May 29, 2008, - 1:31 am

“Hags and the City”: My Review of Trashy, Anti-Male “Sex & The City” Movie

By Debbie Schlussel
A national IQ test for women takes place starting tonight. It’s called, “Sex and the City,” the movie (SATC).
If you like this TV-show-turned-feature-length-film and you’re female, you failed. If you like it, and you’re a guy, you threw away your man card long ago. You’re not a failure. Just gay (like the people who created this show) . . . not to mention, completely bereft of testosterone.
When, early in his Presidency, George Bush had never heard of the TV show, he was attacked in New York Times reporter Frank Bruni’s book for that. But, au contraire, it was a badge of honor for him and one of the few things that marked his intelligence and good taste.


A close-up shot of a woman’s pubic hair sticking out of her bathing suit, and another woman defecating in her pants–both are, um, “highlights” of the SATC movie. GUH-ROSS. I thought I was watching a bad, juvenile frat boy movie. This is what substitutes for haute culture for women in America, these days. Very sad. But not as sad and miserable as these four haggish women, who like their former TV show, can’t be called “past their prime” because they never were “prime.” Just primitive . . . and reliably sleazy and low-class.
Unfortunately, they’re Delphic oracles to far too many American women, if the long lines of drooling women who packed four large theaters at a promotional screening I attended were any indication.
And the diarrhea accident and unsightly giant vaginal hirsute protrusion shot are just the bathroom “humor” in “SATC,” in which three 40-somethings and one 50-something make up a foursome of bawdy, aging women who wasted their lives sleeping around, cackling about it, and acting like immature, 20-something sex-crazed male dogs in heat. Because they dined in glamorous places, wore trapezoid shaped clothes and $1,000 fancy high heels, this somehow made their low-brow, savage behavior, “classy.”
With their conduct and bitterness in addition to their age, if these women were even a day older, they’d have to change the title to “Sex and the Cat Ladies.”
Disgusting and vulgar, and coupled with so much angst, screaming, shrieking and crying, watching this movie I thought I was caught in the middle of the Spitzer marriage on the day Client-9 was unveiled. Painful to sit through, not to mention for about 2.5 hours. Peppering it with way too many gratuitous shots of sky-high-priced stiletto heels (which, in the case of SATC, are the real “axis of evil”) and bizarre fashion–far more than the TV show ever did–doesn’t make it any more bearable. If I wanted to look at the Nieman Marcus catalog, I’d stay home and read it on the couch (and see the merchandise on real, glamorous models, not women who look like male transvestites). Equine star Sarah Jessica Parker, looking particular male-with-makeup on in one scene, dons an ugly turquoise bird in her hair. Blech!
For the record, I was never a fan of SATC, the HBO TV series, which takes place in New York . . . or at least the New York in Gloria Steinem’s own special torture chamber fantasies. Four women–at least, we think they’re women–who look like female impersonators in drag think and act like they’re supermodels.
The star, Parker, who looks the most drag-ful, plays a loser sex and dating columnist Carrie Bradshaw, who constantly gives herself over to use and abuse by a series of dysfunctional and/or philandering men who are cold and can’t love. Is there any other kind of men in SATC? Uh, no. (The occasional exceptions are men who are so horribly naive and innocent as to be childlike.) The love of her life–“Big,” whom we learn is named John James Preston, as if we care–is the worst of them. And he does it even worse in the movie, something we thought was resolved at the end of the TV series.
There’s Cynthia Nixon as Miranda Hobbes, the lesbian-esque lawyer with shocking red hair who plays man to the chickish male bartender she uses and abuses and whose kid she fathers, er . . . gives birth to. Wasn’t Miranda the name of one of one of the elderly witch aunts on “Bewitched”? Very apropos. She’s more butch than ever in her behavior in this movie. In real life, Nixon left the fiance-father of her two kids for a lesbian relationship. Shockingly, she’s the “female” in the relationship. Think she’s happy?

“Sex and the City’s” Cynthia Nixon (Right) w/Lesbian Partner

Kim Cattrall is Samantha Jones, the oldest of the bunch and most vain. She consumes her life with skin treatments, sex toys, and sex acts with near strangers and total strangers. In real life, we call that a “sex addict” or “the most used piece of equipment in the gym.” In SATC’s alternative hate-men-iverse, it’s called “empowerment.” Or is that . . . empowerwomynt?
She’s lucky SATC came along to rescue her from her previous Shakespearian reputation as the mannequin in “Mannequin,” as a slut in the raunchy “Porky’s,” and as a character in a movie called, “Live Nude Girls.” Now, Catrall’s a much hipper, wealthier, more “respectable” brand of slut in SATC, and she has nicer clothes. In real life, Catrall–who wrote an explicit sex book with her much younger husband and then divorced him–is living out her character’s life and not seeming to enjoy it much. Despite her self-proclaimed expertise on sex (she’s written two books on it), she’s had three failed marriages. So much for alter egos in the world of glorified on-screen sluttery.
And finally, there’s Kristin Davis as Charlotte York, who also has been, ahem, “victimized” by rich men who date and marry her. No biggie that she’s a gold-digging idiot who got what she deserved and is more annoying and naive than words.
The movie version rehashes the same old stories that were put to bed four years ago when the show mercifully ended. It’s like exhuming the rotted corpses of unworthy people you could barely stand, and for no apparent reason you must look in vain for a gold tooth among the worms and porous bone. You never find the gold, though.
Is there a point to this movie–other than to make money for the Hollywood figures involved and rehash and reinforce man-hating and miserable, sex-crazed attitudes and lives? Oh, I guess there’s one point, which is the soft-core porn element of this flick. These aging actresses gotta show us they’re still in shape and flash their breasts onscreen–in one case sprinkled with sushi. That, and way too many explicit sex scenes and close-ups of men’s naked butts en flagrante delicto.
Why watch sleazy porn and be labeled a perv, when you can watch this garbage and have the kosher seal of approval from America’s feminists and the phony mainstream media, all gushing over SATC phony “kitsch”?
The only classy thing in this entire movie is the presence of the talented Jennifer Hudson, the Academy Award winning actress and former “American Idol” contestant. And that’s why her character doesn’t belong anywhere near these walking disease incubators.
I suppose Hudson was inserted into the movie–as Parker’s assistant–to answer the complaints over the years by Black America, that there were no Black women in this fashionable pay cable TV gang of hos. See Ebony and Jet, now your prayers about the ultimate in civil rights–close to equal homie billing with the most haggard foursome of whores–have been answered.
Filth and male emasculation–the staples of the TV show–are even more plentiful and pungently rancid in the onscreen version. Shocker.
Is this really what women want? Forget all the raunchy guy movies that have come out in recent years. None have anything on this grotesque celluloid piece of trash. If you’ve ever called men pigs or chauvinists or decried their alleged collective behavior toward women, but yet you like this movie, you’re a hypocrite. The men in our world have nothing on these pigs in skirts.
Men are from Mars. Women are from . . . aging slut hell. But, hey, their jewel-encrusted stiletto Manolo Blahnik satin pumps cost a fortune.
And that’s all that matters.

21 Responses

Hmmm… sounds good. I’m going to see it asap…. NOT… ๐Ÿ™‚
It was a good laugh reading your review Debbie. Keep up the good work.

cinerx on May 29, 2008 at 4:00 am

One question…. why do women like Cynthia Nixon date butch women that look like men when they can date men?
Can never understand that.

cinerx on May 29, 2008 at 4:04 am

I watched half an episode of the TV series once and that was enough. Vomit inducing trash. Thanks for the review Debbie…you’re a champion at not mincing your words and skewering that which is utterly worthless in this world. Indeed this film is poisonous and consciousness damaging…..when you think of all those impressionable teenage girls who will see this, lap it up and allow themselves to be indoctrinated into hatred of men and, most sadly, bottomless and irredeemable narcissism. The creators, producers and writers of SATC are gay men and it’s an all out attack on heterosexual relations.

johndoe on May 29, 2008 at 6:20 am

What’s the point of being a post-modern woman? That a woman can be exactly like a man – no – be a man? Gay men in SATC can’t teach women what it means to be man or even how men should act around women. And if the point of women’s lib is that women should feel free to sleep around and skip marriage, then I think an Iranian mullah is right about feminism. It hasn’t gained women much respect in men’s eyes and if equality means giving up being a woman, then that’s the kind of equality women can do without. They won’t see it on display in SATC and in the rest of contemporary Hollywood’s portrayal of the would be “fair sex.”

NormanF on May 29, 2008 at 7:38 am

What Deb doesn’t understand is part of the ‘soap’ formula. You have working class plots, and upper class props.
Anytime there is real money on the table, people get way circumspect and cagey: the action is much more subtle, hence less exiting.
In something like this you have to use the ‘stump broke’ so that the target can identify with them.
Here’s one for you. I used to see full-sized cutout of women in beer add when I went to the liquor store. The eyes were the key: they always looked unhappy or unsure. I think that was the hook. In this case the women are way on the fringe.
Charles McCarry has used SITC formula himself in a way.

taffy on May 29, 2008 at 8:51 am

I never wasted my time watching it on HBO so I damn sure won’t spend good money in a theater. Talk about 4 loser bitches whose lives are as f***ed up as Hogan’s goat. What is it with women who have a supposedly decent relationship with men yet get this divine revelation it’s time to eat carpet and, in Nixon’s case, end up with the female version of Danny Bonaducci. What a moonbarker! She gave up the meat monster for that? I wonder if Matt does SJP with a bag on her face so he doesn’t feel gay? I’m getting way off track here but, what the hell, it had to be said.

1shot1kill on May 29, 2008 at 10:25 am

taffy, “What Deb doesn’t understand is part of the ‘soap’ formula. You have working class plots, and upper class props.”
That does indeed explain a lot. I’ve always wondered why it’s supposedly chic among women to enjoy trash like this, Doprah, The V(Shr)iew, etc. and that seems to nail it.
At least this movie and other media of it type has a useful purpose. It just shows that feminism and “women empowerment” is really a sham, just an excuse to indulge in trashy behavior like a man. BUT!, as long as you look nice and cute it’s OK.

Jeff_W on May 29, 2008 at 11:06 am

I could never understand why anyone would waste precious time watching Four Whores In New York, let alone Four Old Whores in New York (cougar edition).

Kalifornia Kafir on May 29, 2008 at 12:19 pm

You are right, why do some women praise a show like SITC and scream about how horrible men are fore doing the samething that these women do. And it is hypocracy to do that. Where are the decent women who want men to act like gentlemen? Where are the women who can’t stand shows like SITC and want guys who are loving and not complete scumbags? I didn’t watch very much of SITC when I had the chance, but it’s complete garbage and trash for the senses. The movie should come with a warning before the movie starts, WARNING: If you follow the behavior of these women, then you will feel worthless, will most likely end up with countless Sexually Transmitted diseases including AIDS, and end up feeling completely miserable because you want a man who is a real man and not the discusting pig that you keep having sex with. Deb, if you know of some women who want to meet and be friends with nice guys, let me know OK?

Navynate on May 29, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Just when I was beginning to believe that there is an inherently defective gene of the 2nd X chromosome that causes enjoyment of “Skanks in the City”, I read Miss Schlussel’s review of the film. Thank you for restoring my faith in womankind, Miss Schlussel!

Defeat_Islam! on May 29, 2008 at 2:11 pm

According to the Drudge headline at this hour, not one man could be found at the UK opening.
What is disgusting is this movie is sold out in London where women are flocking to the theaters and this UK paper is giving it rave reviews:
“Every screening of the highly-anticipated film is expected to be sold out across the weekend.” “Those lucky enough to see the comedy on its release were raving about it this morning.”
Apparently man hating and raunchy low class sex is in vogue in London.
Go figure, I am with Debbie on this one.

ScottyDog on May 29, 2008 at 2:20 pm

A friend just told me yesterday that her friends are trying to talk her into seeing it. If she sees it after reading your deluxe review, I’ll never speak to her again! :รณ)

TallT on May 29, 2008 at 2:39 pm

How sad they don’t know what sex they are. The one in the tie thinks she’s a man.

John Harper on May 29, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Are you kidding me?? They really want us to see 4 dinosaurs get laid on some false basis that they’re somehow “Hawt”?
Not only did reading debbie’s review make me lose my appitite, but I question the sanity (and relevance) of a human being who thinks this show turned movie is appealling.
If your a female or a male that like this, then you are an irrelevant human being. Unforently UK women are.
And how dare that lesbian in the suit tries to pull a Haruka Tenoh (another sailor moon reference!!). Give me a break. I couldn’t go near that…that thing with even a 100 foot pole.
Watch this movie get alot of ad time on TV the rest of this month and into june in the mainstream. -_-

Squirrel3D on May 29, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Come to think of it, men might like Samantha Jones in the original cable TV series but only as a one night stand. She wouldn’t be the kind of the woman they would want to marry. Men like sex but being with a perpetual impossible to satisfy nymphomaniac is not their idea of a good time. Miranda Hobbs strikes men as too emasculating – is there a guy on earth who wants to be ordered around by a woman? In other words, what guy wants to be the wife in the relationship? Not one who has testosterone in his veins, that’s for sure. Charlotte York strikes a man as “Daddy’s Little Girl” – she’s the opposite of Hobbs in not only being spoiled rotten but in also allowing a man to walk all over her. A man looks for a partner, not a doormat. Finally with the leading woman in the quartet, Carrie Bradshaw – let’s just say that someone who doesn’t know the first thing about sex and relationships shouldn’t be qualified to write about it. They are all the women men wish they never want to bring home to Mom and spending awhile with one of them would probably be the “Date From Hell.” I do realize the “chick flick” genre is supposed to be nonsensical and funny. But I have a hard time imagining that is the kind of girl bonding – I mean in the movie – that real life women do. “Sex And The City” in that regards, is vastly overrated.

NormanF on May 29, 2008 at 4:50 pm

This kind of movie signals the end of western civilisation.

johndoe on May 29, 2008 at 6:19 pm

I have only caught a couple minutes of the show, here and there. When I saw the million dollar condos and expensive garb, I thought the 4 were (somehow) kept women. The show looks like something a bitter single girl would write. In fact, I think that is the case.

supercargo on May 29, 2008 at 7:23 pm

I have never even watched an episode of the TV program. The title is a complete turn-off to begin with.

TheOmegaMan on May 29, 2008 at 9:16 pm

Debbie and readers…
Even as a world class cynic, I am really surprised at the mostly favorable reviews of this piece of dreck.
Movies used to be better than TV…
And, please: What’s the deal with Sarah Jessica Parker? Are we at the point when any woman who is not fat is considered sexy?
From this hetero male– SJP is a case of bad face, mediocre body, so what?

Red Ryder on May 30, 2008 at 8:59 am

On the plus side, “No Parasan” and “Audacious” have made this flick the centerpiece of their next man-date.

DocLiberty on May 30, 2008 at 10:52 am

The only worse, more dishonest, and misleading version of SATC would be if the 4 “ladies” behaved the way they do – and suddenly magically became happy, fulfilled people wearing expensive shoes. That would truly be insidious.

At least with the existing version of the show and movies, smart girls who were exposed might asks themselves, “Am really I doomed to a life of using, being used/acting desperate, creating more desperation?” and choose something else.

Unfortunately though, every magazine cover in every check out line in every part of the country, says SATC is right, and smart girls are wrong.
(And for every cover, there’s a show/movie, ad campaign, book, celebrity, blog/site to match.)

A girl would have to have been born to defy the universe, been raised in a vacuum, or carefully and strategically been trained to resist.

elizabeth on May 30, 2011 at 1:53 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field