(andPOP) - The critics who lamented Sex and the City lost something in its translation to the big screen have forgotten something: it wasn't a very good show to begin with.
Don't get me wrong: it was a good show. It was a three-and-a-half star show. It was groundbreaking, certainly. Even now there's nothing else - on TV or in movies - that's quite like it. It was gloriously frank; unlike many half-hour sitcoms in the late 90s (and possibly today - I wouldn't know since I stopped watching them) Sex and the City could actually show sex and thus its characters engaged in sex rather than always talking about it, which left them free to also talk about other things, which ironically made Sex and the City one of the least dirty shows on television. Most importantly, it was consistent - whereas many character driven shows are either cancelled before their time or continue airing long after their time has passed, Sex and the City paid attention to its characters, maintained its talented writing staff, and gave everyone room to grow. After six seasons it wrapped up just as it should have, bringing each of its major storylines to a close and yet, like all great entertainment, leaving its audience wanting more.
So of course there was demand for a reunion. But consider: Each of these women have continued living their lives, except (we hope) with less drama. Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) ended up with her longtime on-again, off-again boyfriend, Mr. Big (Chris Noth); Charlotte York (Kristen Davis) lived happily ever after with Harry Goldenblatt (Evan Handler), her former attorney; power lawyer Miranda Hobbes (Cynthia Nixon) got everything: the job, the home, the husband (Steve Brady, played by David Eigenberg), and the kid; while Samantha Jones (Kim Cattrall) became stinking rich managing her boy toy, Smith Jerrod (Jason Lewis).
Now drama requires conflict. Stability does not provide conflict, which is why we often go to movies in the first place. Series head Michael Patrick King (who wrote and directed the movie) essentially had three options: conflict between the girls (unlikely), within the girls (the neuroses of all four were explored thoroughly in the show), or with outside forces, such as their boyfriends or a vacation destination (also unlikely, since nearly any excuse to send the girls, none of whom like travelling, outside New York is going to come off as contrived, while issues with their boyfriends were also thoroughly explored). And he must leave the girls wrapped in the same kind of bow they were wrapped in when the show finished. What to do?
King picked among the lesser of these evils. He threw in some curveballs which initially feel contrived, but are quickly accepted (which also happened on a fairly regular basis in the show). He threw in at least one instance of toilet humour (something along the lines of Miranda discovering tread marks on Steve's underpants). He made deals with top designers and shows off their fashions early. And he threw in labels, labels, labels. No mention of Carrie's beloved Prada bag, but there is a lovely pair of blue Minolos.
The film is by fans, for fans: if you're not familiar with the series, I can't see you liking the movie. The series took time to grow on you, and even at its best wasn't for everyone. SATC newbies will look at the movie, turn away from the affluent, selfish characters and focus on designer labels, and complain that it's too long. (Two and a half hours, or five episodes of the show.) SATC fans wouldn't have it any other way.
The only complaint I can make actually is that Carrie's gay friend, Stanford Blatch (Willie Garson), barely has three lines in the entire film.
