June 3, 200817 yr I wasn't expecting the film to be rocket science, and it wasn't. Didn't expect it to be either, what I did expect however was a sharp, witty, incisive and economical film.. The first few seasons of the show had that sharp edge about them which became increasingly lost to Soap Opera territory in the later seasons, the film completely goes into Soap Opera territory, with very little of the original sharpness... My main objection IS the length however, not the fact that it wasn't "rocket science"... I was making the comparison to "Apocalypse Now" and "Mulholland Drive" because those are examples of films which have depth, and justify their running times with themes and imagery which make you think long after the end-credits roll, in short, they blow your mind in a way that SATC simply does not.... A film which isn't "rocket science" has no business lasting 145 minutes, bottom line.... You dont see the likes of the makers of "Scary Movie" or "Naked Gun" making a 145 minute film do you....? Because they're smart enough to know that this just wouldn't work given the limitations of their films.... Michael Patrick King clearly has no idea how to make a film, or at least no idea how to make an interesting one.... And Tigerboy makes a good point as well - what the hell is the point of a 10 or 12-screen multiplex when half of the screens are taken up by two films... I've got "Sex and the City" and the Indiana Jones film playing at my local 10-screen, about 5 of the screens are taken up with these two films..... Indy you can kind of understand - it has massive appeal, and can tap into at least two or three generations of cinema goers, Sex and The City is taking up extra space purely because of its unjustified length, in comparison to Indy, it has a rather limited audience let's face it.... A 90 minute film would still yield approx 6 screenings in a day, so the need for it to play over two screens would be totally diminished, thus freeing the space up for another film....
June 4, 200817 yr Author Watched it last night and fought it was amazing. Samantha was brillilant :lol: Who cares about the length? I would rather it wasnt rushed into 90 minutes and we get to see more of the show :S Tbh Grimly your the only person on HERE who didnt like it, everyone I know likes it and it took loads of money so its a job done really :D Edited June 4, 200817 yr by Andy.
June 4, 200817 yr Tbh Grimly your the only person on HERE who didnt like it, everyone I know likes it and it took loads of money so its a job done really :D SO, I should just totally bum a BAD film simply because you think I should then....? Look on IMDb, the SATC fans IN GENERAL are slating this film, mainly because of the length... And there's a hell of a lot more of them than on this Forum..... Out of 10,000 (so far) IMDb ratings, the film's average is 4.5/10... A very poor showing considering the show itself is rated considerably higher on IMDb..... In general, that's a lot of fans who are feeling short-changed and cheated by this film, you cant ignore that just because a few people on this particular forum are bumming it to hell (and frankly, fukk knows why, I guess people on this forum are incredibly easily amused). Of course it took lots of money, but so what....? People who didn't like the film are still paying to see it, because how else could they judge whether they like it or not...? The studio gets the money regardless, people dont get refunds just because they thought the film sucked...
June 4, 200817 yr I would rather it wasnt rushed into 90 minutes and we get to see more of the show :S You can do a lot in 90-odd minutes Andy... Especially in comedy... The makers of this film clearly had no regards to the fact that they WERE making a film, which is a totally different discipline to making a TV show.... Looking at "Serenity" and "X-Files" as the two examples I gave earlier, these were damn solid films because Joss Whedon and Chris Carter knew that making a film was a totally different thing to making a 45-minute episode, and they cleverly scripted and structured things accordingly to the different medium..... Michael Patrick King did not....
June 4, 200817 yr I hated the series, and I have no intention in seeing this movie, definitely not my cup of coffee.
June 11, 200817 yr I liked the series so I guess I had great expectations from this film... There were a few laugs here and there and a few cries :blush: but when it was finished I didn't know what to think about it... It's a film so it had to carry a message, and this one wasn't about Manolos and dresses... It's about true friends that care for you when you have problems ^_^ I liked the idea but I hate when they make a film out of something that was (and still is) so popular on TV. I think Jennifer Hudson was great in her role! I really like her character. Didn't think she was so good as an actress
June 12, 200817 yr Yeah, Jennifer Hudson was the massive surprise for me, too. She was the best thing in it, along with Samantha! I went last night and really enjoyed it actually, perhaps because I didn't have any expectations either high or low. Louise (Hudson) was emotional and funny, and Samantha got all of the best lines! Carrie and Miranda were fine if not amazing, but they never were my favourites anyway. Charlotte's portrayal was weird; I didn't really like how she was this massive joke with no real storylines who just ran around either screaming 'NOO!' at Big or smiling with her adopted Chinese baby like some weird creature out of a fairytale! On the whole though, excellent. I'd probably give it 4/5, and of course the soundtrack was brilliant too. I'm very glad they didn't go with the predictable and give Carrie and Big a fairytale wedding or let Samantha and Smith have a threesome with the hottie next door or anything :heehee: How both of those storylines wrapped up was very good. One warning though; you see Miranda's boobs, and they are not pretty. :heehee:
June 12, 200817 yr On the whole though, excellent. I'd probably give it 4/5, and of course the soundtrack was brilliant too. I'm very glad they didn't go with the predictable and give Carrie and Big a fairytale wedding or let Samantha and Smith have a threesome with the hottie next door or anything :heehee: How both of those storylines wrapped up was very good. I agree ^_^ they didn't only show her boobs :lol: Remember Mexico? (Who knows if those were real or fake :lol: :puke2: )
June 12, 200817 yr Brilliant- I saw this a while back and haven't commented but it was brilliant. Hudson was fantastic. I loved Samantha. :D
June 13, 200817 yr I absolutely loved this film. I loved the show and i have been re-watching my dvds ( :wub: ) Jennifer Hudson was brilliant as Louise from St Louis. When then man was looking down her top 'They Ain't nothing down there for you!' :heehee: i loved her accent. Charlotte was hilerious, as was Samantha. I have to say, i was quite disappointed when Carrie married Big, i never liked him :unsure: I went with two people who had never seen SATC before, and even they loved it too! One of them has since lent my DVDs and is falling in love with the show (only 4 years too late!) :yahoo: The only dissapointment was the lack of Harry, Anthony and Stanford :( Oh and the length, I could have sat there another 6 hours and have still loved every minute. It was amazing! Edited June 13, 200817 yr by Glyn
June 13, 200817 yr The only dissapointment was the lack of Harry, Anthony and Stanford :( Another serious issue I had with this film... Stanford reduced to being this ridiculous, stock, Gay character when he was FAR more important a character in the series.....
June 13, 200817 yr Another serious issue I had with this film... Stanford reduced to being this ridiculous, stock, Gay character when he was FAR more important a character in the series..... Thats what i though, i can't even recall a scene with him and Carrie together in the film. I remember him being at the Vogue shoot, then again with Anthony and the wedding and new years eve, and then finally at the 'reception'. I can't think of anymore. :blink: That was slightly disappointing i thought.
June 14, 200817 yr Thats what i though, i can't even recall a scene with him and Carrie together in the film. I remember him being at the Vogue shoot, then again with Anthony and the wedding and new years eve, and then finally at the 'reception'. I can't think of anymore. :blink: That was slightly disappointing i thought. One certainly would've thought given the over-blown two-and-a-half-hour running time that a bit more screen time could have been given to Stanford, or, hey, Steve as well come to think of it..... -_- All he seemed to get to do was shag Miranda once or twice, whine a bit and have an off-screen affair..... No, this film just seemed to be a long, ego-massage for Sarah Jessica Parker....... Carrie's pretty much my least favourite of the four characters, always has been.... Hmmm, maybe that's the reason for my hostility to the film....
June 14, 200817 yr In reality throughout the series the show became more than Carrie Bradshaw and friends show, so anybody who expected anything different from the film, especially given the one-woman poster used to advertise it, should've known better :heehee: Carrie is not the easiest character to love, and let's face it, Kim Cattrall as Samantha and Jennifer Hudson as Louise stole the show anyway. ^_^
June 14, 200817 yr In reality throughout the series the show became more than Carrie Bradshaw and friends Which is probably why I preferred the older seasons of SATC as well..... I had thought that a FILM would've perhaps been different from a TV SHOW mate and given the characters a bit more equal screen time, seeing as how the FILM was supposed to be about tying up the loose ends and giving the characters (ALL the characters) some kind of proper send-off..... -_- For this reason, I found the film to be a total disappointment, hence my criticisms.. And it sure as hell wasn't as if there wasn't enough time to afford all the characters equal shares.... I don't particularly mind films or TV shows which centre on unlikeable characters (I mean, the crooks in "Reservoir Dogs" are a right bunch of nasty scumbags.. :lol: just to pluck an example out of the air....), but there surely has to be some kind of substance about them, some kind of "in" if you get my meaning....
June 14, 200817 yr I was a bit annoyed about the lack of Stanford - and the cliche way he got together with Anthony - the series showed brilliantly how two gay men could dislkie each otehr so much, and this just reinforces the view that some have that all gay men must like each other.... <_>
July 2, 200817 yr Really enjoyed this movie. Lots of funny parts like Charlotte crapping her pants :lol: The 4 characters def matured but still remained the characteristics we know them for. Shame that stanford didnt play a bigger role in the film.
Create an account or sign in to comment