IMDb user comments for
Sex and the City (2008) More at IMDb Pro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 39:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

382 comments in total

---

145 out of 216 people found the following comment useful :-
The movie did NOT do the show justice, 9 June 2008

Author: ameli-1 from United States

I am a big fan of the show. I am one of those people who have seen every episode at least 4 times, and some of them around 10 times. Even so, I still watch the reruns, and I was really looking forward to the movie.

So, it is really upsetting that I have to give it such a bad review. I went to see it with the best of intentions. I really wanted to love it. Unfortunately the movie has nothing to do with the wittiness and character of the series. Even putting aside the wooden and/or exaggerated acting, you fail to recognize the characters who where transformed into caricatures, pathetic versions of themselves.

There were very very few lines that gave a glimpse of the old clever dialog, and they all got lost in a mass of cheesy lines about love and friendship that you even rarely anymore encounter in the corniest of Hollywood's chick flicks, and toiler humor that you only expect from movies like Harold and Kumar. OK, maybe the comparison to Harold and Kumar is a little unfair, but really I had never expected Sex and the City to rely on fart jokes for comic relief.

People comment that those who rate this movie badly are either men, or just not fans of the show. From my perspective the fans of the show should be the ones most disappointed by the travesty that was this film.

We grew to love the show because of its honesty towards sexual issues, its shocking but clever dialog, and its characters who, however unreal with their designer obsessions, uncontrollable spending and lack of real jobs, remained true to their personas regarding sex, relationships, commitment, independence.

The show was about sex. The movie is about love, and treats the subject from the weakest, corniest and most disappointing standpoint.

This movie is a fake Fendi. Dropping 15 designer names in one sentence, showing bulging men's underpants and orgasming at the sight of huge closets, Sex and the City does not make.

As for me, I will keep watching the reruns and pretend this movie never happened.

---

141 out of 236 people found the following comment useful :-
please tell me it was a bad dream, 1 June 2008

Author: zafulotus from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

It was so awful it defies description. If you are really a "true fan"... you will leave quite bitter and feeling used. The movie literally contains plot lines that revolve around poop and fat jokes. Literally. Poop jokes and fat jokes. Oh, and a petulant 40 year old who responds to being disappointed by/in her partner by cutting him out of her life for a year and looking to her friends to be her mommies. Mature.

SATC was on my last year in high school through my college years and into my mid-20s. Needless to say, the show meant a lot to me in those formative years. I've since grown up to be a feminist and professional and look back fondly on the revolutionary nature of the series. Even in its moments of fluff and vanity, there were redeeming aspects to the self-reflection and (sometimes reluctant) self-reliance of these women. No, it's not perfect... but it was challenging and eye-opening in its milieu. To then go see this movie is an insult. Much like as I did in my late teens and early-to-mid 20's, I expected a mature movie that examined the lives of these 40-somethings in a way that would offer some insight (and wit) into what I might come to expect in the years to come as I get older, live with my partner, maybe get married, maybe have babies, maybe adopt, maybe leave a partner, maybe face infidelity, etc... something that honored the promise that it was a smart movie that gave these mature women something to sink their acting chops into...

Instead I got a wedding farce; a humping dog; stock black, Jewish and gay characters that literally made me feel ill; 4 women who don't know themselves any better than they did 4 years ago, 10 years ago; and, oh yeah, POOP JOKES AND FAT JOKES.

SATC the TV series WAS a cultural icon, a touchstone, a movement.

SATC the movie promotes itself as a vehicle for creating another socio-cultural rupture. Instead its witless.

---

250 out of 454 people found the following comment useful :-
Critics need to move on..., 30 May 2008

Author: Aluísio Parondi (nem.freud.explica@gmail.com) from South Burlington, Vermont, USA

...or at least try to be original?

Saying that "Sex and the City: The Movie" is just for the fans is unnecessary (like it was made for another audience, right?). Who else except die hard fans of the show will be crazy for this movie?

Is it predictable? Yes. Is it just a longer episode of the TV show? Yes. Is it funny? Depends. If you like the show, you'll laugh; if you don't, you won't. Simple as that.

It doesn't try or pretend to be art-house material or an Oscar contender (except for the costume design, of course), but it's definitely good entertainment and a pleasant couple of hours with buttery popcorn and a Red Bull. 7/10.

---

127 out of 222 people found the following comment useful :-
Disappointing as a movie and TV Show as Movie, 30 May 2008

Author: lostatredrock from Rhode Island, United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I took my girlfriend to see this movie last night at the 12:01 showing. She is a huge fan of the show, has every season on DVD, and has seen all the episodes multiple times. I have watched 30-40 episodes I would guess and I would not say that I love the show, but I do find it entertaining and never dreaded my girlfriend pulling out the DVDs to pop them in. So going into it I was there 75% for her and 25% because I genuinely thought it would be an entertaining movie even though it would never make it into my top anything.

So with the set-up in place, the movie itself was very disappointing for both my-self and my girlfriend.

First looking at the movie in comparison to the show itself, the movie simply felt flat by comparison. The show is full of frank and snappy discussion which manages to come across as both very real and hilarious at the same time. Really the show was built on the interactions of those four girls and those interactions simply fell flat in the movie in a way I never saw them fall flat in the show. Like I said I am only a casual fan of the show and this was apparent to me, it was even more apparent to my girlfriend who is an extreme fan of the show who also found it lacking.

Second looking at the movie as a movie independent of the show, this is where the movie really fails. Rather than feeling like a movie which typically has a cohesive plot which spans the breadth of the film with smaller sub-plots which spring up along the way, the movie felt like a series of a TV show in which there is an overarching story arc, but the action is based around the individual episode plots. The latter works in a TV show because episodes by their nature are disjointed, you need to be able to make the individual episode plots stand well on their own or the show will fail. In a movie the result of the latter is very disjointed storyline and plot.

Third the "secrecy" surrounding this movie really led to big disappointments for both of us. Given all "secrecy" one would have assumed that a cursory knowledge of the show and a simple watching of the trailer would not be enough to grasp the entire plot of the movie. Unfortunately such an assumption would be wrong. There were a number of plot twists which would have been great were they actually twists, sadly the producers decided that releasing ALL of them in the trailer would make for a better movie, it didn't. The only rational I can see for stupidly releasing such information while you build levels of pretend security is to drive up ticket sales with the reasonable thought: "if this is what they are showing us in the trailer who knows what will be in the movie!" Fourth, did the producers decide that strong powerful women would be a threat to the movie going public or something? With the possible exception of Charlotte (although she showed it at times too) these women are all strong, powerful and independent. In the movie Carrie spends the majority of her time first planning her wedding like a giddy school girl and then mopping around for the rest of the movie. Who is this woman because she is not Carrie Bradshaw. Samantha has gone from a strong sexual figure who may have finally found love to someone so whiny and needy you don't recognize her at all. Miranda remains a strong figure but rather than it being portrayed in a good way, it comes across more as her just being a bitch.

Fifth some random complaints… This movie felt way too much like an ad at way too many points. I know that fashion and all that is supposed to be a part of the story of these women, but was there any need of a 5 minute Mercedes-Bens ad aka "Fashion Week" right smack in the middle of the movie? What the hell happened to Stamford? The banter between he and Carrie is one of my favorite parts of the show I don't know that he said more than two words to her the entire movie.

Why was Charlotte even in the movie? It felt like they made it most of the way through filming and then realized they had forgotten all about her so they threw her in got her pregnant and hoped no one would notice she really didn't have much of a part since a pregnancy is so big for her. It might have worked to only as I said above as something that might have constituted a surprise to the movie going public is had to be disclosed in the trailer.

On the subject of characters who really served no purpose why was Jennifer Hudson in this movie? She was amazing in Dreamgirls so I don't blame her for the one dimensional token character, but somebody deserves some blame. I can only guess that she was there in response to criticism of the series as being too white, but is the best response to such criticism really inserting a character who is so obviously a token it's painful? Again on the subject of pointless and forgettable characters, I know this movie should be primarily about the female leads, but that does not mean that all the male characters should be so flat that cardboard cutouts would perform just as well in their place.

---

54 out of 81 people found the following comment useful :-
Ugh. What a shipwreck., 2 June 2008

Author: donnapaz from Texas, USA

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Like many of the others, I am a huge fan of the series (I own all the DVDs and have watched each episode multiple times).

The translation to big screen just.doesn't.work.

There was so much melodrama and fake crises! The male characters were like shadows of themselves. Big was like an avuncular sugar-daddy at the beginning and devolved into a limp-wristed dweeb by the time he thwarted Carrie.

And Carrie was a shrill, melodramatic idiot who ultimately gets what she deserves. What intelligent, independent woman in her right mind would go back to the jackass who screwed you over multiple times? Why can't she just be independent? That always bothered me about the series finale.

Miranda seems melodramatic and overreacts to Steve's indiscretion -- which comes out of nowhere and feels like a poorly timed plot device.

Smith, who is starting to weather like Clint Eastwood, came off as way-too-casual when Samantha gave him her decision. He acted like such an airhead surfer-dude, which was never apparent in the series.

Stanford and Anthony were like caricatures of themselves. Oh, we have a wedding, let's work in the flaming wedding planner! And didn't he and Stanford dislike each other? Why were they palling around like best girlfriends?

I thought it was curious that Carrie's friends all showed up to help her pack her apartment, but they were nowhere to be found when the unpacking was being done. What kind of friends are those?

The only redeeming acting came from Kim Catrall and Kristen Davis. They are totally comic pros and I enjoyed their schtick, even if it was silly. They at least pulled it off. As for Parker and Nixon, they acted like a couple of shrill witches when scorned. Ugh.

---

42 out of 61 people found the following comment useful :-
One, 2 June 2008

Author: matt75-1 from Los Angeles, United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This movie was such a disappointment: so disrespectful to the series, the characters' original complexity, and women's complexity!

I was particularly let down by the script. First of all, the jokes were not funny. From the 'Saint Louise from St Louis' to Charlotte's Mexican incident, everything was so unlike Michael P King's style. Then the plot: predictable (Samantha's ring/ Smith being the guy getting it to her; the password of Carrie's email folder being 'love' like on the key chain...) but most of all characters were out of their 'tv series' parts. Especially Carrie: hitting Big with the wedding bouquet and screaming at him in the middle of 5th ave, really?!? Planning a honeymoon in Mexico, really (btw, the guy greets them with 'welcome to Mexico', that's …'broad' and silly…)?!? Telling Miranda 'you ruined my wedding', really? That dinner scene seemed like out of an episode of The Hills….

I personally also found Jennifer Hudson terrible: she already won the 2008 Razzie to me (altough I should check if Sharon Stone is coming out with a new movie...).

In general, if you think of what you saw in this movie without the affection you have for these characters, you must admit this is a terribly corny romantic comedy.

Think of how wonderfully touching and poignant some episodes were. Like the one when Miranda finally took the courage to tell her feelings to Steve... It was titled 'One', and it was indeed a fully satisfying, beautiful episode.

This movie is just a 1/10...

---

47 out of 88 people found the following comment useful :-
Sucks in the City, 1 June 2008

Author: hannibal wolff (hannibalw@yahoo.com) from Canada

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Yea, this movie is a real block buster.It lost sixty-three per cent of its core audience the first week .Even the ladies are hating this horrid film.

By my estimation it will have to take in another thirty million to reach positive cash flow . Four self-absorbed broads shop 'til they drop discuss sex in a frank and revealing manner and clutter up the screen with garbage for over two hours. These chicks haven't progressed at all . Should be sub-titled 'Arrested Development ' Chris Noth whose, extremely, limited acting (?) chops are on display to great disadvantage,is simply a boring mannequin / archetype . A narrator constantly tells the audience what we have just witnessed complete with a moral stance attached . The duologue is no longer daring nor that interesting for that matter . Now they were talking about sex in front of a child, referring to the act as "colouring". How often did Miranda do colouring? Not nearly enough. Samantha, the goddess single of older women, of course liked to use all the crayons, while Carrie Bradshaw, our narrator and lead, said that when Big coloured "he doesn't always stay inside the lines." Wow ! How daring . How interesting . Guy s kip this drek like the plague .If your girl insists on going . Send her alone . You have been warned .This movie sucks .

---

56 out of 108 people found the following comment useful :-
Product placement at its best. Same can't be said about the movie, 29 May 2008

Author: thebluebasil from Singapore

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The only positive thought that ran through my mind after watching the gala premiere of the film is "Damn, that new Mercedes Benz GLK is fine."

As a series, Sex and the City was like a sliver of pan fried foie gras - cruel, taboo, but delicious. The movie, however, was as flaccid as Spam; it was entirely unsuccessful in its attempt to achieve thorough character development/portrayal in a couple of hours.

Think of it this way, if you cringe at the thought of FRIENDS coming together to make a movie, SATC is exactly the same. There's simply too much history within the series that can be sufficiently revisited/covered in the movie.

We get it, you have a lot of clothes, SJP and minions. But then again, even those Blahniks couldn't save you from being convincingly labelled as the world's unsexiest woman, could they? A reed thin plot, horrible ending and one dimensional acting adds up to quite a big boob at the cinemas this summer. To quote Heidi Klum, "you're eizer in, or you're out." I think you know where I'm going with this.

---

53 out of 103 people found the following comment useful :-
TV will be TV forever, 17 June 2008

Author: katiemeyer1979 from Los Angeles, CA

On the big screen this 4 drag queens are unmasked. There is nothing appealing or revolutionary about them. They are a walking, reactionary embarrassment. That's what happens when the small TV screen is transplanted to the big Cinema screen. The truth comes out. Remember Bill Cosby's translation? Over 2 hours of the most excruciating dissection of characters I hope I'll never meet. The Make Up, the wardrobe, the dialog! Really depressing. I was admonished by a Sex and the City devotee because I was appalled at the movie without having ever seen the TV series. Okay, I plead guilty to that and that's only why I'm giving it a 2 and not a 1.

---

120 out of 237 people found the following comment useful :-
The long goodbye., 31 May 2008

Author: brefane from United States

Fans of the show will be happy to see the ladies from the HBO series unite once again, but really it would have been better for all concerned if they hadn't bothered because this plot less and pointless big screen rehash diminishes the series. The transfer to the big screen at 2hrs and 25mins exposes the hollowness of the characters that the breezy 1/2 hour episodes concealed, and the film is truly 40 minutes too long. And while the ladies and the world have changed in the ten years since the series began, the movie barely acknowledges this fact. Yes, Jennifer Hudson is on board to demonstrate cultural diversity, but the character is unnecessary. SATC:The Movie appeases its target audience with fashion montages, male nudity, spacious closets, and American Pie humor for giddy schoolgirls. The men are upstaged by the Louis Vuitton bags and Mr. Big is passive and colorless. The director's inexperience in the medium is palpable, and the movie feels like 5 episodes of the series drained of blood, and played back to back. The movie isn't very funny; it lacks true wit and polish, and some of what the script thinks is funny, is embarrassing. All of the 4 leads have their moments, the girls still have the same chemistry that made the series popular, and as on the series, Cattrall's Samantha is still my favorite.

---

---

Page 1 of 39:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Parents Guide
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history