Sex and the City: The Final Crusade
Speaking of archaeological movies:
1. Here’s a good demonstration of the difference between television and cinema. What works in 30-minute episodes on the small screen cannot be stretched to 142 minutes on the big screen, no matter how many 80’s-style musical montages you throw in.
2. The TV show’s strength was in the writing. After all, its main character was a writer. The women could be silly, vindictive, self-absorbed bitches, but they were endearingly human. The movie’s producers were so engrossed in the clothes and accessories, they forgot to hire writers.
3. Sets a new standard in movie tie-in advertising: at least 5 obvious product placements per scene, and a product mention every five minutes. Not content with having a bag in every other scene, LVMH has apparently sponsored a character named Louise. Oh look, it’s like a Vogue photo spread. Wait, it IS a Vogue photo spread.
4. After the first hour, I began to hope someone would get mugged.
5. The cinematographer likes Big more than Carrie. Big was more interesting when he was a jerk.
6. Are those shoes, or stilts?
7. Looks like the distributors cut the movie to get a PG rating. The cuts are very badly done. One character’s pot belly is deleted entirely, so we don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. So the movie is even more “sanitized” than the version shown on cable.
8. The moral of the story is, If you try to pollute the New York Public Library with your frou-frou, something terrible will happen.
9. Noel: “The title should’ve been Sex and the City: The Final Crusade. If there’s a sequel it should be called Sex And The Pity. It’ll be about mercy sex.”
Answers to questions you might be asking, unless you wandered onto this site purely by accident >>>
May 31st, 2008 at 01:40
Over the years, I’ve seen just a few episodes of “Sex and the City” and frankly, I’ve always wondered about the title. If you translate it in the Filipino language it would be “Pagtatalik at ang Lungsod”. What is that? “Bitches in the City” would have been more appropriate but it wouldn’t be approved by the studios. Incidentally, local TV networks impose their own censorship on programs that contain curses and obscence language and/or sex or nudity. My point is, why bother airing it if they will just delete parts of it? Meanwhile, I have yet to see mermaids portrayed in the strictest literarily and cinematographically (whew, what a word) accurate way, i.e., with no bra, long hair or prosthetics covering the mammaries. They dare make a show about them, their actress better be honest in her portrayal. As JZ once wrote about an Alanis Morisette MTV , “If you go for nudity, you better stick to it.”
June 1st, 2008 at 07:31
Ooops!
I’ve always loved SATC–never seen the “final crusade” though….Belgium is always late.like 6 months!!!
It’s fun watching those girls–lik i wanna step into their world.
If only life is as easy as they have….very open, you can just run to a shoe shop whenever you’re in a bad mood…
Hmm….
I’ve met and shook hands with “Miranda” —she’s a cool lola!!
June 1st, 2008 at 09:43
Yes, franzi j., your translation is correct. The series mostly talked about two things: sex and New York, thus the term “and the city.” It discussed its appreciation (or rather love) of the city.
See Alice Dixson’s Dyesebel. No bra, no long hair, no prosthetics.
June 3rd, 2008 at 09:06
They should have stayed in Mexico and do a sequel called “Sexo y la Ciudad”, and I don’t mean Cancun.
June 7th, 2008 at 07:43
stiletto + sex = empowerment