Rex Reed Poops on Sex and the City 2

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 1:46pm

He doesn't even like Liza.
Rex Reed: Sex Is a Pity

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 1:57pm

David Edelstein wasn't a fan either:
"The film is an epic eyesore. It’s as if they set out to make a movie that said, “You’re right! We are hideous!” It begins with the nightmarish manic gaiety of Mamma Mia!, with strenuous lockjawed smiles that make you think you’re watching stroke victims. Then Liza Minnelli shows up to perform a gay marriage. Heralded (and hooted at) as the embodiment of camp unreality, she looks more human—nervous but happy to belong somewhere—than the four leads."

I think the trailer looks GOD AWFUL. Like some garish gay Ishtar.
New Yorker Sex and the City 2 review

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 1:59pm

I thought the trailer looked awful, too. And I like the series and pretty much liked the first movie. Everything I've seen so far from the sequel makes me cringe.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 2:04pm

"The Gay Ishtar." --ErikJ972

I think, when the dust settles, that will have said it all.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 2:07pm

Let's not insult ISHTAR by comparing it with SATC 2.

[danmag]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 2:37pm

This movie looks like a hot mess.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 2:45pm

Didn't he give a nasty review about the first one? Why did he even bother this time?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 3:11pm

Because it's his job?

[EVIE]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 3:15pm

Those are terrible! Wow...

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 3:15pm

"Kim Cattrall, fresh off her witty, subtle work in The Ghost Writer, is costumed to look like a cross between (late) Mae West and (dead) Bea Arthur."

Ouch.

[Tom1071]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 3:21pm

Rex Reed is a miserable C U Next Tuesday. The epitome of a bitchy queen who thinks way too much of his own opinion. He doesn't like anything if he can help it.

I say relax, go see the movie and have fun. It's probably going to be better than you expect.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 3:36pm

It would pretty much have to be better than I'd expect.

[JP2]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 3:41pm

Eh, I love the series, and despite the equally ****ty reviews of the first movie, still enjoyed that. So, I'll have some drinks with my friend, and have a good time when I see this.

[Q]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 3:44pm

"It would pretty much have to be better than I'd expect."

That made me giggle.

[EVIE]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 3:54pm

Exactly JP2!

[Dolly_Levi]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 3:59pm

I was genuinely surprised by how much I enjoyed the first picture. I have similar high hopes for this one.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 4:07pm

I was genuinely surprised by how much I detested the first picture. I'll wait for cable.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 4:38pm

The first movie was pretty much reviewed as a steaming pile of dung, so I hope to enjoy this poop equally. I am going with a bunch of friends and it will just be nice to have some escapism from the heat and the oil spills and my other woes.

It's fine with me that the movie just be some mindless fun-I wasn't expecting high art.

Oh, and if I hear one more reviewer talk about how these women are too old, Im gonna scream!!!! Meanwhile, Jack Nicholson can bang Amanda Peet and no one bats an eyelash! Sexism is disgusting.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 5:05pm

Bitter, party of one, your table's ready.

..doesn't make him wrong, though.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 5:21pm

As soon as the sequel was announced, was anyone expecting something more than just a bedazzled bone being tossed to the fans? My expectations are low and I'll watch it for the fun of watching it, but I'm certainly not going to expect anything more than pure fluff.

[Marquise]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 5:22pm

I've always hated this franchise. So needless to say I won't be watching this incredible waste of time and money.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 5:23pm

Did somebody think it was going to be good. The show was unwatchable, imo.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 5:37pm

I never watched it as well. I always felt like I might be missing something because everyone was always raving about it, but I couldn't ever get into it.

I was in the first two episodes when they came to L.A. "Sex In Another City" and the following one about a giant dildo party. It was fun to shoot and everone was very nice.

But I won't waste my money and time by going to a theater to see this.

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 5/25/10 at 6:06pm

I enjoyed the first expect for being visually assaulted by Miranda's bits and pieces from WAY too close on the front row.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 5/26/10 at 10:31am

"Oh, and if I hear one more reviewer talk about how these women are too old, Im gonna scream!!!! Meanwhile, Jack Nicholson can bang Amanda Peet and no one bats an eyelash! Sexism is disgusting."

I'm sorry, BettyBoy, but I couldn't let you get away with that comment. Something's Gotta Give wasn't sexism because it was all about how RIDICULOUS Jack Nicholson looked with Amanda Peet. He was doing it, but the film wasn't condoning it. It was more of a gag and led to the more fulfilling relationship with Diane Keaton. How is it sexism if the film, and audiences, enjoyed seeing Nicholson with Keaton-a much older woman than Peet, but still incredibly beautiful?

The women in this film are too old to be acting like immature 18-year-olds. Charlotte should be mature enough to realize that when you have kids you Have. To. Raise. Them. She got away with parenting in the first film by carrying her 3-year-old daughter around like a pocket book. Carrie thinks that by batting her eyes and saying "You know me!" with a few bad puns is enough to get out of childish behavior?

This isn't about sexism. Just really, really bad writing. The show was never high art, but at least it never insulted its characters or its audience. There was an episode where Samantha got an HIV test because a man she wanted to sleep with (knowing her sexual past) wouldn't sleep with her until she got one (a more mature action than anything that was done in the first film). This led to some actual discussion between the four women about the horrifying possibilities of STD's. It never dealt with the issue in a dramatic way, but at least it DEALT with the issue. In the show, there were at least consequences to these women's actions: scourned spouses, death of a parent, debt, STD (Miranda once had chlamydia and Charlotte once had crabs). Now, the movies not only NOT give consequences to these women's actions, but it actually condones all of their stupid behavior.