I will first admit this: I have not seen Sex and the City 2, nor do I intend to after watching the nine minute montage of scenes and reading numerous reviews. I also hate those who criticize something they haven’t seen, but I’m about to break my own rule when it comes to this, though most of this reflection has more to do with Sex and the City overall and how it relates to the greatest adventure of all time (Star Wars, the original trilogy) and one of the biggest disappointments of all time (Star Wars, the Phantom Menace).

A lot of the criticisms of the Phantom Menace are laid out in a humorous series of videos by Red Letter Media. If you want, you can watch them here. I’ve included the first episode below.

1. Charlotte is Jar Jar Binks

At some point in SATC, it was decided that dumb physical comedy needed to liven up the series. This was the purpose of the flaming idiot Jar Jar Binks who flopped around The Phantom Menace as if he were missing his frontal lobe. The difference between the two of them is that Charlotte starts out with dignity and her prissiness is why some of her flops are minorly entertaining in the television series. Unfortunately, Charlotte is put through some I Love Lucy style pie in the face equivalents, including accidentally drinking the water in Mexico the first movie and falling off a camel in the second movie.

2. Character development is stagnant

I really enjoyed the early seasons of Sex and the City. I really truly did. The characters, although they sometimes were caught in embarrassing sit-com like situations, usually learned and grew from their experiences. Moments of complete honesty and character reflection accessorized the sometimes ridiculous situations of the show.  Through conflict–like when Samantha slept with Charlotte’s brother and Charlotte responded by calling her a slut–the characters grew. Charlotte realized her idea of a perfect marriage embodied by her brother’s relationship with his wife, was a complete lie and Samantha helped him through his impending divorce.

Yet, just like how many of the characters in the Phantom Menace are flat and the audience is essentially “told” and not “shown” their development and relationships, the relationships in the SATC movies are contrived and remarkably caricaturized (yup, making up words). Samantha is a slut. All she is is sex on legs, a departure from the woman who was at least concerned with some interpersonal relationships in the series. Charlotte is a priss, and from what I’ve read in reviews, a terrible mother. Miranda, as always, works too much and has problems balancing her life..again. And of course, Carrie can’t move past Big v. Aidan. There is no new conflict, no new developments. The movie is no better than fan fiction, leading me into the next point.

3. The movie is a superficial caricature of the series

The idiot who wrote the script and directed the SATC movies took the most obvious characteristics of the series and slapped it on a script, without thinking about the depth of the series was the true gem, exactly how George Lucas slapped some new visuals together to call it a movie. The depth, nuances and character development–what essentially makes a good story–is completely gone.

In conclusion, Sex and the City 2 is the Phantom Menace of the SATC franchise. Caricaturization can happen to both geeky and sexy franchises.

Kate