[Christian]

This is one of the more sensible posts I've come across at The American Prospect's TAPPED blog:

I agree that 2 and 1/4 hours seems hellishly overlong for a mediocre-at-best sitcom, but it would actually be pretty lean for a Bay-era action movie. The inexplicable, tedious bloating of unambitious genre pictures is a phenomenon that far precedes Sex and the City. Window-dressing male characters? Not only would negligible female characters be so common that it would belabor the obvious to cite examples, but plenty of Michael Manns acquire very lofty artistic reputations despite little ability to create interesting female characters.

So I don't see anything uniquely problematic here. Women deserve crappy Hollywood product too.

This post has been edited by Christian: 02 June 2008 - 03:51 PM

[Jason Panella]

I ended up seeing this on Friday — was visiting a friend, and two of her roommates were big fans of the show.

And despite some vapidness and really awkward sexual parts, I...um...liked the movie overall. I felt like there were some themes of maturity, forgiveness and monogamy that were much deeper than surface level.

(Oh, and this all comes from having never seen the show before.)

This post has been edited by Jason Panella: 03 June 2008 - 12:27 AM

[Overstreet]

Andrew Sullivan:

I went to see it last night. It makes The English Patient seem too fast-paced. After an hour (of many), I felt a very rare and very sudden desire to watch a lot of a NASCAR.

[Overstreet]

Sex and the CT: Christianity Today Movies' feedback page is one wild ride today.

This post has been edited by Overstreet: 03 June 2008 - 11:03 AM

[Overstreet]

This. Is. Awesome.

[Christian]

That was funny.

Better than the movie? Probably.

[Jason Panella]

Sex and the CT: Christianity Today Movies' feedback page is one wild ride today.

My hyperbolometer broke while reading that, Jeff; some of the comments there make the Coldplay reviews you posted last week milquetoast-ish.

[Overstreet]

If you feel like responding to any of them, I'd be interested in revising that post about the letters on my blog...

This post has been edited by Overstreet: 03 June 2008 - 04:35 PM

[Mrs. Zug]

Saw the movie on Friday, and over all I really liked it. I have many thoughts, but I'll start with these.

***spoilers***

Today a friend asked me for a detailed synopsis of the movie - she's not typically a movie-goer, but was generally curious. When I was describing the theme of forgiveness as it played out between Steve and Miranda, then Miranda and Carrie, I said to my friend that it reminded me of the passage in scripture about forgiving others because you have been forgiven much.

I looked it up, and it's from Matt 18 - the servant whose large debt is canceled, yet he goes to the man who owes him just a little, and has him thrown into jail. The first servant is called wicked for not being merciful, though mercy was shown to him.

I was really bothered by Miranda's hard heart toward forgiving Steve, and it seemed even her friends thought she was being too hard on him. It wasn't until she admitted to Carrie her role in Big's cold feet on wedding day (telling him he was crazy to get married) - when she found herself begging Carrie to forgive her - that she was able to consider reconciling with Steve.

I also appreciated the role of therapy in Steve and Miranda's reconciliation, the idea that they submitted themselves to get help, and that their therapist wasn't some kind of new age nut job. And then there was that zinger of a line delivered by Steve, "How am I supposed to trust that she won't hold this over my head forever?" That brought so much complexity into the situation, and made it much less black vs white, or me vs. you - driving home the need to forgive completely.

I appreciated that Carrie, over the course of time, finally came to terms with her own role in Big's cold feet - that she had built up their wedding into a media circus of hundreds of guests, a designer dress, and an announcement in Page Six - losing sight of the marriage itself. She was caught up in the fairy tale drama of her own wedding, and it scared the shit out of Big. Admitting that it wasn't as clear cut as being completely Big's "fault" was what opened the door for them to reconcile.

I also appreciated a movie about mature women finding love and dealing with their issues. Being the oh-so-mature woman that I am (wink), I'm growing tired of the 20-something love story about the pretty girl who just wants to find her prince charming.

[Jason Panella]

You bring up some great points, Mrs. Zug. I was more than ready to dismiss the movie when I entered the theater, but just can't. It's left me with a lot to think about.

It's not a great movie, by any means. But some of the plot elements were so, well, meaningful that I just refuse to write the movie off. The scenes with Miranda and Steve were especially effective. The more I think about the movie, the more I'm glad I saw it. Love letter to fans of the show or not, at least I feel like I can be happy that the filmmakers did end by emphasizing the necessity of forgiveness, strong and selfless friendship and — most surprisingly — monogamy.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Will Hollywood embrace femme pics?
Horn says New Line topper Toby Emmerich is busy exploring the possibilities for a sequel he jokingly dubs "Sex and the Suburbs."
Variety, June 6

[Overstreet]

Nicolosi casts her vote in favor of Sex and the City.

[Overstreet]

Focus on the Family launches a missile at CT.

And about 100 comments pile up.

This post has been edited by Overstreet: 10 June 2008 - 10:24 AM

[Wilson Smith]

It seems like Ted Slater completely missed the point of CT's defense of the movie. Also, the title "Christianity Today Relishes Sexual Perversion" is pretty telling as to the content of the actual letter. I mean, why open up a meaningful dialogue with other Christians about the nature of film criticism and the merits of movies with "worldly" perspectives when you can just hurl ridiculous accusations. Repent CT, repent for giving Prince Caspian two and a half stars.

[Greg Wright]

My open letter to everyone who calls upon someone else to repent:

REPENT!

[Peter T Chattaway]

Overstreet wrote:
: Focus on the Family launches a missile at CT.

The two details that leap out at me:

One, again with the Prince Caspian star-rating comparison. C'mon, people, the two reviews were written by two different people with presumably two different points of view (and one of those people, i.e. me, hasn't even SEEN Sex and the City yet, so I couldn't compare the two films if I wanted to). And isn't it at least possible that Caspian got the rating it did partly for not being as Christian as it could or should have been (certainly when compared to the original book)?

Two, the accusatory reference to people -- including CT writers/readers? -- "ogling at" the nudity in the film is all, all, ALL too reminiscent of "Dr." Ted Baehr's Movieguide magazine and its "review" of Monster's Ball, which accused Roger Ebert of "ogling the naked breasts of Halle Berry", even though Ebert had actually critiqued the film for dwelling TOO MUCH on Berry's nudity. Do we have any reason to believe that Ted Slater's use of the word "ogling" is any less presumptuous?

[Overstreet]

Hey, look!

Focus on the Family's Ted Slater Relishes R-Rated Movies!

[Jason Panella]

The comments following the World article may be — just very well may be — more mind-numbing than the Slater article. Maybe I should watch Left Behind again to calm myself.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Jason Panella wrote:
: The comments following the World article may be — just very well may be — more mind-numbing than the Slater article. Maybe I should watch Left Behind again to calm myself.

[ LOL! ] Okay, now I gotta read 'em.

[Overstreet]

My response to the whole Focus on the Family brouhaha.

Written with my characteristic brevity.