Thursday, May 27, 2010
Sex and what City?: I'll pass and review The Soloist this weekend
Image courtesy of Warner Bros. Studios.
I seriously considered reviewing Sex and the City 2 film for my blog, but after some thought, I'm going to stay home and watch The Soloist.
A devotee of the TV series, Sex and the City has surprised me multiple times with its wit, humor and - dare I say - depth. I didn't start out with a very good impression of the series or the movie, but having watched the DVDs of both I can say that they all bring something meaningful to the table.
So when I heard that another film was coming out, I had my doubts, but having avoided the first film in theatres only to have it charm me later with its biting commentary on the ridiculousness of the wedding industry in the U.S., maybe I should cut this one a break. Watching the girls do their version of a road trip movie might be fun.
That was before I saw the full-length trailer.
Sorry folks, but I'm a Mr. Big fan who (SPOILER ALERTS FROM HERE ON OUT) is the man that Carrie marries at the end of the first movie. I liked Aidan as a character but it was clear from the first go-round he and Carrie were never going to make it for the long haul. I didn't buy the fourth season DVD set because I didn't feel like rewatching them go through their SECOND go-round. So when I saw Aidan in the trailer, it stopped me dead in my tracks. How many times are we going to beat this dead horse? The do I want Big do I not want him...get real people. Even worse, am I really going to spend $10.50 to watch Charlotte complain about having children after she spent six seasons talking about wanting children?
We have come to the end of the line. While I don't typically judge a movie by its cover, I do when it comes to either paying for it in theatres or waiting to rent it later when it comes out on DVD in three months. And from the synopsis I've read, Aidan is just the tip of the iceberg - now, we don't even have the city anymore, the notorious "5th star" of the show. At a running time of just over two hours, apparently the audience only gets a brief glimpse of NYC. As the wonderful A.O. Scott says in his review, "Is Manhattan really that over?"
It's as if we had a cake that was made beautifully, then the movie was the icing. Now this seems to be dumping the cake and the icing, rolling it in fudge, and dumping champagne all over it until the cake itself is barely recognizable.
The girls finally get all they want - and now they are not even happy with that. They want more - but that doesn't mean I do or audiences in general do.
But I invite you all to prove me wrong - if anyone can give me a convincing argument to see the film then I'll happily go - and conversely, if you are going to see it, let me know if my fears are justified.