Jump to content

Sex and the City 2


Recommended Posts

Stef, this is is your time.

The arrival of this film demands another thread of:

"If this movie were a _______________, I'd __________________."

Edelstein:

The most depressing thing about Sex and the City 2 is that it seems to justify every nasty thing said and written about the series and first feature film. The SATC dynamic has always been fragile, but at its most affecting you could see beyond the costumes and artifice and feel the characters fighting for validation—and connecting with one another in their struggle. Now there’s nothing but surface. And what a surface. ...
Edited by Overstreet

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Links to the threads on the TV series (1998-2004) and the first movie (2008).

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stef, this is is your time.

The arrival of this film demands another thread of:

"If this movie were a _______________, I'd __________________."

I won't ever see it, so it would be unfair to pick on it. I never saw the first one, or the TV show. Wait -- Was this a TV show? They all look the same to me, all these sex and women TV shows. Maybe I'm thinking of Desperate Women or Designing Housewives.

Oh! Thanks, Peter. I guess it was a show. Who would've known it. We only watch House and the Cubbies on TV around here.

OK, what the heck. "If this movie were an inflatable blow up doll with an id the size of the city, I'd..." oh waitasec, I think it already is.

In an interstellar burst, I am back to save the Universe.

Filmsweep by Persona. 2013 Film Journal. IlPersona.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ebert made up for what I couldn't well enough do yesterday and ripped it a new one today. I got to read it in print, where I think the dry humor is much more fun, but Here it is for you far away folks.

Snippets:

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. Their defining quality is consuming things.

There's more cleavage in this film than at a pro wrestler's wedding... And crotches, have we got crotches for you. Big close-ups of the girls themselves, and some of the bulgers they meet. And they meet some. They meet the Australian world cup team, for example, which seems to have left its cups at home. And then there's the intriguing stranger Samantha meets at the hotel, whose zipper-straining arousal evokes the fury of an offended Arab guest and his wife. This prodigy's name is Rikard Spirt. Think about it.

The movie's visual style is arthritic. Director Michael Patrick King covers the sitcom dialogue by dutifully cutting back and forth to whoever is speaking. A sample of Carrie's realistic dialogue in a marital argument: "You knew when I married you I was more Coco Chanel than coq au vin." Carrie also narrates the film, providing useful guidelines for those challenged by its intricacies. Sample: "Later that day, Big and I arrived home."

Truth in reviewing: I am obliged to report that this film will no doubt be deliriously enjoyed by its fans, for the reasons described above...

Note: From my understanding of the guidelines of the MPAA Code and Ratings Administration, Samantha and Mr. Spirt have one scene that far, far surpasses the traditional MPAA limits for pumping and thrusting.

Edited by Persona

In an interstellar burst, I am back to save the Universe.

Filmsweep by Persona. 2013 Film Journal. IlPersona.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Sex and the City 2' cast defends movie

While aspects of the movie, which opens Thursday in the United States, might stir controversy in some circles in the Middle East, the movie is not slated to be shown there. Distributor Warner Bros. said it has no plans to release the film in any country in the Middle East.

Jessica Zacholl, spokeswoman for Warner Bros., noted that the original "Sex and the City" movie and many Warner movies did not play there either. . . .

The sequel is set in the United Arab Emirates and filmed in Morocco. It pays homage to the desert scenery and romantic notions of the culture -- and features a few stinging scenes of some of the characters reacting to local traditions.

Documentary director Ahmed Ahmed, whose recent "Just Like Us" told the true story of American comedians testing out their humor in the Middle East, said the movie avoided the biggest pitfall -- joking about religion. . . .

Hollywood Reporter, May 26

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Documentary director Ahmed Ahmed, whose recent "Just Like Us" told the true story of American comedians testing out their humor in the Middle East, said the movie avoided the biggest pitfall -- joking about religion. . . .

Hollywood Reporter, May 26

Of course, burqas are a component of the Muslim religion. Islam is not a religion within a culture; it's a culture within a religion.

In case you were wondering, my name is spelled "Denes House," but it's pronounced "Throatwobbler Mangrove."
Link to post
Share on other sites

O'Hehir:

It would have been more merciful for writer-director Michael Patrick King to have rented Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte and Miranda out to the “Saw” franchise, or to Rob Zombie, so we could watch them get shot in the head or skinned alive by Arkansas rednecks. Instead of that, we get something that’s truly sadistic: the SATC girls as haggard specters, haunted by their freewheeling ’90s past and stupefied by the demands of work, marriage and/or motherhood. This bloated, incoherent movie mimics an SATC episode in structure — vague social relevance at the beginning and the end, conspicuous consumption in the middle — with virtually none of the wit or panache, and seems devoted to destroying our affection for these characters…

Wajahat Ali was correct to complain in Salon that King’s portrayal of the Muslim world is dumb and offensive: The “SATC2″ coven has no problem with the “new Middle East” when it’s all about private manservants, endlessly flowing fruity-tooty cocktails and a comped luxury suite that looks like Al Pacino’s house from “Scarface,” only less tasteful and metastasized to infinite proportions. The foursome develops a sudden concern with the oppression of Arab and Muslim women only after the pipeline of pornographic bling-juice is cut off…

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, the suffering! They're like the wounded couple in Bergman's "Scenes From a Marriage," except with millions and millions of dollars and no souls. When Carrie asks Big, "Am I just a bitch wife who nags you?" I could hear all the straight men in the theater -- all four of us -- being physically prevented from responding.

Snort!

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you may remember the tempest that Camerin Courtney's review of the first film stirred up at CT.

Seems rather bold of them to give her SATC2 to review after all of the attacks they got for it. And I'm sure they'll get them again.

By the way, she gave this one two stars.

This brand of female empowerment seems more laughable than liberating.

Part of the problem is that the balance is off. These four characters usually balance each other well—Charlotte the more conservative voice of morality and Samantha the edgy provocateur, with Carrie and Miranda landing somewhere in the middle. Here Charlotte is mostly fake smiles and fretful whining and Samantha is pretty over the top with her sexuality, especially toward the end of the film. With our bookends misplaced, there's less order and peace in the overall mix.

And I haven't even gotten to the morality of SATC2. It certainly doesn't line up with a Christian worldview, and I'm offended by the couple of sex scenes that seem included merely for shock value. But some people seem extra offended by the sexual content of these movies, when other films—with much more sexual content—barely trip the morality radar. I'm sure it has something to do with the word "sex" in the title and in perceptions of how that's played out in the film—despite the fact that monogamy and faithfulness really are the main goals for three of the four main characters.

Edited by Overstreet

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, the suffering! They're like the wounded couple in Bergman's "Scenes From a Marriage," except with millions and millions of dollars and no souls. When Carrie asks Big, "Am I just a bitch wife who nags you?" I could hear all the straight men in the theater -- all four of us -- being physically prevented from responding.

Snort!

Heh. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Overstreet wrote:

: Some of you may remember the tempest that Camerin Courtney's review of the first film stirred up at CT.

: Seems rather bold of them to give her SATC2 to review after all of the attacks they got for it.

Especially given all the cutbacks there and how they sometimes let whole weeks go by without reviewing any of the new releases. They must have really WANTED to review this one.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John Nolte:

The only way to explain my admiration for “Sex and the City 2” is to unfortunately reveal key plot moments and lay out much of the final act in spoiler-iffic Technicolor. This is not about justifying myself but instead to defend writer/director Michael Patrick King, who’s currently being savaged in certain parts of the media over this, his second feature based on the popular HBO series. A series I was not a fan of.

Some of the criticism is fair. Some of it is not. But we begin with a sentence I never thought I’d write: “Sex and the City 2” is a subversively patriotic, anti-Islamist fairy tale that ultimately comes down on the side of traditional values, and its creator, Michael Patrick King, has more guts than most everyone working at his level in the film industry today. . . .

For his single moment of righteous cinematic protest, director King now finds himself under fire from, among others, the USA Today for “mocking religious beliefs” and The Hollywood Reporter for being “blatantly anti-Muslim,” even though the rest of the film goes out of its way to treat the Arab world with a dignity few American Southerners receive at the hands of our Tinseltown betters these days. For starters, and most importantly, each and every Middle Eastern character – male and female — is given their humanity. Furthermore, at one point Carrie wears a star and crescent necklace. At another point she says “Thank God” to an Arab merchant and then sweetly corrects herself with “I mean, thank Allah.”

This attack on King is nothing more than a smear job, and yet another example of the entertainment media’s unholy agenda to punish and make an example of those who dare stray from Hollywood’s PC liberal orthodoxy. Would anyone like to bet more than a nickel that had King used Mormons instead of Muslims all the criticism about his being “anti-Muslim” would’ve been replaced with phrases like, “brave,” “bold,” “courageous” and “cutting edge”? I didn’t think so. . . .

Andrew Osborne:

Therefore, in honor of Carrie, Charlotte, Miranda and Samantha, here are my Top Four Reasons why Sex & The City 2 doesn’t suck nearly as much as the critics are saying:

1. The movie knows it’s a cartoon. . . .

2. The movie is funny. Y’know, because it’s a comedy. . . .

3. The movie isn’t a treatise on feminism; it’s a movie about women. When Danny Ocean and the guys dress up in fancy threads to rob casinos, it’s clearly escapism…yet when Carrie and the gals dress up and go to Abu Dhabi, the characters are slammed as crass, materialistic bubbleheads. When a workaholic male character (from Ebenezer Scrooge to Jerry Maguire) finally learns to stop and smell the roses, it’s considered a triumph…and yet, according to some critics, workaholic Miranda’s decision to seek a better work-life balance is really a sexist declaration that women should remain barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Well, uh…no. . . .

4. It’s a story about four women in their forties and fifties! And besides Mama Mia! (another critically-derided box office “fluke”) and the occasional Diane Keaton/Meryl Streep vehicle, there’s really not all that much to choose from in the female mid-life/menopause genre. . . .

I think I like that Danny Ocean line better than my James Bond line -- because, y'know, Danny Ocean actually has a team of friends that he works with, whereas Bond tends to be more of a loner. (On the other hand, Bond's got the promiscuity thing that the SATC girls have; I can't recall if there's anybody on the Danny Ocean team who would be roughly analogous to the Kim Cattrall character in SATC.)

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This review at The Stranger earns a "Wow. Just... wow." This is the kind of "film criticism" they serve up in Seattle on a weekly basis.

Warning: Spectacularly foul (and probably appropriate) vocabulary.

Edited by Overstreet

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having seen the film for myself now, I must say I really, really don't get the histrionics on display in so, so many of the reviews (and in so, so many of the comments made by people who have not seen the film but have been gobbling up the reviews nonetheless).

I've never seen the original TV show, and I can't say I'm a fan of the movies, but I can certainly see the appeal of this franchise; I can even see why people of either gender, but especially the feminine one, might "relate" to these characters.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'know, there are some interesting paradoxes in this film that could be fun to tease out, if anyone was of a mind to actually, y'know, TALK about the movie instead of heaping condemnation on it.

For example, much has been made of the notion that Samantha is a sort of "typical ugly American tourist" who flaunts her sexuality without any regard for the customary modesty of the foreign culture that she's visiting. But Samantha herself was offended, earlier in the film, when she saw that Charlotte's nanny was running around without a bra. So are propriety, decency and a concern for the sensibilites of others necessarily a bad thing?

And of course, it is Samantha's behaviour that gets the four women into trouble in the end. The whole POINT of their trip to Abu Dhabi is that Samantha has a business meeting there (and the lavish materialistic abundance bestowed on them there is paid for by the local sheikh, not by any of the Americans) -- but Samantha's casual disregard for the local customs gets in her trouble with the law, and then prompts the sheikh to call off their meeting. I've been on enough junkets to know better than to bite the hand that feeds me, so I can't say I got the impression that the film was celebrating Samantha's utter lack of self-control here.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say, I did wonder about some of this stuff ... but since the filmmakers are gay and I'm not, I didn't think it was my place to get into any of this. So, enter Thomas Rogers @ Salon.com and his article 'Why Sex and the City is bad for the gays':

Admittedly, when "Sex and the City" went on the air in 1998, the gay television landscape was vastly different. Characters like Will and Jack on NBC's "Will & Grace" had to be sexless and underdeveloped to make them palatable to nervous American audiences still getting used to the idea of two homos smack dab in the middle of must-see TV. Both those men existed primarily in the context of their female friendships, and, like Stanford and Anthony, had little to no romantic life, instead spending most of their screen time helping women untangle theirs.

But over the past decade, television portrayals of gay men have cracked open into something far more nuanced. Starting with "Queer as Folk" (with its near-explicit gay sex scenes) followed by "Six Feet Under" (with Michael C. Hall's troubled gay funeral home director) and "The Wire" (which dared to make its brilliant antihero, Omar, a gay man) and "Brothers and Sisters" (with troubled gay family member, Kevin Walker) and "Modern Family" (with its gay male adoptive family), gay men in television have become something much closer to flesh and blood -- with sex lives, personal dilemmas and, in some cases, children. (Though kissing is still verboten on "Modern Family.")

It's a change that parallels the way gay people have, in real life, become less and less troubled and defined by their sexuality (and has a precedent in the way black people stopped merely being the "hired help" of the films of the 1940s and '50s and took on complex personalities in film). But much like the female heroines' designer fetishes, the gay characters in "Sex and the City" are still trapped in some very glittery late-'90s amber. . . .

Of course, there's nothing wrong with a glitzy, kitschy wedding, or a gay man who loves fashion, but the problem is the fact that, in the "Sex and the City" universe, that's the only form of gayness that exists. The characters are stuck with a neutered marginality, a world bathed in sparkles and camp in which the term "broom" isn't considered offensive or infantilizing and Liza Minnelli still rules the discos. It's a culture, unbeknownst to many straight Americans, that has long since disappeared from the life of the vast majority of gay men. For people my age, who came of age in the '90s, the mainstreaming of gay culture meant pushing away from those clichéd ideas of gayness and finding new icons. Not Liza but Ellen. Not show tunes but indie rock. . . .

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, here's one other thought that's come to me several times over the past weekend: Are the Sex and the City movies any different from, say, the films of Douglas Sirk, in terms of their melodrama or their silliness or their female-orientedness or their initial critical reception (about which I admittedly know very little), and if not, then is it possible the Sex and the City films will get an appreciative academic re-evaluation in 30 or 40 years too, and maybe even a Far from Heaven-style quasi-remake?

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know all those people who say that Sex and the City 2 goes out of its way to offend Islam? Now here comes Kyle Smith to say that Sex and the City 2 defers to Islam too much:

The shabbiest, smirkiest, most unbearable moment of "Sex and the City 2" arrives when the girls sing "I Am Woman" on a karaoke stage in Abu Dhabi - a country still run under Islamic Sharia law that officially subjugates women.

The "Sex" soft pedal is only part of a disturbing turning point in how the United States sees Sharia. Last month, the American Academy of Pediatrics, in the name of cultural diversity, condoned the deliberate harming of the genitals of baby girls. Genital mutilation was wrong, it said, but a "ritual nick" is OK.

And the plan to build a Ground Zero mosque - to be run by a so-called "moderate" imam who nevertheless believes Sharia should be imposed everywhere - continues to move forward. . . .

Just as the "ritual nick" is supposed to be genital mutilation lite, so Abu Dhabi, in "Sex and the City 2," is presented as Islamism lite.

The girls fret about whether their sisters in the United Arab Emirates city are being oppressed - but don't want to be too judgmental. They are cheered to note that some women in veils and head-to-toe abayas choose to decorate them. Own it, girl! Also, underneath it all the Muslim women are wearing top designer labels - so actually they're quite advanced.

True, Carrie Bradshaw wonders whether the veils are meant to symbolically silence women (ya think?), but the movie draws a parallel between this practice and what happens to Carrie in The New Yorker - where a male reviewer has published a snarky review of her new book accompanied by a cartoon of Carrie with tape over her mouth. Get it? Men silence women at The New Yorker, they do it in the UAE, it's all kinda the same thing. . . .

Sentences of flogging for adultery are still common [in the UAE]. Men are legally allowed to beat and rape their wives. Islamic education is mandatory and commands girls to obey their fathers and brothers. Men even keep women from the Internet - human rights groups (which are barred from Abu Dhabi) estimate that 94 percent of UAE Internet users are men. Abortion, of course, is illegal, as is premarital cohabitation.

But in "Sex and the City 2," which mostly gives Abu Dhabi fawning tourist-brochure publicity, the only real problem is the comic mischief of Samantha getting arrested for making out on a beach. This doesn't cause her to do any time, or even to be thrown out of the country - her only punishment is that her hotel suite is no longer comped. (So why not find a cheaper place down the road?)

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Karina Longworth:

What's more condescending to the audience: Sex and the City 2,or reviews of Sex and the City 2? (I haven't seen it, this is an actual query)

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, Steve Sailer has (re-)posted his review of the first film, in which he makes this comment about the TV series that started it all:

. . . The 1998 TV series was to Helen Fielding's 1996 novel Bridget Jones's Diary as Dick Wolf's 1990 TV show Law & Order was to Tom Wolfe's 1987 novel Bonfire of the Vanities. Wolf made a fortune by taking Wolfe's sardonic story of New York cops and prosecutors hunting for "the Great White Defendant" and stripping out all the satire. Similarly, the gay male writers behind Sex and the City started with Fielding's spoof of "urban families" of stylish single women who undermine each other's chances of landing a husband by constantly gathering over drinks to nitpick their boyfriends, and turned these mutually-destructive circles into a fantasy about friendship.

It was never actually about female solidarity, but about female competition for alpha males like Mr. Big. Nevertheless, women hate to be seen as competitive, so "Sex and the City" displayed the nice side of cliquishness, minus the nasty side: these social X-rays wouldn't be seen dead in the company of 99 percent of their fans.

The trick was to make women viewers feel less awful about the big mistakes they've made in their lives by making their bad decisions feel fashionable. Misery loves company.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guardian: Why the Sex and the City 2 reviews were misogynistic

Women-led films often attract sexist derision. Yet critics rave over male films such as the execrable Hot Tub Time Machine. Why the double standard?

I didn't enjoy Sex and the City 2. The script was blunt and repetitive, the characterisation illogical, the set-pieces overlong, the direction sloppy, the tone erratic. The scenes in Abu Dhabi were shallow, baffling and ignorant. Writer/director Michael Patrick King now has to tote this big glittery cake of caca on his CV for ever.

Oddly, though, for a film written by a man, the critics' insults were reserved for women, in a dazzling display of put-downs. Sukhdev Sandhu in the Telegraph sneered at the women for "all getting older" adding that Sarah Jessica Parker "looks like a cross between Wurzel Gummidge and Bride of Chucky", while Miranda "looks badly embalmed". In the Observer, Philip French ridiculed the "bitchy heroines" who enjoy "an orgy of self-pity" and described Carrie as "equine" (horse-like, people).

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn Kenny @ Mubi (formerly The Auteurs) responds to the James Bond analogy that I and others have made over the past few years:

Like that Russian Blue in the first Cats and Dogs movie says, "I think not, baby puppy." Whatever the hell James Bond does, he doesn'tcavort. Also, when have you ever seen him drunk? Also, he doesn't have a particular penchant for friggin' caviar. Also, he saved the world and Western Civilization and Fort Knox and so on and so forth from near-certain doom, and done so in the case of the world and/or Western Civilization practically dozens of times, so I'd say the guy is fully entitled to his pleasures. What the hell has Carrie Bradshaw ever done, except write a bunch of stupid columns (they're not even real, full columns, they're just voice-over fodder) that she then collects into a stupid book that she presumptuously files next to a critical classic by Susan Sontag? Huh? Huh?

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn Kenny @ Mubi (formerly The Auteurs) responds to the James Bond analogy that I and others have made over the past few years:

Like that Russian Blue in the first Cats and Dogs movie says, "I think not, baby puppy." Whatever the hell James Bond does, he doesn'tcavort. Also, when have you ever seen him drunk? Also, he doesn't have a particular penchant for friggin' caviar. Also, he saved the world and Western Civilization and Fort Knox and so on and so forth from near-certain doom, and done so in the case of the world and/or Western Civilization practically dozens of times, so I'd say the guy is fully entitled to his pleasures. What the hell has Carrie Bradshaw ever done, except write a bunch of stupid columns (they're not even real, full columns, they're just voice-over fodder) that she then collects into a stupid book that she presumptuously files next to a critical classic by Susan Sontag? Huh? Huh?

Kenny is showing his lack of familiarity with Bond. Bond has been drunk (see QUANTUM OF SOLACE), and consumes caviar quite frequently in the films.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenny is showing his lack of familiarity with Bond. Bond has been drunk (see QUANTUM OF SOLACE), and consumes caviar quite frequently in the films.

On the drunk thing, in a franchise with 22 entries, I'd suggest that we can allow Kenny one "gimme," especially if it's [a.] the most recent film in the franchise, and [b.] as disposable and tonally out of step with the appeal of previous films as Quantum of Solace. (After all, Kenny didn't say "Bond has never been drunk." He said "When have you seen Bond drunk?" and if the answer is "Quantum of Solace," it's easy enough to bracket that one film for the reasons alluded to.)

I have no brief on the caviar thing.

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...