men drool over cars.....(hummm? Material things?)

    Point: Who cares............. Women like this sort of stuff so get over it....go have a beer and be ready to critique the new DeNiro/Pacino movie and stop reviewing Chick Flicks!!!!!

  55. grantjoe says:

    A tough job to review a movie you are not really interested in?

  56. InkStain says:

    I waited a while to watch this one, primarily because though i really liked HBO's Sex and the City i couldn't understand the need for a movie. The tv series worked mostly because they WERE episodic. The girls' matter-of-fact discussions and the dry sense of humour was great and it really worked as a series. The movie on the other hand, does absolutely nothing. it just sits there, wearing nice clothes, and grimacing occasionally.

  57. He says, She says says:

    I thought Eric was pretty impartial.

    Just sayin'.

Subscription Center

Eric D. Snider's "Snide Remarks"

This is to join the mailing list for Eric's weekly humor column, "Snide Remarks." For more information, go here.


Eric D. Snider's "In the Dark"

This is to join the mailing list for Eric's weekly movie-review e-zine. For more information on it, go here.

Visit Jeff J. Snider's website | Diamond Clarity Chart