Rotten Tomatoes

Mildly Enthusiastic Review: Sex and the City (movie)

Once I finished the six seasons of Sex and the City proper, I figured I’d re-watch the first movie that followed in 2008 because I had a (wrong) impression that it completed the characters’ stories.

er-sexandthecitymovieSex and the City (the movie)

Category: Movies

Find it on: IMDb

What it is:
A continuation of the show made in 2008 to the great excitement (and then disappointment) of fans, it tells the further story of the four friends but mostly of Carrie’s failed attempt at marrying Big. However, it mostly serves as a thinly-veiled vehicle for product placement.

How I found it:
I watched this movie soon after it came out and while I didn’t love it, I didn’t pay attention to how bad it actually was.

Summary judgment:
Wow. I don’t so much mind the flat story and the bad jokes but the world view I found downright offensive.

Best things about it:
The clothes have gotten so extravagant as to become a form of art and I like the visual part of the whole thing (except for Parker’s general look).

Worst things about it:
I guess to me the worst part, and the most surprising one, was the body shaming the women subject one another to. They criticize one another over weight-gain and body hair, not the kind of supportive friendship the show sold us on, and not the kind of message I’m comfortable with from a franchise masquarading as “feminist.”
On a more general level, the writing fails hard. Everything drags as if they needed to fill the space between advertisements (for Starbucks, for Mercedes-Benz, for all the fashion brands) and didn’t quite know how. Carrie’s marriage drama feels so contrived you just want to tell her to get a hold of herself: throughout the entire movie when we’re supposed to feel sorry for her I kept wanting to shake her because yes, the whole thing was her fault and didn’t merit all the hysterics.

Other pluses:
✤ Carrie’s potential apartment is pretty, I guess, and the library where her wedding doesn’t happen looks great, too.
✤ Charlotte’s mutts. Yes, scraping the bottom here.

Other minuses:
✤ I always found it surprising how Miranda is one-sidedly villified over her anger with Steve, who cheated on her. I feel she has every right to be angry and the film never acknowledges that. In what world is Big’s transgression worse?
✤ Ugh, the terrible jokes. It’s like somebody belatedly remembered the “comedy” part in the romantic comedy and added the funniest thing of all, diarrhea.
✤ Yes, Samantha’s sex object of a neighbor looks good but this kind of reversed-male gaze (I’m not sure if it’s called female gaze in a case like this, when it’s objectifying a man) made me really uncomfortable.

How it enriched my life:
It didn’t. The whole thing should’ve ended with the show. This is such a clear, unneccessary money grab.

Fun fact:
Apparently even Cynthia Nixon doesn’t like the “happy ending” of the movie? It’s an internet fact though so don’t hold me to it.

Follow-up:
I’m never watching it again. Also, guys, I did see the second movie back when it came out but it was so abysmal that even this movie seems okay by comparison so I’m not re-watching or reviewing it.

Recommended for:
Completionist fans of the show who don’t mind having their good opinion sullied. Also, people who don’t know the show but like really empty, mediocre romantic comedies without much humor or romance.

Enjoyment:
★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆

Next time: The Dud Avocado

Advertisements
Standard
Show Case

Mildly Enthusiastic Review: Sex and the City (show)

Sex and the City was one of the more exciting shows of my high school years. I would wait for it on Saturday evenings (I wasn’t all that popular, in case you were misinformed) and feel somewhat naughty for watching it. But the show is going on twenty now and watching it today feels different.

er-sexandthecityshowSex and the City (the show)

Category: TV shows

Find it on: IMDb

What it is:
One of the most iconic TV shows before people talked of any golden eras in TV, tells the story of Carrie Bradshaw, her three best girl friends and their quest for love and sex that lasted six seasons (and two terrible movies that barely count).

How I found it:
I watched two or three seasons on TV, though not quite regularly, and then I systematically re-watched everything a couple of years ago. This time now was my more or less third watch.

Summary judgment:
This time didn’t impress me as much as the previous ones. In fact, parts of it left me bored.

Best things about it:
Twenty years ago, in its own way, the show was fairly revolutionary in its portrayal of a certain kind of relationships: both their psychological and physiological aspect. At least back then, it felt honest and surprisingly open.
The writing is often very smart and funny, with clever juxtapositions of different storylines and surprising conclusions to them.

Worst things about it:
I would say seasons one and six because I enjoyed them the least. But from a more general point of view, if you don’t buy this show for what it is, you will be irritated by so many things: its outdated approach to homosexuality, the vacuity of the characters and their ridiculous economic conditions, their occasional cruelty and forced problems. Bergman this ain’t.

Other pluses:
✤ Some of the clothes and, to a lesser extent, some interiors are lovely to look at for the sheer aesthetic pleasure.
✤ The many things Miranda says.
✤ The characters (arguably except for Carrie) all develop and grow, which is one justification for six seasons of a show like this.

Other minuses:
✤ I once read somewhere that the show owed its success to Parker’s likability but I mostly find her childish and irritating, particularly in the moments when she’s trying for endearing. I don’t expect you to remember but there’s a scene in which she talks about Aidan’s “nook”, which perfectly embodies everything I dislike about her.
✤ In the first season or two the show is still looking for its style, with the mockumentary street interviews and too many random characters. It grows better when it gains the courage to drop these crutches.

How it enriched my life:
Now it hasn’t particularly. But the first time I watched it I was in high school and I learned stuff from the show (often very theoretical stuff but isn’t most knowledge, particularly in high school?). The second time I really admired the writing and got quite interested in all the long-term stories.

Fun fact:
Not a single one of Carrie’s relationships was halfway functional. But I always liked Charlotte and Harry. Theirs was a fun story.

Follow-up:
I did watch the movie. We’ll talk about it. I might get back to the show some time but I need to forget most of the stories because this time it bothered me how much I remembered what was going to happen.

Recommended for:
Single ladies. Fans of the early 2000s culture. People in love with New York or, I guess, Sarah Jessica Parker.

Enjoyment:
★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

Next time: Let’s whine about the movie

Standard
Show Case

Wildly Enthusiastic Review: The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel

re-themarvelousmrsmaiselThe Marvelous Mrs. Maisel (season 1)

Category: TV shows

Find it on: IMDb

What it is:
A show created by Amy Sherman-Palladino of Gilmore Girls, except this one is about something specific. It takes place in New York of the 1950s. Midge Maisel, a beautiful, rich young wife, faces a crisis in her personal life and responds by becoming a stand-up comedienne – as one does.

How I found it:
Vulture was ecstatic about the show and the premise sounded interesting so I decided to check it out.

Summary judgment:
It is pure delight.

Best things about it:
Gilmore Girls is one of my ironing shows whose main advantage is its number of seasons and that you don’t need to pay attention to it. But Mrs. Maisel is nothing like that: it has focus, purpose and a very specific vision which shows in its direction, colors and even music. It is a joyful show which doesn’t rely solely on cuteness. And Rachel Brosnahan’s portrayal of the main character adds to the overall delight of the show: you just want to have her charm and chutzpah (and her figure).

Worst things about it:
I guess I connected with Suzie the least. I understand her role in the show but she feels to me the most like a Gilmore transplant and sometimes the relationship between her and Midge is ordained rather than earned.

Other pluses:
✤ I loved Abe played by Tony Shaloub. In this show about strong women he does hold his own and I find his vector lecture (or its conclusion) the funniest scene in the entire season.
✤ The visuals! This fairy-tale, music-hall New York is a place you want to be immediately transported to.
✤ You can hear how much attention the creators paid to the selection of music and it really pays off. The music defines the mood of many scenes so perfectly.
✤ This version of Lenny Bruce is quite a charmer.
✤ While Joel sometimes plays the villain of the story, I appreciate that he remains gray and Midge’s love for him is understandable. Too often the viewer can’t feel anything for the cheating husband and the drama of divorce doesn’t hold up.

Other minuses:
✤ Some, not many, scenes ran a little too long and had me waiting impatiently for the next, more exciting act, particularly if they included Imogene.
✤ I guess making Midge (or her parents) rich can be seen as a cop-out (it’s weird how much she doesn’t have to worry about money and can uphold the lifestyle even after the separation) but it allows to focus on different problems so I didn’t really mind.
✤ Main minus: I wish there were more episodes!

How it enriched my life:
It made me laugh and I learned about stand-up comedy (not a subject I ever felt overly interested in) and it even made me feel Christmas atmosphere for a while.

Fun fact:
Apparently Amy Sherman-Palladino said she wanted to make a show about a woman in the 1950s who didn’t hate her life and that might be the best description of the show and of what makes it so attractive (and also an explanation of why many shows today don’t work for me at all).

Follow-up:
It was one of the occasions when after finishing the show I wished there was more. So I’m definitely up for season two.

Recommended for:
Fans of period pieces, 1950s New York, the history of stand-up comedy and smart shows with a girlish side.

Enjoyment:
★ ★ ★ ★ ★

Next time: The Glass Castle (the book)

Standard
Rotten Tomatoes

Mildly Enthusiastic Review: Fantastic Beasts

I like most things Harry Potter and so, even though I wasn’t really waiting for it impatiently, I was quite ready to enjoy Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. And while it was pleasant enough to watch, I must say I expected more.

er-fantasticbeastsFantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

Category: Movies

Find it on: Amazon

What it is:
A Harry Potter movie spin-off from 2016, written by J.K. Rowling herself and directed by David Yates. Newt Scamander, the author of the fictional textbook Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, arrives to New York with a suitcase full of fantastical animals. He plans to go to Arizona to release one of his beasts into his natural habitat but he gets sidetracked by local politics, the beasts’ escape and his own budding love – and somehow saves NY magic community, too. Ah, and it’s the 1930s so we get some allusions to the original HP series but no real players make appearances.

How I found it:
The usual way, IMDb trailers – plus all the buzz online and posters in the streets. You know, millions-worth marketing.

Summary judgment:
It looks so good but the story leaves much to desire.

Best things about it:
The visuals work great, particularly the presentation of New York: it’s very pretty in its sepia colors inspired by old photographs. I liked the look of the streets and of people (even if some of the streets looked a bit sleepy for such a huge city). The beasts didn’t excite me quite as much but that’s my personal indifference, they are probably very competently CGI-ed.

Worst things about it:
It feels like an adaptation of a book you didn’t read. But there is no book! However, the movie is created as if there is a story behind that you don’t quite follow. In other words, for a while there I wasn’t sure what – or why – was happening.

Other pluses:
Casting was partly great: Jacob and particularly Tina’s sister (I had to google her: Queenie) worked for me and I’d prefer them as focal points.
I liked glimpses of the stories that could’ve been fascinating were they in any way available to us. I feel like there is an untapped potential in the story.
I liked how real the actress who played Tina looked, much as I found her character bloodless and forced.

Other minuses:
I don’t quite get the idea behind this story. It feels like a patchwork of  different elements desperately sawn together. There’s no great reason for Newt to be the hero of the main events (other than the metro scene where the frightened boy is pictured like a wild animal?) – pretty much anyone else would have a better reason to get involved and his expertise is almost useless for the main plot, until he suddenly and unexplainably knows who the main villain really is. (I guess his knowledge of clichés told him?) All the escaped animals feel like a filler and distraction without any real bearing on the story. Many of the developments thus appear incidental and unmotivated.
And I had a real trouble understanding Eddie Redmayne’s speech, which tired me and made it impossible to relate to his character. Not the greatest character choice.

How it enriched my life:
I spent some relaxing moments watching it with R just enjoying the movie night(s) but that’s just about it.

Fun fact:
While I’ve read Harry Potter series many times (and some books in a few languages just for practice) and I even suffered through Cursed Child, so far I’ve drawn the line at Fantastic Beasts and Quidditch Through the Ages. Restraint.

Follow-up:
Even if they tap into the potential I sense here, I don’t really expect to be watching the second instalment. It would have to get some soaring reviews, I think. However, I feel another HP re-read coming on.

Recommended for:
Die-hard fans of Harry Potter (but you might be disappointed). People who like period pieces mostly for their pretty looks.

Enjoyment:
★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆

Next time: Musée Jacquemart-André

Standard
Bookworming

Fairytale in New York: The Golem and the Jinni

er-thegolemandthejinniAround St. Valentine’s I happened to read something more or less love-related so here comes a thematic post.

The Golem and the Jinni by Helene Wecker will appeal to all you (us) Gaiman fans, at least those who always thought there’s too much pop culture savviness in his books and not nearly enough tenderness. It tells a story of end-of-nineteenth-century New York with its crucible of cultures, each of which brings its own legends and, unknowingly, magical creatures. Yes, something like American Gods but with less sex and way less gods.

As the title immediately informs, the protagonists are the golem, come from around Gdańsk, who represents Jewish culture, and the jinni, from a Syrian desert, who lives with Christian Syrian community. Their stories start separately but come together somewhere in the middle of the book, the encounter possible thanks to the magic of New York.

While the love that will ensue (is this a spoiler? I guess it’s obvious from the title) is not particularly thunderous (it evolves rather than erupts), another love dominates it: the one for the city of New York. New York of the novel is a mythical place, not only inhabited by magical creatures but also, like any true myth, it brings together opposites. The rich and the poor meet in the same parks and people exist both as a part of their secluded community and of something bigger that grows out of it. I quite enjoyed walking this city with the characters.

Like the city, the golem and the jinni struggle to unite oppositions: their generic nature that makes them act one way, and the confusing expectations of humanity that they’ve joined. Like most fairy tales, this is not particularly difficult or nuanced but the attempt to understand human beings – resulting in deciding to join their society – is interesting. Of the two creatures, I found golem much more engaging. She struggles maturely with her situation, not like a brat whose toys are taken away, the way the jinni sometimes acts. But also, the Jewish community itself held more attraction for me, maybe because of Gdańsk (or, historically accurate, Danzig, but we don’t like this name) and because Jewish culture is part of the literature I come from.

I also felt that the natures of the golem and the jinni reflected on, rather stereotypical, natures of women and men. The golem is born to submission, she lets caution guide her actions and passes the time with drudgery. The jinni rebels against caution, human ways and boring jobs, walks the city at night and leaves heiresses pregnant in his wake. I was wondering what would happen, were they the opposite and decided the male golem would be dull and the jinniyeh (which is apparently female jinni) irritatingly loose. So, I guess those stereotypes are not going anywhere. But the character who steals the show is actually the villain, the golem’s creator who arrives to New York in quest for eternal life: the author manages to make him both repulsive and fascinating as a villain should be.

Definitely not one of those grand reading experiences that stay with you forever, The Golem and the Jinni still read great and kept my interest; it even managed to be poetic at times. Sometimes (or, quite often) that’s all you ask of a book. Happy Valentine’s, especially to those of you who spend it with a book.

PS. The one scene that intrigued me was when the golem and the jinni met a couple of other unidentified-but-probably-supernatural creatures. I like that it was never explained who they were.

Standard