Variety has laid their eyes on what could be the most anticipated Sarah Jessica Parker film in history—that's right, Sex and The City: The Movie—and printed their review. [This would be a good time for anyone who wants nothing spoiled and/or rained upon to slide their fingers in their ears, stare up at the ceiling, and start humming the opening notes of its theme. "Da-DA-dada...da-DA-da! I can't hear you!"] Verdict: They're just not that into it. Highlights follow after the jump.

· "For a series so steeped in romance, the eagerly awaited "Sex and the City" movie feels a trifle half-hearted."
· "...writer-director Michael Patrick King doesn't fully bridge the gap between TV and film — delivering major story flourishes but, too often, playing like a regular episode bloated to five times its customary length."
· "...one theme explores the boundaries of forgiveness — a touch ironic for a romantic comedy that commits the near-irredeemable sin of stretching to nearly 2 ½ hours."
· "...even a glossed-up version of Manhattan is a hard place to go home again."

Sex and the City: Review [Variety]

12:00 PM on Thu May 15 2008
By Seth
4,761 views
13 comments

Comments

heidiho at 12:20 PM on 05/15/08
Reply by Email
*
Connectedness Index: 142

The best BEST SJP movie ever is Girls Just Want to Have Fun. Everything else pales in comparison. Looks like this one, too. SJP, we need to know what happened to Janey! Is she still dancing?! Is she still with that Joey Lawrence lookalike? I have so many questions!
sundaeg1rl at 12:29 PM on 05/15/08
Reply by Email
*

@heidiho: Oh yeah, I always forget how good that film is. I also like Honeymoon in Vegas, but that's more to do with the Flying Elvises, to be honest. Nothing beats Flying Elvi!
Mark Graham at 12:37 PM on 05/15/08
Reply by Email
*
Connectedness Index: 184

How quickly you forget how heavily anticipated Striking Distance was...
Desk_hack at 12:47 PM on 05/15/08
Reply by Email
*
Connectedness Index: 112

@Mark Graham: Gah! You beat me to it!
disinterested 3rd party at 12:48 PM on 05/15/08
Reply by Email
*

Hanker......hmmmmmm....I always thought it was "hunker". Are you blowing my mind?
BoHan at 01:01 PM on 05/15/08
Reply by Email
*
Connectedness Index: 149

She was pretty awesome in L.A. Stories, especially because she apparently hates us.
Seth at 01:21 PM on 05/15/08
Reply by Email
*
Connectedness Index: 131

@disinterested 3rd party: No, you're right. I'm just medicated today.
spanktastic at 01:29 PM on 05/15/08
Reply by Email
*

Her career went south after Square Pegs went off the air.
Sleepyhead at 01:52 PM on 05/15/08
Reply by Email
*

No love for Flight of the Navigator?

Let's play "How Much Would You Have to Pay Me?". Be accurate and honest in your answers. How much would actually nullify your pain at spending 2+ hours looking at whatever atrocious thing SJP has installed on her head, when you'd be happier drinking / mowing the lawn / playing Grand Theft Auto, etc. If you plan on seeing the movie in theatres, or could be convinced to, you obviously may not play.

I would see Sex and the City, but you'd have to pay me...$75.00
Desk_hack at 01:57 PM on 05/15/08
Reply by Email
*
Connectedness Index: 112

@Sleepyhead: $25, which would cover the dime bag I'd have to inhale prior to show time, and the munchies I'd buy to follow.
jerebo at 02:14 PM on 05/15/08
Reply by Email
*

Footloose anyone?
Mel Gibstein at 02:54 PM on 05/15/08
Reply by Email
*

$500. That's just two hours of pure nausea. I only take comfort in the fact that it'll have the biggest second-weekend drop in box-office history.

@jerebo: Dude...Tom Atkins in Halloween III?!?!
thecatsmeow at 10:45 PM on 05/15/08
Reply by Email
*

$100. (To cover snacks, sitter and time).

The whole thing is reminding me of a version of The Golden Girls. Which one is Maude?