1) Firstly, the fact that you are using ‘feminist’ in a derogatory way is a sad indictment of you and the rest of society who believe as you do.

2) Please tell me where in Sarah’s blog, she maintains that the 4 characters ‘define the whole of womankind’? It absolutely does not say that, please read it again.

3) The Top Gear analogy does not work as that is a non-fiction show presented by real people, whereas SATC is a fictional creation.

4) SATC is political because it wants to be. It thinks it is ‘empowering’ women. It is not ‘lowest common denominator stuff’. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the series will know that it does aim for a feminist message (although I am in agreement with Sarah that it fails in this attempt).

5) Also, this isn’t a movie review! It is a blog. If you don’t know the differance, please look it up. And as for saying that this entry was written before the movie came out, please take 2 seconds out of your day to read the first line of Sarah’s second paragraph.

6) Finally, on your last point, please tell me where in the article these ‘odd’ claims are made.

I completely understand people objecting to Sarah’s opinion on the grounds that they believe SATC is empowering, or successful in its message, but to dismiss the political/social side of ANYTHING, let alone something that has for years attempted to portray a social message, is just plain naive.

Why oh why must 4 or so characters define the whole of womankind? They don’t define what women are, they define what THEY are. Individual characters.

Thats like saying an episode of top gear ‘defines’ all men as being environment-hating, pipe-smoking, fox-hunt-loving middle class drivers of gas guzzling cars. Yet no men ever complain about the ‘definition’. Most men accept its just a funny show. (I, for example, have never driven, am very eco conscious and don’t smoke or wear silly jackets. I’m not up in arms at this sexist portrayal. I just laugh.)

I fail to see how SATC is in any way political! Film reviews should be about plot, character, direction, casting, music, acting, not a political rant which was probably written before the film was even released! The film doesn’t set out to smash down these perceived social barriers, or change the way we think – it sets out to make people smile, to ENTERTAIN! (and to make a shedload of $$$ for the studio. It’s lowest common denominator stuff here…the color purple it ain’t.

I find your extrapolation of the mindset of a few characters in a film to represent 50% of the world’s population a little odd.

Though the idea of Kim Cattrall getting paid to ‘act’ is abhorrent, isn’t S&TC just a bit of light fun?

In all honesty, I went to see this film because my three closest friends wanted to see it, and we were going out to dinner afterwards. I will also admit that I went with a closed mind, and while I do think that it did work as a piece of entertainment, I found the gender politics and the commericalism far too much to handle. (Yes, SATC may be all about fashion, but I find the concept that material goods make you happy distasteful and frankly wrong) My ideas of feminism may be slightly different to yours. I don’t believe SATC portrays empowered women, and what I can’t stand is when articles about the show claim SATC itself is making a feminist stand. It is not. These four women remain within the realms of the feminine. They discuss shoes and men and gossip. While I disagree with the idea of gendering concepts, we need to aspect that in our society, these ideas have been coded as feminine, and are generally accepted as such. We rarely see other aspects of their lives, and when we do, they are often in relation to their ‘women-ness’.

Of course we’re never going to agree on the matter. I disliked the film, you loved it, and I’ve had a similar discussion with numerous people, most of whom agree with you and not me. There is just something about SATC that puts me on edge, something about the idea that we are being sold ‘empowered’, but who still exist within a sexist world.

I cannot agree with this review, just another opinion that goes with what every other newspaper has printed, in order to give people what the reviewer’s think they want to hear: a tirade on how bad such an eagerly anticipated film is. Much easier to slate than appraise, as ever.

Yes, it did contain a lot of commercial branding. But then that’s what Sex and the City is partially about: pretty things, and FASHION. Not only would I expect anyone who had watched at least one episode of the series to realise this, but I would also hope that some sort of appreciation of the fact that, yes, sorry to say it, it is a movie, and people expect to be entertained. Of course you don’t see Big buying a suit, its a film with the four women as the protagonists, not the men.

The women are not exclusively defined by the men, but do they play a huge role. How naive to say that love, and relationships in general, do not play an equally large role in our lives. Again, its a program about sex and relationships, are you really surprised that it played such a crucial role in the film?

Feminism seems to play a surprisingly large part in your review, but how archaic is your view of feminism? These are, to my eye, liberated women, who feel free to pursue whatever pleasures they wish, from sex, to work, to shopping. In terms of empowering women, I think the frankness with which women can now talk about sex and relationships is largely down to programs like Sex and the City. Taboo subjects such as masturbation are now acceptable table topics with one’s friends; surely this can only be a good thing?

I’m confused as to what you expected out of this film. If you didn’t really like the series anyway, why watch it? Of course the Hollywood finale to a series about sex and shopping and everything in between was never going to please you. For the rest of us SATC fans, however, who grew up watching the program and can quote whole episodes by heart, it was a triumph. I thought it was very well acted, equally moving and funny, and a suitable celebration of SATC’s principal message, not that ‘women need men’, but that people need people, in all different ways and forms. What a shame that reviewers like yourself feel the need to shit all over it.