Sex and the City 2 Reviews
05.26.10 by reelz
Not that it will matter much or is even relevant to the hard-core fan base (i.e. women), but these male critics are not liking much about Sex and the City 2.
"Critics will carp about the platitudes in the script and about the longueurs in the nearly 2 1/2-hour opus, but for the core audience, there will be no complaints about too much of a good thing."
— Stephen Farber, Hollywood Reporter
"Many fans of the series will enjoy this wallow, just as they turned out for the first feature, although I wonder if anyone on the planet, including writer-director [Michael Patrick] King, honestly believes Sex 2 makes the most of its running time. The best episodes of the TV series were marvels of compression; here, for every amusing exchange, we're stuck with two more that run on three times longer than they should."
— Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune
"Part of the action occurs in the desert, which inadvertently proves apt, since the oases of enjoyable moments — and they do exist — suffer from being spaced too widely in what's otherwise a long, arid trek."
— Brian Lowry, Variety
"...the Sex and the City movies don't hold up to the TV show because they're awfully short on what made the program frequently special: its sweet, arguably idealistic vision of female friendship. Sex and the City 2 works when it remembers that ethos..."
— Ed Gonzalez, Slant Magazine
"...(it's all) pretty thin gruel."
— Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times
SEE ALSO: Sex and the City 2: Sequel or Photoshopped Prequel?