(spoiler warning for
Sex and the City: The Movie)
I remember reading this ad for
Sex and the City: The Movie that included a 4-star review saying "A great night out with friends!". I didn't think it was much of a recommendation, since it said nothing about the actual quality of the plot, characterisation or even production values, but after seeing the movie I felt it was dead-on.
It was a feel-good movie, but for all that's happened, everyone seemed to be back where they were at the beginning of the movie. Carrie broke up with Big, AGAIN, only to get back together with him in the end, AGAIN. I wouldn't have minded so much if it hadn't been done before, and had the conflict been more substantial. Losing focus in all the wedding planning was such a cliché, and Big's reaction felt so artificial, just to create a manufactured conflict to drive the paper-thin plot along. (It did, however, give SJP her most powerful scene, when she was pouring out all her anger on the street towards Big.) And what does that say about women when they go back for more, even after all that? I thought S&TC was meant to celebrate strong women.
The plot I liked most was then Miranda's. Nixon has always been able to carry the emotional weight of all her scenes, and she didn't disappoint. While her story was as trite as Carrie's, and she did go back to where she was before, at least Miranda had learned a little more about Steve and their relationship. Nixon brings out the best in SJP in their scenes together (especially during New Year's and Valentine's).
Poor Kristin Davis got shafted again, as usual. I know she is the lowest billed of the four, but so what? She ended up being comic relief most of the time, and her perfect life was too boring. Best scene: Charlotte telling Carrie while shopping that she fears something bad will happen to the baby, since no one's life is perfect. Well, no one's but yours, Charlotte.
As for Samantha - isn't it disappointing that she didn't stay with Smith? While it's true to her character, I wish she got her man too. I mean, she didn't even end up with Dante (at least not that we've seen). No wonder Cattrall resisted being part of the movie for so long, she wasn't gonna get any!
In the end, was the movie really necessary? The series provided such a good ending, and while this one wasn't too bad, it didn't really move the story anywhere.
Sidenote: Jennifer Hudson wasn't too bad. She picked a good-sized role for her follow-up, and it looks like those acting lessons are paying off. And what's with Candice Bergen getting big billing for 2 minutes of screentime? That was puzzling.
While exams render me temporarily unable to craft intelligent posts (I know what you're gonna say - which intelligent posts? Bitch.), I thought I'd share more images for the time being. Here's my favourite movie poster from 2007. Excellent movie, too - definitely within my top 5 of the year. Heck, let's do a list:
So I decided to take a break from studying tonight and watch a movie (I seem to be doing that a lot lately). I finally settled on 27 Dresses. Despite the insipid characterisation and formulaic plot, I did find myself enjoying Katherine Heigl's performance, which surprised me since I never thought of her as much of an actress. (I didn't enjoy Knocked Up, I dislike her silly character on Grey's Anatomy and I never got into Roswell.) She has an undeniable charm that radiates through her cliché of a character, Jane, and manages to throw herself fully into the role without overplaying it. Despite being a walking stereotype, Jane was easy to empathise with: surely everyone has played second fiddle to someone else at some point in their life. I'm not going to bother picking on the bad things about the movie (i.e. everything else), but it was a pleasant enough distraction to make me not regret wasting 2 hours I could've used studying... I hope.