Chris Noth (left) stars as ''Mr. Big'' and Sarah Jessica Parker (right) stars as ''Carrie'' in ''Sex and the City.'' (Courtesy photo)

By Bob Polunsky
Guest Columnist

“Sex and the City” tells us that Hollywood isn’t going to let television dominate the R-rated and X-rated markets. It’s a film version of the TV series that takes sin, sex and sensationalism further with the same TV players.

Carrie Bradshaw is still the center of attention and Mr. Big is still her man of choice. Samantha Jones is still the nymphomaniac with the voice of feminine lust. Miranda Hobbes still uses her flaming red hair to attract men, but she is still stuck with a loser. And Charlotte York is still insecure in her relationships in spite of her social connections and money. They are some of the most frustrated women that ever appeared together on TV – or on the big screen.

The biggest difference between “Sex and the City” and previous films about women’s sexuality is that neither the script nor the players deny its frankness. It might be enough to influence men, and that could mean that some wives will keep their husbands and boy friends from seeing it like women did when Garbo and Dietrich used sex as a means of captivating their men.

Their characters couldn’t succeed completely because they were usually killed off before the picture ended. It was retribution of a sort, and it brought crowds of women into movie theaters to see the overtly sexy heroines pay the piper, so to speak.

“Sex and the City” tries to counteract that attitude by creating frustrated women characters whose goals of marriage to Mr. Right still has old-fashioned ideals, but none of the solutions. The idea behind the TV series was to keep the women trying to find one.

The movie has the advantage of established characterizations, so the actresses can literally walk through their roles and be convincing. It doesn’t make their film a customary “chick flick,” but it’s basic appeal is still to women, and men know it. There aren’t any male counterparts to give guys in the audience a male hero to root for.

The acting is credible, but it’s easy to see through the main female characters’ ploys when they look for the right man for a mate. It’s a continuing battle, just as it was on TV, so there is no predictable happy ending like there is in most of today’s chick flicks. 

The entertainment and fascination come from watching women fight valiantly to find some purpose in life. They don’t have the advantage of competitive sports or challenging business opportunities that men often use to offset their frustrations in movies as well as in life. All they have is a desire for male companionship, and they make no excuses for it.

Even though the primary women characters have jobs to occupy their minds, they aren’t comfortable with themselves. The movie appeals to women with that attitude so it’s likely to be considered a symbol of women’s sexual liberation, even though the opposite is really the case.

Studio rating: R
Bob says: “a chick flick without a conscience” 
2 1/2 Stars