The first review for the Sex and The City movie is out, and without revealing any spoilers, journalist Will Pavia of the Times Online says he doesn’t get what the hype is all about and that it’s just like the series, except it’s 2 hours and 20 minutes of it. The guy admits that the women in the theater were hooping and hollering, though, and ate up every scene. Despite his reservations, it sounds like it’s going to be a hit:
There may be a problem with characters who shop with such conviction while the audience looks up from the trough of a credit crunch.
There may be a problem with stretching Sex and the City into a two hour and twenty minute film – it can feel like a never ending dinner party: however pleasant the courses, after a while you can hardly eat another one.
None of these problems seemed apparent to the women who sat around me in the cinema in Leicester Square, laughing and weeping in quick succession. After a while I began to reason like one of the characters: maybe the problem was me.
[From Times Online via We Smirch]
The London Times should have sent a woman there, because middle aged guys are not the ones who are going to see this film unless they’re in trouble with their wives/girlfriends/older daughters and need to put in some chick flick time to make amends.
If the audience was crying and screaming, it must have been pretty good. It takes more than star power and a premiere to impress a theater full of moviegoers. And what did this guy expect, something completely different from the series? People want more of Carrie and the gang, and it seems like it really delivers. We’ll have to see what the rest of the reviewers say. I bet it gets at least a 75% on Rotten Tomatoes once it’s out in the states. What matters more is the box office, though, and this film is probably going to clean up.
Here are stills from the film and posters, thanks to AllMoviePhoto, which may have mild spoilers.
Well the ironic twist is that most of the movies that get bad reviews are the ones who do really well in the box office so this could be good news for the SATC movie.
Also, I totally agree with you celebitchy that the London Times should have NOT sent a man and most people who saw the movie said that it was really good.
Its not the London Times, its a national paper for the whole of the UK. There are other places in the UK other than London. However I agree what a bunch of dumbasses sending a man in; this was probably stupidity rather than an exercise in being objective
Plus, if they wanted to sent a man to review the movie then they should have sent my brother because he secretly LOVES SATC
(and no, he is not gay).
SATC is utter mindless crap. I mean for entertainment value I guess it’s ok, but I usually felt like my mind was melting. It’s like watching Entourage, although everything seems to go right for them. SAT less so…which is why many women can relate on an emotional level. But spending $400 on a pair of shoes? I simply can’t!
Pay 8 dollars to see another version of something I’ve watched for free for several years? Not this girl.
I’ve never understood the attraction. Hmm, didn’t the second one from the left win the Kentucky Derby this year?
ph, no one else did either which is why Miranda was more relatable and Samantha was more fun than Carrie. I love Big but I never forgave her for that big mess with Aidan. That man was PERFECTION!
OMFG, I CAN’T WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!
why would they send a man to this movie? duh. and i agree with jaclyn:
OMFG, I CAN”T WAIT EITHER!!
2 hours and 20 minutes is pretty long for a movie these days.
The women’s reactions may not be useful–presumably the biggest fans (who are the most invested in the film) are the first to see the film. But at least we know it doesn’t tank.