Loved your post, Heidi!! I am a fan of the SATC series, own the DVDs, and LOVED the movie. I can't remember the last time I looked forward to seeing a movie, or even went to see one in the theater. (I saw the May 30, 12:01 AM showing of SATC.) I have no intention of seeing any of the action films targeted for teenage boys. I just wish there were more choices that appeal to me, like this one.
Lance, your misogynistic shorts are showing. The following are quotes from your SATC and Indy articles
SATC review (depth): Fans of the series probably won't be much dismayed by the lack of depth -- think of it as Transformers transformed as a chick flick -- but the rest of us may find so little of interest that it's hard not to start fixating on how the little wart on Sarah Jessica Parker's chin seems to change size from scene to scene.
Indy review (depth): The movie barrels along, delivering what is essentially one super-charged set piece after another, sequences all the more remarkable for largely avoiding CGI and relying on such proudly old-school building blocks as skillful, intricately orchestrated stunts and a well-placed camera.
Indy's opening 20 minutes alone -- a thrilling, one-damn-thing-after-another culminating in nothing less spectacular than an atomic bomb blast and our hero's iconic silhouette dwarfed by a mushroom cloud -- is worth a dozen Speed Racers. What computerized trickery is used is generally so seamlessly integrated into the action that we barely notice it, a quietly phenomenal achievement in itself. The one notable exception is the movie's finale, a lazily conceptualized mish-mash of digital explosions, big-eyed aliens and other visual and narrative elements re-hashed from numerous earlier Spielberg productions.
Apparently this is your definition of depth that SATC is missing.
Professionally reviewing a movie includes seeing it from the perspective of the target audience. If you can't handle the assignment, be man enough to decline the job. Just 'cause you don't get your rocks off without pretending to be an (aged) action hero or witnessing violence, doesn't mean they should be the criteria against which all movies are judged. You didn't even have the wherewithal to observe that those around you were thrilled by the movie. Limit your reviews to your competencies
While I agree with Heidi and Dawn that there are some things about this film that many men will not appreciate (the importance of close girlfriends, the hectic, everyday responsibilities that come with being a woman, friend, mother, sister, wife, girlfriend, etc.) I strongly and politely disagree that the film is an accurate and fair portrayal of women.
On the contrary, I think it is, for the most part, a shallow stereotype of women.
Yes, many women love shoes, shopping and sex. But these do not fill our every conversation. Hey, we're allowed to talk about intellectual topics, too--something that is all too rare in SATC. Just because you put women in high-powered positions (Samantha at her successful PR firm and Miranda at her law firm)doesn't mean that you can omit any scenes depicting these women having stimulating intellectual conversations.
In fact, the only "stimulating" conversations in SATC are based on men. Samantha's and Miranda's characters might make this stereotype even worse, since it seems that women from every walk of life, no matter how educated or financially independent, are still really only concerned with the latest label.
Don't get me wrong--I am a fan of the show. I really enjoyed the movie, too.
But I don't think that we should look up to this group of girlfriends as role models, or applaud them for talking about serious issues like getting a wax job before your next vacation. It undercuts what we're really capable of accomplishing.
In my opinion, the fact that Carrie was still able to return to Big after his multiple indiscretions is the epitome of a woman who doesn't appreciate her own self worth. We deserve better than that.
I think that praising these characters as strong, self-sufficient women gives the world a skewed view of the real-life women who truly are independent--and can do it in a damn fine pair of heels, too.
Ultimately, I think that women should see this movie for what it is--a portrayal of one facet of our lives. It does not define who we are as a sex, it does not promote some broader message about the inner strength of the modern woman. It is a fun piece of fluff that had occasional serious and poignant moments, and, yes, Heidi, it made for a fun afternoon out with the girls--but should be taken no more seriously than that.
Lance's review is like a guy who fails to open a door for a woman: It's okay if he doesn't get it. We got it ourselves.
In terms of being true-to-life and genuine, intelligent and entertaining, it's one of the best things TV has ever offered - women and men. We live in a very busy time, cooped up in our cars instead of interacting on the streets, where best girl friends are often plane rides away. I appreciate the skilled writing that articulates the importance of such relationships in a typcially superficial medium as TV.
One of the many problems of the mass media is its failure to represent real people on the small or large screens. SATC on the big screen was a treat because what it stands for at its core - emotion, human nature - was out there, naked, for all to see.
I curse the day you were anointed a film critic. For those of you who saw Sex & The City, this reference shouldn't be a complete waste.
Perhaps Goldenberg doodled notes with his penis while watching this movie. His review, published just one week after trumpeting the "success" of Indiana Jones, is careless and insulting. He hasn't got a clue.
I watched the movie yesterday with a group of girlfriends. It was an organized girl's day. Yes, a girl's day - cosmos, shopping and the like. It was a fantastic idea as I find I don't spend enough time with girlfriends as it is.
Sex & The City did that for thousands of us, hordes of girlfriends, bum rushing movie theaters, going out for drinks before and after, shopping for (brace yourself) clothes - the basic chick stuff that enlightened male movie reviewers might understand.
I never saw the show. Not once. I knew of course the premise. Mr. Big. Manolo Blahnik. Carrie. Charlotte. Samantha. The whole bit. I read US Weekly. I paged through People. I knew SJP had a mole on her chin. I saw Hocus Pocus.(Fuck Goldenberg for calling this a wart and fuck him for making it the last line in his review. Is he 12 years old? Did someone just drop their lunch tray in the cafeteria? I'm surprised he didn't make fun of Samantha's fupa.)
Anyway, I never saw the show. I never had HBO.
I sat yesterday in the Muvico Baywalk, a theater that smells like vomit and dirty socks, using brute force to recline in my draconian seat, hungover from two afternoon cosmos, thinking this goddamned movie better be good.
And it was.
Stilettos and Vuitton aside the movie was about female relationships. Relationships with our friends, relationships with our boyfriends and spouses. Any female who saw the movie gets that. It was touching in parts. Funny is others. Raunchy sometimes and (again brace yourself) at time superficial.
Women like clothes. Some women like brand name clothes. My group of girlfriends went to a thrift store rummage sale before our screening, but whatev. We want shopping nonetheless.
That facet of the movie, the "fashion porn," part as Goldenberg puts it, was not what the movie was about. Women get this.
To ignore fashion would be to extinguish something that exists in the life of high-rolling New York City women. Sarah Jessica Parker without her Manolos is like Indiana Jones without his fedora. The fact that the movie was sprinkled with materialistic stuff doesn't matter, a mere wart on the tip of a chin. All movies have superficial and pretty stuff in them. Usually in summer blockbusters they're women. This time they were high heels. Deal with it.
The movie could have been 20 minutes shorter, yes. Some fat could've been skimmed from the plot, yes. But fuck Carrie got engaged, then jilted, then engaged again; Miranda got frigid, then cheated on; Charlotte shit her pants then got pregnant; Samantha tried (and failed) at domesticity; meanwhile Jennifer Hudson entered the plot with a meaty role for a non-SATC cast member in a SATC movie.
For a SATC virgin, I not only grew attached to these characters and multiple story lines, I cried a little when they cried, laughed when they laughed and got pissed when they got pissed. As only a woman can understand the characters each weighed their decisions by talking about them, considering the consequences and the sacrifices that come with being a wife, a mother, a girlfriend.
This was the crux of the movie. Sisterhood. Cheesy as that concept might be to Goldenberg the fact that a two-and-half hour "bloated chick flick" could rake in $26.9 million on opening day was no fluke.
Oh and "bloated chick flick?" Fuck that. This coming from the same man who described Indiana Jones as "an old-fashioned adventure yarn ... expertly crafted and consistently entertaining."
I watched Jones. I wasn't blown away. But I in no way mocked it by calling it "An action flick on Viagra," which is what it was.
I think the film industry took a safe risk with Sex & The City. Let's hope its success carved a niche in the summer blockbuster genre. Will Smith, Harrison Ford, Seth Rogen (duude)
Robert Downey Jr., Ed Norton, Steve Carell, Christian Bale ... these guys are fine. Bring on Batman, Get Smart and Hancock. I can't wait for Pineapple Express to hit theaters.
But seriously, Goldenberg. Give the ladies credit where credit is due. Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Kristin Davis and Cynthia Nixon, all women "past their prime" made a great movie that as a female movie goer and a non-SATC watcher, I both enjoyed and appreciated.
I like to believe it's just a guy thing. That Creative Loafing's film critic doesn't "get it" because he has a penis. But I find it hard to believe that in a paper as liberal and inclusive as CL purports, the film reviewer would be less playground bully and more ... I don't know evolved.
What a shallow review.
just because they had the lost love spawn of indy's loins swinging on cgi vines like a greaser tarzan... don't be hatin'.
that scene should now be the "jump the shark" reference for the 21st century - we just need to come up with a clever name.
if ever there was something that would just naturally suck more as a movie then this, i would like to know.
a movie with sex in the title and hardly any sex - what a wank.
Three & half stars?!?!?
Thanks, Lance! That's $9 and two hours I'll never get back. I haven't seen such a sorry attempt to over-extend a movie franchise since Vegas Vacation. I'm going to hurry home and watch the previous three Indy films in hopes that they will erase the horrible visions of the Crystal Skull from my own!
double feature this weekend:
harold and kumar
big joint and a whip!
this was one of our favorites at sundance. very intense film that required a serious beer session afterwards to calm the nerves. My only complaint about the film, the premise requires a significant leap of faith. who would let total strangers (with gloves on) into your home?
What a dick.
At least we now know that Sarasota is on it's way out, if it has clowns like that as supporters.
Happy to see the Ten Canoes mention. I still don't quite grasp the love for The Host. Interjecting family issues into a horror film is certainly not new, and it seemed rather run-of-the-mill to me.
I'm also a little disappointed that not a single documentary was listed here (and Sicko is definitely an also ran, even amongst the documentaries this year, much less film in general).
But.. to each his own. My tastes may differ, but I would have liked to see some more unconventional choices here.
Nice list! Indeed it is nice to see The Host on the list.
THE HOST!!!! Man, I was beginning to think I was the only other person who saw this movie! If you haven't seen it yet, seriously, queue it up now. But watch it with subtitles, not the horrible english dubbing. DO IT!
This was so NOT worthy of 3 stars. Don't waste your money people!
It's clear to see the author is a fan of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas...but does the majority of the article have to ramble on about that movie???? The article seems very amateurish - not even college material.
Ah yes, the 70's. I see I have found another fan of FALILV. I thought the movie was great and much better than 'Where the Buffalo Roam' with Bill Murray as Gonzo. Now if I can find one of those $100 HD DVD players I'll be back in my element. Very good review by the way.
Congratulation Sarah Polley!
One of the best movies I've seen recently! It's moving, it makes us think and rethink our lives, our relations with people, our commitments to each other. A meaningful movie that left me mesmerized.
Julie Christie is simply superb! Thank you for thinking and insisting that she would play the role and no one else.
Thank you for giving information about troubled youths. This is also a great website for schools for troubled youths.
I saw Eye of the Dolphin Friday and I rather liked it. I felt a spiritual connection between Alyssa and the island. I think this is a great film that a lot of different types of people can watch and get something out of it.
You may hate him; you may love him; you may not even care; but here he is again in our faces and rightfully so. Health care in America is nothing more than a national disgrace; an insult to those of us who can't obtain "coverage" and more importantly; do not have the resources to do anything about it. Mr Moore is to be commended for having the moxie to step up to the plate and take that swing for us all. There are people; U.S. Citizens dying from lack of medical care; many who must choose between meds and food and rent. It makes me ashamed to be an American. It CAN be affordable; and it CAN be done; and it's gonna take more than just one documentary to get the ball rolling; but I personally admire and commend Mr Moore's step in the right direction. Listen to him...act DO ! Wake up America. Find out who the people are who you pay to "represent" you and get them off their reticent asses and hold them accountable. Because you see; they have full benefits for life; they have full salaries even after retiring and they need to lose the "I've got mine and screw you" mentality they use to make their "decisions" on issues concerning us all. Thank you Mr Moore. And sir; please follow up...don't let go.
Powered by Foundation