May 27th, 2010
05:16 PM ET
In all honesty, as soon as the promos for "Sex and the City 2" showed Carrie and Co. heading to Abu Dhabi for a girlfriend getaway that somehow puts Carrie and Aidan in the same place again (sans Big), many people were suspicious that the “Sex and the City” sequel had gone off the deep end.
So far, most reviewers are doing nothing to refute that theory; it’s currently stalled at 16 percent fresh on RottenTomatoes.com since it opened in theaters at midnight on Thursday, and critics have taken turns seeing who can come up with the most cutting prose. The New York Post called the film “Sucks in the City,” while Kurt Loder over at MTV said the sequel is a “stake in the heart of the great TV series that ran from 1998 to 2004."
Just how bad can this movie be, you ask? Allow us to count the ways. (Note: We’re avoiding any spoilers you wouldn’t pick up on from the trailers, so it’s safe to keep reading.)
Washington Post: "'Sex and the City 2' - an enervated, crass and gruesomely caricatured trip to nowhere - seems conceived primarily to find new and more cynical ways to abuse the loyalty of its audience."
New York Times: "This one is grueling, especially when the action moves to the Middle East. There are some gestures toward a plot — a stolen kiss, a lost passport, the appearance of a former lover (Aidan, played by John Corbett) — but remarkably little happens, even when Samantha runs into trouble with the local mores."
L.A. Times: “In this second screen incarnation of the fabulous HBO series, the satire is sagging, the irony's atrophied and the funny is flabby… Carrie, Miranda, Samantha and Charlotte have misplaced their chic and sassy and become, gulp, too ordinary and desperate… Still, the women are not anywhere as desperate as the movie itself, which fails its stars and its many obsessive fans, unless everyone was waiting for the AARP version.”
Roger Ebert: “Some of these people make my skin crawl. The characters of ‘Sex and the City 2’ are flyweight bubbleheads living in a world which rarely requires three sentences in a row.”
USA Today: “Fans of the HBO series would be wise to pivot on their Manolo Blahniks and steer clear of the mortifying mess that is ‘Sex and the City’… An insult to the memory of the cleverly written show and its celebration of friendship, it's a slap in the face for the four gal pals (often photographed at unflattering angles) and an affront to Muslims.”
And lastly, a review for the fans, from The Hollywood Reporter: "["Sex and the City 2"] has the returning cast members in fine comic form, and it has more cutting-edge humor than the first movie. Critics will carp about the platitudes in the script and about the longueurs in the nearly 2 1/2-hour opus, but for the core audience, there will be no complaints about too much of a good thing. This picture is going to be a smash."
Are these nasty reviews enough to stop you from seeing the film, or is the allure of more “Sex” enough of a draw?
From around the web
About this blog
Our daily cheat-sheet for breaking celebrity news, Hollywood buzz and your pop-culture obsessions.