Thursday, May 22, 2008
Posted by JPX
From cinemablend, Turning a popular television show into a successful movie has always been something of a dicey proposition, but never more so than with the upcoming Sex and the City: The Movie. The TV to movie translation has been done with varying results to comedies and action shows, but never before with a drama, much less one so specifically geared to women. Will it work?
So far, Sex and the City: The Movie’s future isn’t looking particularly bright. The film has been slowly screened for a select handful of critics over the past few weeks, and many of their early reviews haven’t been good. Of the six reviews currently posted on RT, only two of them are positive. Even those two positive reviews seem to be saying that this is a movie without broad a appeal, the sort that’s only going to please the film’s most dedicated fans. Here’s a sampling of positive reviews from all around the web:
“…just like any great night out with best friends, "Sex and the City: The Movie" is awash with so much love that it lingers long after the last cocktail runs dry.” - NY Daily News
“One thing's for sure: fans of the series will lap this film up.” - Celia Walden, Daily Telegraph
“Will give female audiences a jolt of excitement in the same way that seeing Indiana Jones back in action will thrill male audiences this summer.” – Phil Contrino, Boxoffice Magazine
The bad news there is that Sex and the City doesn’t have nearly the number of fans that Indiana Jones does. That sounds like box office trouble. On CB’s podcast last week, our host Rafe Telsch remarked that Sex and the City could be headed for the same kind of trouble as Serenity, another movie which pleased fans… but failed to snag anyone else. Except Serenity was at least well reviewed. So far that isn’t happening for Sex and the City.
The movie’s more numerous negative reviews make the film’s situation seem even more dire. Here’s a sampling of those:
“There is not a single idea in this film that was not conceived, discussed, and beaten to within an inch of its life during the run of the show on HBO. Not ONE!” – David Poland, Hot Button
“Sadly, what was witty, savvy, cool, and sexy in the hit TV series has turned into an indulgent, overlong (146 minutes to be precise), and largely middlebrow affair, with a larger than needed or expected dosage of bourgeois morality and schmaltzy tone, perhaps a reflection of the fact that the women are now a decade older than they were when the show began (in 1998).” - Emanuel Levy, EmanuelLevy.com
“Unfortunately, where episodes of the series used to take their cue from a question posed by one of Carrie's columns, writer-director Michael Patrick King never finds that focus, and "Sex and the City" loses its tart edge in the process.” - Michael Rechtshaffen, Hollywood Reporter
“For a series so steeped in romance, the eagerly awaited Sex and the City movie feels a trifle half-hearted.” Brian Lowry, Variety
One thing just about all of the reviews seem to agree on is that it’s long, way too long. Worse, the notion that it’s just a rehash of everything already seen on the show seems to permeate most of those early reviews. And for guys clinging to those rumors that Kristin Davis (aka the only hot one) might actually at least get naked for a shower scene in this thing… forget it. It doesn’t happen. There is however, another one of those gratuitous penis shots that Hollywood seems to have fallen in love with recently. That at least makes sense, this is a movie catering to women after all. Fair is fair.
at 4:33 AM