Well, Mrs. Grandstander and I made our way to the dumpy Showcase North Cinema tonight to catch the new "Sex and the City Movie." the theater was fairly crowded for a late afternoon showing, and I think I spotted one - count him - one other guy in the audience! That's OK, though. I am secure enough in my masculinity to pull this one off!
I was a fan of the HBO series, and enjoyed the first SATC movie two years ago, but I gotta tell you folks, with this money-grab of a movie, Sarah Jessica Parker and Company have definitely jumped the shark.
I will only tell you not to waste your money at the theater on this one. If you REALLY feel the need to see it, wait a few months until it hits the Redbox and rent it for a buck a night.
Only a few observations to share with you:
** It hurt the movie by having the bulk of it movie take place in Abu Dabi. They should have kept the setting in New York City.
** The climactic scene of the movie with the girls getting out of Abu Dabi was ridiculous. Lucille Ball was doing this schtick - and doing it a lot better - 55 years ago on "I Love Lucy."
** The four stars should fight at all costs this movie EVER being released on Blue Ray disk or being shown on HD television. All four of them looked really bad. It has only been two years since the last movie, but it looks they all aged about thirty years. What was with Cynthia Nixon's hair color?????
OK ... It's a lazy Saturday afternoon ... nothing to do. (Should I rearrange my sock drawer or go see SATC II?) Me, I choose the SOCK DRAWER! Wow, Grandstander, I'm not sure which is worse: Going to this movie, or admitting it in a (once proud) blog that spotlighted real movie moments. Talk about "Jumping the Shark". (I expect your best shot in return).
ReplyDeleteBigPoppy:
ReplyDeleteI am shocked - SHOCKED - by the shot you have fired at me in your post, and I am offended that you catagorize The Grandstander blog as having jumped the shark. Is it because you feel that the SATC franchise is a "chicks only" pleasure? I expect someone who includes semi-annual trips to NYC to take in Broadway shows to be more broadminded than that. Besides, I am sure you noted that I said that SATC 2 was not a good movie. In fact, as time goes on, the movie only gets worse.
I will chalk this up to BigPoppy just getting up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, and hope that he continues to be a Loyal Reader AND respondant to the posts.
The Grandstander will now go downstairs to begin the process of downing a six pack or two of Iron City (and I mean Iron City, not Iron City Light) in preparation for the marathon of Clint Eastwood movies that are airing on TMC tomorrow.
p.s. - in what movie was the phrase "I am shocked - SHOCKED - to learn...." used?
Grandstander:
ReplyDeletePerhaps I DID over-react to your viewing choice. As a card carrying metro-sexual myself, (my sons sometimes refer to me as their "gay" Father due to my frequent Broadway trips.) That's why I practice juggling power tools on lazy Sunday afternoons, while watching the Indy 500.
OK, I'm not a fan of SATC. A 54 yr. old is NOT too old for me, but Kim Cattrall still trying to sustain this sex-kitten role ... please. Yes, I did read where you panned the movie ... (good thing).
I was thinking that your Brothers might dial-in the Gman on this topic. Enjoy your Iron and "Here's lookin' at you, kid" ... your always loyal reader, Claude Rains
PS: I don't subscribe to Showtime, but my wife and I are seriously addicted (thru Netfix) to the series "Dexter". Have you seen it? We're just finishing season 3.
B.P. (not so good having those initials these days),
ReplyDeleteA Facebook Friend informed me that in the first season of The Golden Girls, Rue McClanahan was one year younger that Kim Catrall is now!!!
As I said, this second SATC movie was a pure money grab. And while I wish no one ill will, here's hoping that the movie dies at at the box office after the first weekend, thus sparing us a THIRD SATC movie.
Have not seen Dexter. We are not Showtime subs either.