Roll credits.

Hilarity ensues.

Starring Warwick Davis of course.

They burst into flames.

Roll credits.

Though Burt was okay in it, dealing with those new graboids with small arms fire and some form of hand-to-hand combat.

Now, if it was indigo...

Seriously I've heard female mates throw around the words 'feminist' and 'girl power' around with this pile of shit show. If this is feminism exerting itself then god damn get the whole lot of them back in the kitchen quick. Admittedly it's introduced a lot of nice impressionable girls that being a slut and shagging around is acceptable since ironically all men are bastards, so i guess it balances out.

Since the movie seems to have taken the risque element out of the equation though then what ungodly purpose does it serve. Bah.

Problem solved.

Now, if you CAN'T imagine being one of those characters (say you're male, straight, country lovin', non-American, religious, nice, etc.), you see the show through a very different lens, and what you see is shallow, self-indulgent, possibly horrifying.

I promised the wife I would take her. I better get some buttsecks afterwards!!!

Could not have been put better.

egg86, what rape imagery? That's just how you viewed the headline.

If you ever see a woman order a cosmo at a bar, you can be sure she lives and dies by this show, and you can read her like a book from there.

But I'll repeat my axiom. If you and your girl have to drag each other to movies, if the same movies (or TV shows for that matter) don't click with each other, it's not going to work.

Which gives them all the more reason to not put up with this trash really.

A bad film is a bad film.

Love it. Makes me think there is some pool of horse-face chicks out there praising the success of another horse-face. I wonder if all the horse-faces get together for meetings.

''I just couldn’t get over how much this shared in common with BRATZ''

Harry give this guy a break! or does Massa actually seek out these flicks over normal movies!?

1. "Add to that the fact that it is extraordinarily light on plot to begin with and you might understand why I was beginning to crave the cold taste of steel from the barrel of a colt about 45 minutes in."

2. "Montage after montage after montage with each and every problem finding a solution by the fabulously dressed four getting together, squee-ing in a pitch that will deafen dogs and neuter most of the males in the audience, and realizing that friendship will get you through any bout of rampant self-absorption."

3. "Oh, so this is what happens when you leave Bratz dolls in the sun too long." Ouch.

4. "I pity any man who walks into this with his girl thinking he is in for just the usual hour and a half ass pounding only to discover that instead he’s entered a two and a half hour oubliette from which there is no escape.

Instant classic. Thank God for this site.

On the other hand there's a show like Seinfeld, which had shallow characters, but made it clear they were awful people. They were not heroes. Instead, the audience is supposed to recognize their own failings in the characters without putting the same characters on a pedestal.

But what do I know. I can count the number I've times I've seen Sex and the City on one hand.

The key difference between the shows, other than the respective talent involved, was that Seinfeld never never never never EVER took itself seriously.

See, related to horse face Parker.

I'd agree with Emu, though. Guys get much better/realistic roles in SATC than women do in Entourage.

Help me. I am in Hell.

This show, while vaguely entertaining in small doses years ago, is incredibly annoying now--and Kim Cattrell's hot body is not enough to make me watch it. I will be seeing Indy for the first time this weekend, rather than "Horseface, Her Shoes, Her Bitchy Friends and Their Mom in the City".

That's sorta rhetorical. I know the answer.

My favorite line of this review: "squee-ing in a pitch that will deafen dogs and neuter most of the males in the audience". The icing on a great cake.

I have no concern for or interest in this film, but sight unseen, 2 1/2 hours still sounds staggering. Even two-part season finales on TV don't go that far.

Note: don't do this trick for the second or third date, and don't do it too often. Also, your best bet is to continue having problems for the rest of the night, even after you've left the theater.

really?

I think i've confused this movie with The Dark Knight.

I don't want to see this.

I think i've confused this movie with The Dark Knight.

I don't want to see this.

And I saw one episode of this show and never wanted to again. The 'insights' of the voiceover were laughable, especially since the writers seemed to think that what they were seeing was all deep and insightful about relationships. Instead, it's just shallow, narcissistic bullshit. I will never see this movie.

Not that I'm complaining or anything. That's entertainment, baby!

Much like the women who it portrayed, and a lot of the ones who watched it undoubtedly saw much of that in themselves.

And I haven't seen a ton of episodes, but I have seen enough to know that they're no more sexually promiscuous than alot of tv characters. They have alot of sex, but the only one is who fucking people off the street is Kim Catrall's character. Kristin Davis' is the epitome of the prude. I actually admire how upfront the show is about sex, wish more shows had the figurative balls to follow suit. I found the show to be fairly entertaining, if shallow. It is not on my top 20 list of favorite shows or anything.

As for them being whores, I don't think i need to point out the obvious double standard here. Men can have casual sex till the cows come home and it's fine, but when women do it, they're branded sluts? or cougars? How many single, 40-year-old men would turn down sex with a good looking woman 10 years younger than him? Not many.

I just don't get the hate for something so innocuous. Especially when there is so much love on this site for its male counterpart, Entourage.

.........

YES I'm being sarcastic. Even trying to sound like an AIC apologist makes me feel a little sick inside. :(

Also lay off the title, it's perfectly in keeping with his style. There's a good chance that he might have liked SATC if it was a good film. Now go buy yourself some pretty shoes and let us guys talk, ok toots?

I think this should pretty well settle the S&TC debate.

Jokes aside, that was one of the funniest things I've read here in a looong time! Thanks, Massa!

Thank you, Uncle Vern.

We AICN TBers are like a family and so we go through good times and bad times. This may be more a bad time but what the hell.

What I'm trying to say is, I LOVE YOU ALL GUYS! AICN ROCKS! YIPPIE-KI-YAY MOFOS!!!

The ONLY people at my workplace who are excited about this movie and won't shut up about it are a gay guy I work with and two of his female friends.

Your politically-correct, "oh-so-sensitive" and overly- longwinded whining over the "misogyny" you claim to see in this talkback really comes off as not only mealy-mouthed pandering to some imaginary PC entity, but pure BS, considering that you've seen (and contributed to) FAR worse than this EVERYDAY for years, working for AICN.

So, please... spare us your self-righteous "shock" and stop wasting all of our time with your crocodile tears of "sensitivity".

There really is nothing like AICN Talkback. It is the Outback of the Internet. So, I find it strange to think that the TBs have somehow overshadowed the efforts of the site's editors and contributors. But I'm not really surprised when I consider the various rogues and scoundrels that we as a messageboard community are sometimes left to police on our own.

Anyway, I never would have commented here as I have no interest in the SEX IN THE CITY film. However, I saw your big ass post and thought it deserved a tip o' the hat. Cheers.

Please return normal service so that I may continue to keep a narrow-minded view of reality in keeping with what George Bush tells me.

Many Thanks

Gunther P. Olaffson

I pity you all that may have to.

Better find things to add to it.

I took a hit with the Devil Wears Prada, but luckily read the book first so managed to worm out of it.

"The SATC girls are the type of girls, that are older and you know you can fuck. So you take them home, do the nastiest shit possible that you can think of to do to them, then laugh about it with your buddies the next day. That's what the show would be like if they did it from the guys perspective. "Dude, last night I was fucking doing this old chick like all doggy style, and my buddy was hiding in the closet. So I pulled out, and he jumped in and shoved it in her ass. Then he put on this Werewolf mask he has, and she's got like no idea he's there, so he spits on her back, pulls out, she turns around, screams and he spooges all in her stupid face. Werewolf Ass Fuck. Classic. That bitch was dumb."

You are never, ever going to generate positive buzz for this here, so why waste the time?

Let me count the ways you are a fucking plant:

1) New ID. Always a giveaway.

2)"I was fortunate enough to have been invited to the premiere of "Sex and the City-The Movie". Being a HUGE fan of the series, the free ticket was like manna from heaven. I couldn't hide my anticipation. And that anticipation was not for naught." Revolting. Loathsome. Vile. No-one writes like that other than puff-writers preparing their press kit. (I used to do it, before you say anything)- and nobody posts on the internet like that. Classic Plant Speak

3)"The sardonic wit, the it-feels-good-to-be-in-love moments, the bonds of friendship between our four lead girls, the sense of fun and abandon, the turning-the-table-on-men, the fashion, New York City, and of course the sex - -albeit toned down just a teensy-weensy bit."- Did you cull that from the TV guide? and why tell us it is toned done in such a pretend cot fashion? Why is it toned down anyway? Sorry, digression.

4)"Some thought the movie was too long, but for us fans the 2 hours and 30 minutes were enough if not short" Classic attempt to spin a negative into a positive. BTW 2 hours 28 minutes is far too long for a chick-fick. It is too long for most things.

5)"So to all SATC fans, see you at the theatres. Because I am definitely going to see this movie again to hang out, laugh with, cry with, and have fun with our girls and our friends Carrie, Miranda, Charlotte, and Samantha" Emphasise the positives. That's very good. But down turn it into some sort of "experience". Nobody is going to fall for that. How the fuck are they "our girls" anyway?

6)"It is because life rarely lives up to our fantasies, and we need friendships that are real or reel to get us through it all."- I'm actually lost for words by this. The most nauseating piece of PR prostitution I think I've ever seen here.

7)No Spoilers. Plants never spoil

8)No actual information about the film. Not a single word mentioned about plot points, performances, direction, score, script etc. Your review is a sales sheet puff piece, and worth only contempt.

What gets me is that most people here with significant others (gay or straight) are probably going to have to see this. They have accepted it and there is a sort of grim gallows humour among the condemned. Don't reply to this post, it's a waste of your time and a waste of mine.

Calling SJP a "horse-face" doesn't make someone a sexist just because she's a woman - cruel, maybe, but not a sexist. And neither does despising the superficial aspect that the show promotes and caters to. There are some sexists who have posted here, but that doesn't make every single person who criticized and hated on this movie a sexist.

As for the Massawyrm title, that did make me cringe a little. But AICN is all about the suggestive sexual titles. I've seen titles which suggest pedophilia. Massa seems to be following the trend which already exists on this site, and the more shocking, the greater the reaction.

This site reeks of bad taste and offensiveness quite often, like the time Quint and his joke contest chose a racist joke involving a parrot calling a black man the "N" word and asking if he wants watermelon. The worst part was, no blackboxes came to voice their disgust.

But as for this talkback, its pretty tame. You have normal guys voicing their dislike for a superficial chick flick and show, then other guys getting offended and calling the talkbackers names, and then a few bigots peppered in throwing around slurs of all kind. As far as offensive talkbacks go, this one is not even close to being up there, and the offensive comments are limited to a few isolated people, so the outrage is really blown out of proportion. Pick your battles.

I'd buy that for a dollar

(stands up)

*clap... clap... clap... clap, clap, clap -- clap!clap!clap!clap!clap!clap! clap!!!!*

Jarv: best line spoken by Clarence Boddigger in Robocop: "Bitches leave."

Robocop is great.

Seriously, how fucking retarded are you? And how fucking retarded do you think we are? Jarv pointed out your most obvious tells, but at this stage I would have thought your marketing cunts would have adapted a bit better.

Go fuck yourself.

I couldn't believe the brazen audacity of it. What a dick.

"What is it Philbrick?"

"Sir, it's the Talkback hordes, again, they're getting restless. One of the reviewers has stirred them up."

"Whaddyamean restless? Don't they like tits and ass? Doesn't everyone love that show?"

"No sir, they think it's reprehensible, and the women are ugly"

"Call in the Plants, Philbrick, call them in now"

However, there is no doubt that the tone is set from the very top.

When I first joined this site, I did so because I wanted a 'geek clearinghouse' and like it or not, AICN is the most recognized geek fan site name out there (by the casual fan at least).

It was only after I had experiecned the 'no-holds barred' mentality around here, and the childish glee of being able to say any word in any combination about any topic, that I realized thoughtful discussion, while possible, is not the norm here.

This site was founded by geeks who have never left their childhood behind, and that same feeling is rapidly is picked up by the TB'ers.

It is not a surprise then, that some extremes of childish behavior are common.

And I raise my hand an plead guilty to indulging in that childsh side more than once myself.

But, where I applaud you, and a few others, who have tried to be a voice of reason, is that even in a wide open frontier such as these TB's, there should be some decorum.

Someone else posted that perhaps we should pause before pushing the 'post talkback' button.

That is one of the best ideas I have heard around here. It will not stop the wildness, but any little change will help.

Those who are complaining about Vern citation of misogyny in the talkback, I think you misunderstand what misogyny is. It's not just calling someone ugly or saying you don't like a TV show. It is referring to women in general, or even women who watch a particular show, as sluts who you want to bang in whatever orifice and toss to the side. Read his posts if you don't believe me. He very clearly picks out those posts and differentiates them from the "chocolate covered pussy" or gross out posts. For some reason misogyny is more acceptable than racism. Why? I have no idea.

I have an idea why. The thing about this show that irks me is how it represents the relationship between men and women as an "us against them" type of battle. A strategic war. And yes, there are many guys who see it that way too, like guys who hang out in clubs, but they aren't necessarily the majority.

But now you have these damaged reactionary females who think that playing these games and viewing relationships in this way is part of empowerment. So I see a lot of the comments in this talkback as reactionary to that mentality, which plays the relationship between men and women as a type of battle, and this show feeds into that.

Is it the reaction acceptable? No. Understandable? Yes.

Let us extend the it's just words argument. Sex and the City is just "words." They really aren't going around having sex with a bunch of guys and buying expensive shoes. Words signify something. In the case of Sex and the City, the show signifies a shallow view of women. Some of these talkbacks signify a lack of understanding of the hurtful nature of rape and display a shocking dismissal of women in general. Women are far more varied and complex than this show makes them seem, and how apparently some of the talkbackers view them.

I know it says SEX AND THE CITY and not A WOMAN, but being this particular show/movie so women-centered, and being Massawyrm a guy, it's fairly obvious to read the title as heterosexual sex, so don't go there either. My point is, I don't think is funny, nor the epitome of mysoginy, but it does set the tone of the pretty fucking childish and offensive talkback that ensues later...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 80529/ap_on_en_tv/dunkin__donu ts_ad_pulled;_ylt=AgsgDtQtLLFx leSMOXbBrCEDW7oF

People you CAN make fun of: The Rich. The White. The Christians. Males. Any combination of these is okay to mock mercilessly.

People you can NEVER make fun of. Ever: Minorities. 'Cause if you do, you're racist. Women...if you do, you're misogynist. Gays. What are you, a homophobe?! Radical Muslims, yep, you're an Islamophobe. The Disabled. That's just wrong (TIMMYYY!) And probably animals. Those PETA people are hardcore.

Good one! No?

There, much better.

This is something we've come to expect at this site. The perverted DVD picks and sexually suggestive titles and sometimes explicit reviews which make you cringe. So is anyone here truly surprised by this??? A "Sex in the City" review on this website??? The review and response were completely predictable. So in response to those asking why racist articles or titles are different, its because at this site that is not expected (yet). So when I see an article containing racism with a talkback that follows suit, I'm left saying: "Whoa...what?!!" I'm genuinely surprised and normally disgusted, but in this case this was run-of-the-mill.

I still come to this site nonetheless, so I haven't reached my breaking point or been totally disgusted yet. Or maybe I'm starting to accept it, which can't be good. But, for those of you who claim to be outraged by this, of all the things to be outraged on at this site, I wouldn't have picked this, because this was totally predictable and inkeeping with the website's decorum.

that was really uncomfortable

Right now I don't have a particular beef with this review, nor its title. I just find it a little tasteless... What surprised me (and Vern and others) is the incredible amount of bile in the TB. I think this particular talkback is more childish, grotesque and offensive than anyone I've encountered recently, and it does make AICN seem like a sad angry Internet community. And trying to explain this TB I got to the conclusion that the reviewer is at least partially responsible for setting the tone of the "conversation"

I love AICN and that's why this bothers me. I'm starting to feel like a Star Wars fan now. I remember a time when it was great being one... Then suddenly they became cliches and even though one could still love the movies, now it wasn't so proud to say he was a fan. That's how I'm beggining to feel about talkbackers. And the least I can do is say something. Cheers.

What you are saying is what I believe to be that just speaking the words of hate enough starts to grow a seed of actual feelings. It's how racism has lasted so long. I don't think things will really change here because of the open format. But I think I'll try to think of my words before they come back to haunt me. As always I appreciate your voice on this site and on your page as well. I agree that I took the title of this article to be rape. It might have been better if Massa were to stick with the whole rape thing to go with. Massawyrm and the Not so Virgin Spring

Personally, I don't mind the show. but thats because ima big fan of seinfeld and this was always felt like it was grounded in the same universe - don't get me wrong, I know there is a big difference in the comedy and formatte, but for all intensive purposes the spirit is the same....

Sort of like how Iron man is in the same universe as Two and a half men.

Is it just me?? Thats ok if it is, I like my little world view. it's safe and rarely do the good guys get hurt.

Which brings me to Massa and Vern......

would you believe I'm on both side here. And i respect that you guys can be on this level of discussion. I can't stand the little fuckers here who miss the point and start cheerleading, but it's aint it cool and I guess we're stuck with it. I've been here since the beginning of AICN and while there are a lot of 'dudes' here, there's a LOT of fucking cockroaches that make me keep changing my shoes or not even entering the premises.

so in finale.... I can't wait to see this film. I love the show. but you really have to watch it consistantly to know and understand and respect the vibe. anyone can hate a show without watching it.... like me with smallville. What a piece of shit!! i refuse to watch it. because it's shit. so i don't watch it, so ill bag it, and ill call people out who do like it, because i know better, because i don't watch it, because it's shit.

however superman raping wonder woman would not be.

That reminds me of a joke when superman flies faster than a speeding bullet, in and out again, fucking wonderwoman while she lays spread naked on her bed.

she jumps up in a start and says "what the hell just happened??" to which the invisible man say "I don't know by my ass is really sore all of a sudden"

How many Mexicans does it take to grease a car?

One, but you gotta hit him just right. ;)

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH AAHAA!!!!!

Obviously, the average AICNer will hate the film. But we must acknowledge that there are LEGIONS of fans of S&TC, and it makes me curious as to what the appeal is.

Here's my best guess, in AICN speak: Tony Stark's armor is to us as Carrie's thigh high pumps is to them.

However, while this movie looks self-indulgent, materialistic, shallow, and harmful for our battered society. I dig guy movies that are the same thing on the opposite end of the spectrum, replace materialistic with overly masculine or something and there you go, so I can't really complain. Mass said it well in the review, we do our thing with Star Wars or whatever, the chicks do their thing. Let it be.

Plants are people too- we get that, and you are not your job- we also get that. But we do judge you by the content of your post and when your first ever AICN post is something so unsubtle and transparant as that we are going to rip a strip off you.

I used to write Sales Sheets and other marketing puff for a living and even if I was only giving them to buyers/ distributors etc I would have been fucking ashamed to turn in something so utterly sick-making as your first post.

It doesn't matter how many times you say "I'm not a plant" or "I'm trying to give balance", you are doomed simply because of "Because I am definitely going to see this movie again to hang out, laugh with, cry with, and have fun with our girls and our friends Carrie, Miranda, Charlotte, and Samantha. It is because life rarely lives up to our fantasies, and we need friendships that are real or reel to get us through it all."

So give it up, leafy.

Vern... if you're willing to stomach rape/snuff exploitation films like "Cannibal Holocaust" being on some AICN moderator's "Top 10" lists, then you have ZERO right to complain about people calling SJP a "horseface"... which she IS. Or that the characters on SATC are a group of used-up, self-absorbed, old whores still under the delusion that (1) they're still hot & young and (2) their shallow existences have any meaning.

If the stuff in this talkback offends you, Vern, after ALL the stuff you've tolerated over the years, here, then either SHUT UP or simply QUIT.

I could, at least, respect THAT.

And over misogynistic comments about SEX AND THE CITY?? On Ain't-It-Cool???

I hate to be the one to break it to everyone, but this site is famous for being the equivalent to a gigantic mass of 14-year old boys taking dirty about movies...It is not the journalistic center of the universe, it is not Film Review, hell--it isn't even Rotten Tomatoes.

Now I agree in part with what both Vern and Massawyrm have said--Rape is NOT FUNNY (sorry there, Rapists--but it is not), nor is brutality against women of any kind (and hwy I am in the minority about Horror Movies). However, making fun of people because of their physical appearance is...because all humor is based on cruelty. That is historical fact--but the defining line is how far you allow yourself to take it. Why are moles on people's faces or people's weight acceptable to ridicule and skin color is not? Because of Cultural Mores.

Mores (mor-ays) are the customs and manners of a social group or culture, NOT THE EELS. Every culture has them. And a lot of humor is based on pushing those boundaries beyond what is considered acceptable. Sarah Jessica parker has an equine face. That is a legitimate adjective which is not insulting--it describes her long face and the pronounced shape of her nose. Equine also means HORSE...and ta-da, "horseface".

Easy joke. And one that is easy to make when you have a wife that has watched every episode of the show, therefore YOU have watched every episode of the show, multiple times. In our household it is as perennial as the 1995 BBC miniseries of Pride and Prejudice--you wince, get caught up in it and then move on.

Massawyrm pushed boundaries (possibly too far--but that goes back to the 14-year-old boy mentality of the site), but his review comes from an honest place--he really didn't like the film. Vern called Massa on his taste, which he has every right to do...and a Culture War erupted right here at the AICN Ranch. But keep things in perspective--This site is a celebration (and condemnation) of things from the viewpoint of "COOL or UNCOOL". It is a way to tap into that youthful energy, and usually is not very PC about it.

But that is all that it is--and after ten years posting on this site, I can say it is also why we like it.

Secondly, I don't have "online arch-enemies". That's just silly.

Thirdly, I was talking about Samantha, and not Carrie. And if you watched the show at all, you'd see where I was getting at. You see, in Samantha's life, Smith was the best thing to ever happen to her, the best man she ever met. A hottie who wants nothing from her and only wants to give what little he has, because he loves her unconditionally. He was a nice guy in a sea of assholes. But because of her experiences and insecurities, that made her fear him. She, along with the rest of "the girls", had flaws just like most women. To a man watching this show, it gives you a lot of insight into real women, despite whatever perceptions that these characters don't resemble real women. I think they do, even if remotely. So my comment reflects my opinion that Samantha, after realizing Smith was the best thing to happen to her, is crazy if she risks that away again.

And even if you don't care about that explanation, it's for the benefit of one or two fans of the show in this talkback. So there.

This is a love fest compared to the bitchfest over Neill Cumpston's Cloverfield review.

To wit: http://tinyurl.com/yqelvg

Congrats.