- For too long, Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) had been looking for love in all the wrong places?but in all the right shoes. In this much anticipated movie event, Carrie, Samantha (Kim Cattrall), Charlotte (Kristin Davis) and Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) are back, four years after the hit TV series ended. As they continue to juggle career, relationships, motherhood and life in Manhattan, the girl
Product DescriptionStudio: New Line Home Video Release Date: 09/23/2008 Rating: R. . . More >>
I have a Samsung Blu-ray DVD player that is less than 3 months old. This movie will not play on it. All I get is the black screen.
My other movies play fine, so I rented a copy of this movie to see if the defect was in the one I bought. It’s not,it appears an incompatability issue between this film and my player. I notice that someone who bought the non-Blu Ray version of this movie had the same problem. I wasted my money.
Rating: 1 / 5
This person sold me a junk dvd that I believe to be a bootleg. I tried to contact them twice to resolve the problem and they never contacted me back. DO NOT BUY FROM THIS SELLER!!
Rating: 1 / 5
The DVD didn’t play on multiple TVs or multiple computers. When I contacted the seller for a refund or functioning product there was no response. I would not recommend this at all. It’s likely the product won’t work for future orders either. If there was an opinion of negiative stars it would apply here.
Rating: 1 / 5
My dvd died when they went to Mexico. I can’t return it because it’s already opened. This pretty much sucks and I won’t be buying any more videos from Amazon. Thanks for asking!
Rating: 1 / 5
Perhaps because I so adore the television-series, I so loathe this big-screen debacle.
Let’s start with “the small stuff”: the heinous product-placement. I’m not talking about the Manolos, the Louis Vuitton, or the Dior (that’s not “product-placement,” that’s love of haute couture) . . . I am talking about the ubiquitous Vitamin Waters, the close-up of Carrie’s new Sprint phone, the shopping-bags from Bluefly (and if you’ve never shopped Bluefly, you should know it’s a “designer outlet” . . . as in last year’s Prada-rejects . . . decidedly not “Carrie”). It is insulting to be bombarded with these pedestrian (if not “bargain-basement”) items that have little relevance to the work. Take note, Michael Patrick King: your audience picks-up on these things. Try a more subtle approach in the future.
Now, steady yourself for the real criticism: the writing. Once clever and witty, the film adopts an entirely low-brow tone. Gone are the double-entendres and witty retorts . . . instead King has given us only the basest of conversation. (Without any nuance in the script, Samantha becomes especially abhorrent and Charlotte, a bit dim-witted). In the most unforgivable moment, the writing sinks to an extended “bodily-function” joke (no spoilers). It is bizarre and debasing. (When Miranda had her own mishap while changing Brady’s diaper, it was funny and real . . . when it happens between adult women, well, it seems like something a teenage boy would write). Yuck. (And, I’m not entirely convinced that one’s more cosmopolitan friends would find it amusing).
And while I’m not opposed to “low-brow” (hey, I dig Will Farrell films), I AM opposed to hack. Here’s what I learned from King’s “illuminating” writing: 1. ) children repeat words they hear adults say, 2. ) children are messy eaters, 3. ) Jennifer Hudson is well endowed 4. ) and “illegal Cuban” cigars are the best. Thank you for repeatedly stating the obvious in the most stilted, awkward manner possible. And all the ado with the “love” key-chain . . . gag. Oh, and King, the auction-scene . . . it’s been done a THOUSAND times! (See: The Cosby Show: “The Auction”). That PAINFULLY PREDICTABLE moment ranks as the second-most unforgivable moment of the work. Bottom-line, I was struck breathless by the surface-writing (to the point of absolute frustration).
Writing aside, King’s struggle to transition from television to film was evident. The direction and framing were fairly sloppy (occasionally, I was unsure where King wanted my eye to focus). And the “Honeymoon segment” . . . I was instantly catapulted back to “bad” on-location sitcoms . . . the shots in Mexico reminded me of “The Brady Bunch: Hawaii Bound”: bad color, very bad sound, horrendous approach all-together.
Had this film been thoughtful and fun, the TWO HOURS AND TWENTY-EIGHT minutes would have been a joy. Instead, every second that elapsed destroyed the memory of a genuinely great television series. (And, it must be said that this was not a problem with the actors — who gave their best. This was a problem with script/direction/production). At this epic run-time, why didn’t the cast and crew just invest in a reunion season??!! (They could have slowed-down the production a little and genuinely focused on an honest, compelling story).
This film currently has a giant “SPLAT!” at Rottentomatoes . . . these are professionals who gave it a 54% approval-rating as of this hour. Many former-fans will not allow themselves to view King’s work as anything but pleasant nostalgia . . . many will find themselves laughing at the half-hearted jokes and empty-minded comments. But critical viewers (as in, the “smart-viewers” that the show once attracted) may walk away angry. REALLY ANGRY.
Rating: 1 / 5