Sex and the City: Girls do poop!

I can't provide anything of relevance, since I also could not be paid any conceivable amount of money on Earth to watch this movie.

My sister did, willingly, and she described the experience. "Some women were even dressed up like the characters on the show. It was crazy."

"So they were cosplaying?" I said. "What's cosplaying?" "It's short for costume playing. What people do when they dress up like their favorite anime characters at conventions."

Well, maybe that is a somewhat relevant observation -- does the opening-weekend success simply signify women can be nerds about things too? Is "Sex and the City" the female "Star Trek"?

M'eh. I hate scatological humor -- I can barely tolerate South Park -- but there's really only one joke in the SATC movie, and it's pretty tame.

Overall it's a cute, overly long movie that's fine if you like the show, but not really worth discussing if you don't. You know, just like The X-Files Movie or The Simpsons Movie or Aqua Teen Hunger Force: Movie Film for Theaters.

The opening weekend success proves nothing except that the show had a lot of fans, and women like comedy, fashion, romance, and friendship (see: The Devil Wears Prada). It's pretty revelatory. I've been loving all the confused Hollywood 'analysts' and perplexed headlines: "Women Enjoy Movies?!"

And I'm puzzled by all the "I am not the person to review this movie ..." lines. Did you review Serenity? Reno 911? The Brady Bunch? Strangers with Candy? And have these critics never before reviewed a movie targeted outside their white male demographic?

Anyway, whatever. A lot of male critics sure are getting huffy about this movie. I'd gladly see it a dozen more times than sit through, say, The Strangers. I wonder more about what the opening weekend of that film says about our country.

I went to see it this weekend, and started regretting it in the opening shot (not one for the project, Jim, you'd be glad to know). It's just a terrible movie. I don't think its popularity says anything about anything - maybe that people are morons, and they'd watch any old rubbish as long as it's got a patina of wish-fullfilment mixed with a tinge of nostalgia.

And what is with the proliferation of the male genitalia in Hollywood films lately? I think it was Russ Meyer who said the more south one goes looking at the human body, male or female, the less pleasing the view. Sometimes it's funny (I am thinking Walk Hard, for example) - in this film, it's not.

Speaking as a guy who has a SatC obsessed mother, sister-in-law, and basically every other female in my life, I can tell you Jim that the scatalogical humor is not a bone being thrown to the guys. It is absolutely a sort of "taboo-breaker" for women's TV/film. No other show ever had women talking about that kind of stuff, even if stuff directed at men did. SatC is simply the gender opposite of the Apatow movies. The reason it's a "cultural phenomenon" is because there's no competition for that market.

Like Jim Emerson and Roger Ebert I'm not the target audience So I'm definitely not going to see it.Also I beginning to wonder if movies are beginning to die because something is wrong if you have tasteless and immature comedies like Superbad or Knocked Up on ten best lists and I'm frankly getting tired of seeing films based on TV shows which are forgettable in an instant and many critics have said that last year was a great year for movies I disagree there was not one film that was either memorable for me or compelled me to go to the theater and I'm sure that there may have been some good movies that have been made but sometimes good movies just aren't enough because when was the last time we saw a great american films that was on the level of say Mean Streets,Apocalypse Now or 2001(Personally I grew up during the 90's where movies were begining to go downhill).So I think something is wrong if we're only going to settle for the second best.I say all of what I said on this post to be not to be a snob but to just say that I think audiences deserve better.Some might disagree with me and hate me for what I have said and love the business as usual mentality of hollywood but as far as I'm concern today hollywood is dead.

I don't know when exactly this trend started (maybe with There's Something About Mary?) but I've always these attempts to mix romance with raunch to be nothing more than pathetic attempts to please everyone in the audience -- similar to, say, Michael Bay's frequent (and ridiculous) shoehornings of "macho action" with "weepie romance" storylines. I'd like to think such attempts to please everyone would end up pleasing no one, but unfortunately box office receipts seem to indicate otherwise....

Which is too bad. I guess I just miss the days when, say, Animal House was Animal House and Annie Hall was Annie Hall. Why does seemingly every movie nowadays -- even such an unabashed "chick flick" like Sex and the City -- feel the need to dilute itself, or be stiched together like a test-screening/demographics checklist?

And I don't think it's simply a "chick flick" thing either. For example, it never fails to rankle me that The Forty-Year-Old Virgin had to end in such a conservative, "safe" manner with a "big wedding," harmonious matrimony, etc. "You might be a loser if you're a virgin," this seemed to say, "But you'll never be a winner until you're married!"

Gee.... thanks. Just what I was looking for in my raunchy, slapstick comedy.... somethin to make the Carrie Bradshaws of the world all warm and fuzzy....

It seems to me that weddings are the go-to way to make raunch "acceptable" these days -- or is it the other way around now? Audiences (and studios) seem to accept the lewdness envelope being pushed, just as long as (often multiple) weddings can offset this by the end -- see Wedding Crashers, The Wedding Singer for the most blatant examples...

I guess it depends how you look at it. I don't see this as a "Woman's Movie" just as I don't see "Superbad" as a "Men's Movie". When I think "Woman's Movie" I think of the old Hollywood classics with Bette Davis, Joan Crawford and Barbara Stanwyck from The Letter to Mildred Pierce to So Big (sorry, I always have to throw in So Big - great Stanwyck performance rarely seen). When I think of a men's movie I think likewise to movies with Gable and Tracy teaming up or all those fifties and sixties icons making their way through John Sturges classics.

When I think of strong female characters of recent years they have nothing to do with how vulgar they can get. Vulgarity does not make a character strong. And so I get a little annoyed when I hear something like this being trumpeted as "finally the women get strong characters again." Please. Where were the people who turned out in droves for this on opening weekend when Secrets and Lies played in their city? Or You Can Count on Me? Or Tumbleweeds?Or Whale Rider? Or Vera Drake?

Great directors and writers have been supplying us with strong woman characters for a long, long time. Unfortunately, the box office doesn't explode for soul searching drama. I don't understand equating strength with Thelma and Louise and characters who fart. Don't get me wrong, if you want to laugh with this movie, fine, who cares? But equating it with strong women roles is ridiculous. Just as if someone wants to laugh along with Superbad that's fine, just don't tell me it represents strong male roles.

The movies I listed above represent strong women's roles in the movies, it's just that the fans of this movie couldn't care less.

With all this talk about turning down money to watch a movie, I just want to say that if anyone is looking to unburden themselves of some cash, please send to me and I will gladly watch "Sex and the City." That is all.

I agree with Nick, I'm also puzzled why you "are not the person to review this movie". What types of movies ARE YOU capable of reviewing? The Brown Bunny? Saw 3? Sponge Bob? I don't get that.

If this is the kind of garbage "women" watch, then count me out. Although I do like a few romantic movies (Moulin Rouge, for example) I hate "chick flicks" and am insulted that as a women this is what I'm expected to like. My favorite "chick flick"? "Kill Bill". That had "chicks" in it. Chicks with samurai swords and kung-fu skills. My favorite romantic comedy? "Shaun of the Dead", a self-described "rom-zom-com". Like Jim and Kris, you couldn't pay me to go see "Sex and the City" -- unless it took place in the New York of "Cloverfield". I might pay to see the shoe shopping and sex talk interupted by a giant monster squashing and eating these so-called "grown-up women".

Hi. My name is Dave. I'm a 50-year old guy. I saw Sex and the City.

I enjoyed the first couple seasons of the TV show. The episodes were concisely written, with a strong authorial voice due to lots of voiceover. They were also witty and rife with great physical comedy.

The movie is too long and flaccid. The experience was redeemed by seeing it in a casual dining theater, where food and drink commanded my attention as much as did the film. The audience was great... vastly dominated by women, ready to have a good time and clearly showing their approval throughout. Not too far removed from a rabid Rocky Horror audience attending their umpteenth screening. Or the Star Wars crowd on opening night of The Phantom Menace, at least until Lucas burst their collective bubble.

Most fans of the series will like the film. Most non-fans will never see it. Your points regarding much of the comedy being akin to that displayed by the Apatow camp are well taken, but, hey, I luvs me my Apatow-tribe comedies. If I was troubled at all by the film, it was by the gross materialism on display (apartments, weddings, rings, fashion), unleavened by the wit, concision, character interplay, and risk-taking that the best episodes of the series displayed.

Some may say that American movies are going downhill (or have been downhill since the 70s)- they're not, by the way - but personally I care much more for the drastic reduction in correct usage of grammar in the English language. Run-on sentences are no fun to read.

As a 30-something gay man, I think I'm part of one target audience for the show. I was a huge fan of the series, and I thought the movie was... ok. But I think it's worth addressing the "Someone poops her pants!" thing, because there's more to it that that.

(And I know that explaining a joke can take away something from why it was funny in the first place, but I'll take my chances.)

The "someone" in question is Charlotte. Prim, proper, Charlotte, who at one point in the series was asked "You've never done anal?" Her aghast response: "I'm from Connecticut!" It still cracks me up.

... Anyway, so when the four ladies make their way to Mexico, Charlotte refuses to eat any food at this five-star resort, being excessively paranoid. All she eats throughout the Mexico scenes are little packages of pudding she found in the cupboard, because they were packaged in Poughkeepsie.

Then, lost in thought while in the shower, she accidentally takes a mouthful of the water from the shower... 10 minutes later, she (in Carrie's inimitable bad pun style) "Poughkeepsied in her pants".

So it wasn't just that "someone pooped her pants!"... it was that it was THIS character in THIS situation with THIS setup. We've known and loved these characters for years, and Charlotte's assorted neuroses have a lot to do with why that scene works as well as it does.

Dave: I'm sorry.

Matt: I'm more of a Henry James fan than a Hemingway fan.

Nick and Nate: Of course I would review the movie if I had been so assigned. Heck, I reviewed the second "Narnia" movie -- even went back and watched the first one in order to do my homework (though I'm not about to watch umpteen seasons of "Sex and the City" just to review the movie). As I said, I'm not the target audience for SATC: I accept that, and I'm OK with that.

Whenever a reviewer admits his/her prejudices up front, people seem to object: "Well, you shouldn't be reviewing it if you didn't like the [book, TV show, play, song, etc.]!" Or, "Of course you liked it -- you were already a fan of the [book, TV show, play, song, etc.]!" There is no way to win. But I'd rather just be honest about it than pretend I don't have preconceptions, just like anybody else who might be aware that there's a movie based on the popular TV show. (Other '90s sitcoms I rarely watched because I didn't think they were particularly funny: "Seinfeld," "Friends" -- even though Lisa Kudrow is one of the most brilliant comedic actresses working today.)

A couple of the harshest SATC reviews I read (because they were NOT "huffy") were Manohla Dargis's and Stephanie Zacharek's. Plenty of male critics loved it, including David Edelstein, Mick LaSalle, Wesley Morris, Peter Travers... So, the reviews may have been more mixed than the opening weekend demographics...

Oh, and I'm glad I didn't have to review "The Strangers," too. I won't be rushing out to buy a ticket to that one.

I respectfully disagree that Hollywood is dead. I just recently saw or revisited No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Into the Wild and I'm Not There. There are still some talented filmmakers willing to challenge their audience and grab for the brass ring.

If you think modern, adult women are any less vulgar than young men, you've got another think coming -- as I found out working as a young, square man in an office full of married women when I was fresh out of college.

"I am not the person to review this movie." Sort of the new "He's just not that into you." I expect a Cafe Press T-shirt any moment now.

But I do wonder: How many times do critics feel that way about lots of movies and yet they never let the reader know? And do they owe them an explanation? All criticism is subjective in the end, of course, but does this make a valid argument for movie critics to have specialties? Book critics who like mysteries tend to focus exclusively on their preferred genre. As do many art critics. And music critics, obviously. Movie critics, however, are expected to be great generalists, appreciative of every type of film. Why?

JE: It's funny -- just like the women who have to be told that when a guy says certain things (or doesn't), and doesn't return your phone calls, that he's "just not that into you," some people don't get that some critics just aren't into some kinds of movies. Of course, we can hope -- and can always be pleasantly surprised: How many times have you read a review that said something along the lines of, "If you'd told me I would enjoy a movie like [such and such], I'd have said you were crazy!"? Another thing I've been puzzling over: Why do some people expect a mere review to cover EVERYTHING in the movie? Or even to touch all the usual bases just for the sake of doing so, like a Daily Variety review? I've always thought a critic should write about whatever interests him/her in the movie and leave the rest to somebody else who's... more into it.

I don't think there's anything wrong with critics admitting their prejudices. I think that's great. As long as you still offer the movie a chance, and watch it before you gripe about its message or give it one star on IMDb.

Looking over the reviews for Sex & The City has reminded me who my favorite critics are -- David Edelstein, Owen Gleiberman, Roger Ebert -- those who may have prejudices one way or the other but at least just sit back, watch the film, and then discuss it thoughtfully. Approaching a film with a bias is one thing, but I get the feeling that a lot of these critics I'm reading had their reviews written before they even bought the popcorn.

I'm reminded of when Ebert reviewed Gigli and actually accepted the film for what it was and examined it critically and didn't hate it, and how he caught all this flak from critics and who thought he should have just trashed it on principle. Some of them even said, "I've been thinking of this opening line for months!" Now those 'critics,' as well as some of these "Let's hate Sex & The City just because we're dudes" reviewers, should just please get out of the business.

Anyway, I'm not saying you should see it. I'm a fan of the show and the film's long and lacks the verve of the show. But I think it's not as bad as initial reaction would have you believe. I think it'll be pretty good on DVD and even better on cable, late at night, with some Chinese leftovers and a glass of wine.

For example, it never fails to rankle me that The Forty-Year-Old Virgin had to end in such a conservative, "safe" manner with a "big wedding," harmonious matrimony, etc. "You might be a loser if you're a virgin," this seemed to say, "But you'll never be a winner until you're married!"

Dude, the film ended with a Hair medley done Bollywood style.

Hair!
Bollywood!

If Sex and the City ended like that, I would have pronounced it a revelation.

Jim: I give you a pass here because you didn’t see the movie, so you’re going off Ebert’s review. The reality is, as someone stated previously, that the poop scene is brief and insignificant. There is no gratuitous shot of feces. Instead it’s simply Charlotte’s exasperated expressions along with noises signifying gastric unrest. As someone noted above, it’s funny because of who it happens to – the germ-phobic princess – and because Charlotte helplessly dances outside a locked door before she loses control. And then there’s this: it isn’t important in the least that the audience finds this moment funny. What matters is that Charlotte’s friends find this moment funny. That’s its entire point of the scene. Ebert apparently thinks that women don’t laugh at such things, or that any of us do. Fine. But I wonder, if put in the same position, how any of us could watch that moment happen to one of our friends and not laugh (and perhaps I should also note that this moment is within the privacy of the friends group, not in public).

Which leads me to this: “Have the Apatow films ever stooped to this level?” You must be kidding. Ironically, I just wrote about Apatow the other day, so his oeuvre has been on my mind. But as it applies here: In “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” there’s a lengthy “I know you’re gay…” debate that exemplifies comedy stooping. If that scene doesn’t, how about the segment of “Knocked Up” where the guys are tripping on mushrooms and trying to fit their fists in their mouths. To go back to Ebert’s question, is THAT funny, to anyone who isn’t stoned? How about the fact that the guys in “Knocked Up” experience a pink eye outbreak from farting on one another’s pillows? How about the gratuitous and pointless birthing shot (the implication, I guess, being that vaginas are funny)? How about Paul Rudd’s character losing it in “Virgin” and dropping his pants at his place of business? I don’t find any of the above funny as cinematic entertainment, nor would I be amused if any of the above happened to one of my friends.

If people find “Sex” shallow or hollow, so be it. I have no passionate defense to offer the movie. But to imply that Apatow’s films are deeper or more mature? Not a chance.

Touché, Mr. Emerson.

As for SEX IN THE CITY, I have not been a huge fan of the show, but have occassionally stopped when it was on HBO just in time to see something that I found intriguing, while being disappointed in the show that surrounded that moment. The aforementioned "I'm from Connecticut" moment is one such portion I happened in on as a friend was watching the show, and I laughed out loud. Then the rest of the show left me feeling like I just couldn't care less. I won't be seeing the movie, as you may have guessed by now.

Secondly, with critics proclaiming that they should not be reviewing this movie, does that admit some sort of flaw in the system? Surely most critics vote with their gut instincts. Those are the ones I like to read, at least, and I find all of these disclaimers for SEX IN THE CITY pretty unseemly. Just review the movie like you didn't care about the fan base at all, and let everyone know what you thought of the film, be it that you hated it or not.

And lastly, certainly Ebert's glowing reviews of both GARFIELD movies is a more offensive mishandling of "objective thinking" than his review of GIGLI, right Nick?

A couple of the harshest SATC reviews I read (because they were NOT "huffy") were Manohla Dargis's and Stephanie Zacharek's. Plenty of male critics loved it, including David Edelstein, Mick LaSalle, Wesley Morris, Peter Travers...

But isn't Peter Travers one part of the show's target audience?

Haven't seen "Sex and the City," and probably won't catch up with it till DVD - if then. I kinda liked the show on occasion and enjoy the actresses and their dialogue was occasionally witty and clever and quick. That being said, this movie sounds like an overlong and unfortunate example of typical TV to film transitional stuff. Give me THE X-FILES: I WANT TO BELIEVE any day!

Jim: I totally agree with you on your last point. I'd much rather read somebody writing passionately on one thing that made a film interesting to that reviewer than the overall boilerplate. But, then again, we're the types that might already know the boilerplate.

I can't say whether I dislike chick-flicks or dude-flicks more, but of course I get to decide what those definitions mean. I liked Jonathan Lapper's list a lot and am not at all bothered by the fact that some "dudes" would call "You Can Count on Me" a chick flick. Or that some "chicks" would call "Knocked Up" a dude flick. They simply aren't because by my definition chick/dude flicks are fantasy lands created specifically for the chick/dude and to which I, therefore, cannot relate being neither of those things. I would compare "SATC" (I always thought it was SITC [in]) more to "Top Gun" as a clear marker on the chick/dude scale (which, of course, is only my own.)

Jim, as to run-on sentences, I would say neither The Master, nor yourself, is guilty, but those who write Hemingwayesque tomes without periods, much less the commas, colons, and semi-colons, for which I--like Mr. James--have great affection, are.

And why *not* make your disclaimer up front for those who only want the "should I see this?" part of the review and then expand and expound for those who like to read about any part of a book, movie, song, whatever, that might have some large, trivial, or otherwise connection with all the other ideas floating around in the ether? Makes sense to me. Of course Henry James wasn't much for cutting to the chase, either.

And to address the first post--way up there--I find it hard to believe that none of the dudes, or apparently filthy-mouthed chicks here had anything to say about "co-splaying". That really does sound like equal time to me.

But isn't Peter Travers one part of the show's target audience?

You mean mustachioed men?

really disappointed in this piece. Love Scanners in general but what is it with men who have to emphasize over and over again that girl movies are not for them. How would people react to a female cinephile rejecting a movie because it was about men.

Weird.

I think all it means is that people really dug the television show. It's funny, the last few times I've gone to the movies I've seen scores of women in groups of four... they ain't going to see Indiana Jones, tell ya that much. I asked my roommate what she thought... "It was good enough." Not a good enough assessment to get me to go.

Nathan: I examined that very notion in a recent post on the critical discourse of Sex and the City. I welcome you to read it, and feel free to comment. I'm trying to build some discussion about it. Ed Howard and I have started a nice dialogue so far about it, but this discussion needs more voices!

Say wha? That flower is FABULOUS!