My mouth is still agape from reading bitchy Rex Reed's review of the Sex and the City movie in the NY Observer. I hate to give him any more ink (Is it really ink when you write a blog? Screen time? Blogosphere-time? I digress...), but I suspect the vitriol laced tirade by this hack was motivated by something OTHER than his hatred of the movie.
He begins his 'review' with the following: "There’s nothing wrong with Sarah Jessica Parker that couldn’t be cured by wart-removal surgery. That growth on her face just gets bigger with every close-up, and in the full-length movie version of Sex and the City it’s so distracting you can’t concentrate on anything else. It’s not a beauty mark. I guess you can’t tell a co-producer anything, but listen up, girl. At this point, you would make a wonderful Halloween witch. Unfortunately, to fix all the things wrong with Sex and the City, you need more than a scalpel."
Rex Reed, obviously known the world over as a supermodel, apparently doesn't like his actresses to look real. God forbid any chick in Hollywood doesn't iron out and carve themselves into What's even more infuriating is that there's so many inaccuracies in the article, I am highly dubious that he even saw the movie. He refers to the ladies as "predatory 40-somethings" and "cougars". Um, how do they fit this description exactly? All four characters are in monogamous relationships in the film.
He also says the ring Smith bought Samantha is $ 5,000 (wrong, not even close), that they sit around and whine about orgasms (don't remember that conversation), that they play poker with "$300 Hermes playing cards" (never happened) and "they all march off to Lenox Hill Hospital" after Charlotte gets pregnant. Say what? That. Did. Not. Happen. Did this dude see the same movie or what? Next he'll be discussing how crooked Mikhail Baryshnikov's pirouettes were.
It's easy to beat up on Sex and the City. As I waited in line for my ticket Friday night, I was amongst hundreds of 20-somethings dressed like dime-store whores. These are the gals that make hetero men the world over who don't watch Sex and the City think that it's only about cosmo-fueled one-night stands and weird fashion. But, at its best, it actually was an emotional roller coaster about relationships. Kind of like life.
Now, did I think the movie was as good as, say, the "Carrie cheats on Aidan" years? No, I didn't. But, I thought it was pretty good, and I think that if a film critic is gonna beat up on a movie, they better have the goods to back it up.
Perhaps the most telling of Reed's statements? "Miranda dumps Steve for staging a meaningless (but understandable) one-night stand with somebody else".
"But understandable"??!?!!
Mirror Mirror on the wall, who's the most misogynistic of them all?
