NYT’s Dargis on ‘Sex and the City 2:’ Huh??

As far as I can tell, the New York Times’ Manohla Dargis thought that “Sex and the City 2” wasn’t very good (agreed), that the first movie wasn’t much better (agreed), and that the series also had its share of flaws in later seasons (also agreed).

And yet, somehow, she appears to come to the conclusion that critics who trashed the movie were unfair to it.

Dargis seems to want to have it both ways. To acknowledge the movie’s failings, yet also take fellow critics
SATC2-15375rV2 to task for — I guess — the way that they found fault with them.

In a sense, what she’s done is the flip side of a point I tried to articulate in my review, which is that fans would essentially forgive the movie for its shortcomings because they were so predisposed to like it. “Sex and the City 2,” meet “Transformers 2,” in other words.

It seems to me, though, that Dargis can’t have it both ways. She can’t say the movie is a stinker and then insist that factors beyond its control — including the financial crisis, which has put a different spin on designer-obsessed consumption; and cultural concerns about insensitivity toward Muslims — are responsible for why people badmouthed it.

Nor does her argument, such as it is, recognize the many women who went to see “SATC2” with the highest of hopes and came away disappointed. Then again, a 2 1/2-hour romantic comedy without a real plot — I mean, the big issue is she wants to go out to dinner, and he wants to order in? — can easily do that to you.

Given such basic objections to the movie, Dargis closes her piece with what sounds like empty feminist indignation: “Too bad the women weren’t guys and went to Las Vegas, where they could
have indulged in the kind of critically sanctioned masculine political
incorrectness that made ‘The Hangover’ such a darling.”

But “The Hangover” was funny, and thus satisfying. It’s subjective, of course, but for most critics, “Sex and the City 2” isn’t. In that respect, at least, the film is a rather unfortunate example of equality: A movie aimed at women can be just as stupid and awful — and still be moderately successful — as most of the movies aimed at men.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 0

Leave a Reply

No Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

More Voices News from Variety

Loading