RSS Feeds
A 'Sex And The City' Meanspirited Round-Up
Posted by Seth at 7:40 AM on May 31, 2008
In honour of today's opening of Sex and the Movie—yet another beloved franchise sure to be ruined by the unseen hand of ghostproducer George Lucas, who'll insist the fabulous four be beamed into the heavens to spread their shoe-shopping, man-bagging secrets among higher life-forms—we thought we'd round-up all the mean Sex stuff we could find floating around the web:
· A Defamer reader hoping to secure tickets online was taken aback by the mean Fandango rollover-bot, who took it upon itself to warn audiences that seeing the familiar quartet four years later and on a giant movie screen might prove to be a traumatic experience. [Fandango]
· Yes, we're pretty sure Rex Reed's review is the meanest thing we've ever read, particularly the part where he expresses a hope that the "moths in [Sarah Jessica] Parker's stupid hat get butterfly AIDS and die." (Note: He didn't actually say that, but it's still unbelievably mean.) [NY Observer]
· Wow. This is really, really mean! [sarahjessicaparkerlookslikeahorse.com via BWE]
· Then again, at least they don't accuse her of looking like a "skeletal transvestite." (Last paragraph.) [telegraph.co.uk]
· And that America's Got Talent judge who won Celebrity Apprentice thinks Parker is "ghastly ... I've seen better looking winos underneath the arches at Charing Cross." And trust us—Charing Cross has some of the least attractive arch-winos in all of England! [Guardian.co.uk]
· Even congenitally nice Canadians have hopped aboard the meanwagon: "After all, bad summer films, full of furious hype and signifying nothing, are hardly exceptional these days, nor is the sound they typically make: the dull scrape of a culture hitting rock bottom. Yet this one seems uniquely bad; this one is a threshold-breaker with a different sound, the crack of rock-bottom giving way to a whole deeper layer of magma." [Globe and Mail]
Comments (AU Comments · US Comments)
anon4mail
Posted June 3, 2008 2:19 AM
I saw it an LOVED it!! BTW the central themes are friendship and forgiveness. So for those of you wanting to hate on the movie at any cost, at least get it right and trash the movie for what it's actually about. The various eye candy is for fantasy and relief from the stress of the darker themes. I for one enjoyed the brief, self-indulgent romp in a beautiful world of Mexican resorts, beautiful clothes, dedicated friends and happy endings ... before returning home to a less than ideal reality. Those of you who haven't even seen the movie haven't earned the right to review it. No one’s interested in your misogynistic view of the world.
Mike
Posted June 4, 2008 11:15 PM
ANON4MAIL, I'm very interested in the writer's mysogynistic view of the world, it's far more entertaining than that fucking movie.
Mike
Posted June 4, 2008 11:19 PM
DannielynSpears, I won't respond to your comments to prove your point, I'll just point out that with that name, your parents must be first cousins.
Trev
Posted June 5, 2008 1:44 PM
Hey ANON4MAIL, maybe the thing should have been titled "Friendship And Forgiveness In The City" huh? You think the audience would buy that for a dollar?
bess marvin, girl detective
Posted 8:26 AM 31/5/08
oh please, even if the movie is bad, one can't help but think that people are piling on extra hard because these are four women. "the movie promotes gross consumerism"...because james bond adn his fancy aston martins don't, give me a break.
jesus christ, why aren't we more pissed that "indiana jones" has an approval index over 50%. is that what is passing as good movie nowadays? people giving steven and george a pass as if money isn't the only reason why they revived a 20 year old franchise. "it's indy, what do you expect?" i expect a fucking good movie, with decent plot points and good setups and payoffs instead i got 2 hours of complete visual bullshit. no more giving spielberg a pass. when was the last time either made a decent movie?
you know what, i hope SATC makes a shit load of money even if it is bad because men have been getting away with making horrible financially good films for too long. SJP and co. in the words of super bad: get some
/sorry for long rant
bess marvin, girl detective
metroville
Posted 8:12 AM 31/5/08
Kudos to Rex Reed for not kowtowing to the "If you're woman or a gay man, you have to like it" Sex & the City mandate.
metroville
TheStarterWife
Posted 8:07 AM 31/5/08
(minus my "yet")
TheStarterWife
TheStarterWife
Posted 8:07 AM 31/5/08
So when does the backlash against the backlash start? (Or has it started yet? I'm afraid to read Jezebel...
... for the spoilers!)
TheStarterWife
juniperjenny
Posted 9:03 AM 31/5/08
@bess marvin, girl detective: Thank you for stating the obvious but often unspoken! I hope it opens humongously, so that it can at least put a temporary damper on the "financially motivated" growth of misogyny in Hollywood.
juniperjenny
icallthebigonebitey
Posted 8:54 AM 31/5/08
@bess marvin, girl detective:
Please continue. I totally agree, there seems to be a palpable double standard here. And if Spielberg (with his creepy Oedipal Complex and other idiosynchrasies) never made another movie, I'd be just fine with that.
icallthebigonebitey
Bear_Necessities
Posted 8:50 AM 31/5/08
Either one has been a fan of SATC since forever and will see it for that reason (and/or because wife/girlfriend made one tag along) or one gave up watching the show long ago/never watched it to begin with and won't see the movie.
Something like this should be exempt from reviews, as it's a phenomenon, a mindset.
This gets bad reviews because it's about middle aged women and shoes/clothes, if it's about graphic novels come to life on the big screen, with superheroes, it gets good reviews. Most critics are male, you do the math.
Bear_Necessities
bess marvin, girl detective
Posted 10:00 AM 31/5/08
@Losin_it: you don't have to like it, but the fact that people can't even discuss the movie without talking about SJP equine features is ridiculous. and i don't think the movie can be any worse than crystal skull and i do believe because the audience is female, males automatically think they're going to hate it while it's never seen that way vice versa.
bess marvin, girl detective
Losin_it
Posted 9:52 AM 31/5/08
I'm confused. Even if SATC is really, really bad, we have to like it, why? To prove we don't hate women? I feel I personally am easily able to respect women and hate shitty movies, and all at the same time.
Just in case (I haven't seen it, but on the off-chance) that SATC is really high quality and well-received, don't its fans want it to be recognized on those merits, instead of because its fervent fans decided they were going to stick up for it, no matter what?
My head hurts.
Losin_it
OldTowneTavern
Posted 10:39 AM 31/5/08
@bess marvin, girl detective: I definitely agree with you. But sadly, this film doesn't warrant much to love or hate. I saw it. It's just... there.
OldTowneTavern
ginnypotter
Posted 5:16 PM 31/5/08
@bess marvin, girl detective:
...i do believe because the audience is female, males automatically think they're going to hate it while it's never seen that way vice versa.
I agree. Maybe this just proves that female audiences are more open? After all, I like a good explosion, but I also love me some cute shoes--and I don't think I'm alone in that respect.
People hated on Baby Mama, too, and I did wonder if some of that was because it was starring two women who are (gasp) funny. Yes, I saw the movie, and No, I didn't love it--but from everything I heard, I think it got rode a little harder than necessary. (To be honest, I actually think the movie would have been better had Fey & Poehler written it themselves...it had potential.)
ginnypotter
DannielynSpears
Posted 6:18 PM 31/5/08
Something really weird happens when you mention Sex and the City to people; if they're not fans of the show, they seem to feel compelled to tear it down, to make criticisms that can be applied to ANY show on television, and worst, get needlessly and hatefully mean-spirited about something as entertainment-irrelvant as the appearances of the actresses.
Why can't it just be a movie? Why can't it just make some people happy? A diversion?
Any snarky responses to my comments from cooler than thou hipster Defamer readers will just illustrate my case.
DannielynSpears
KNau
Posted 1:01 AM 2/6/08
But if these characters were in anything other than "Sex in the City" wouldn't the filmmakers be accused of misogyny? Frankly, the women in a Judd Apatow movie have more depth. This is Bratz for the over 40 crowd.
A sh*t movie is a sh*t movie. There's no difference between "It's Indiana Jones, what did you expect?" and "It's for fans of the show, it's escapism and you just don't understand!"
Agreed about the mean spirited personal attacks, though. Not too male actors suffer that level of venom.
KNau
fembot
Posted 6:25 AM 2/6/08
where's the corner for women who hate it because it's trite, stupid, and sexist in it's own way?? What about the fact that some of us career women care about other things besides material things/ name dropping/ labels and all that other high school crap.. I think this movie is an awful portrayl of women with the shallowness of these ridulous skanky characters.. sorry that wanting better cinema makes me a hater..
fembot
Jaguares
Posted 1:10 AM 3/6/08
@DannielynSpears: Seriously. Did you see Roeper's review.\? It was like SJP and her crew ran over his puppy. Guy needed to chill.
Jaguares