A Few Words Regarding Sex and the City 2

Please, do not let me rain on your cosmopolitans, but I'm lacking enthusiasm here. Maybe one of you can help pull me out of this funk. I love Sex and the City. I own the series box set. I was in line at the theatre the day the first film premiered. I now own that film on DVD. I have a tank top that says I'm a Samantha. Not to sound overconfident, but I think I could seriously dominate in a game of Sex and the City trivia. That said, I can't decide if I'm excited about this latest installment. Don't get me wrong: I'm excited about the idea of a sequel, I just don't know if this is what I had in mind. It's like if your lover surprises you with a home cooked dinner...and it's Manwich. "Yum! Thanks, lover!"* It's a sweet gesture, but it leaves a little to be desired. That's how I feel about the trailer for Sex and the City 2. And doesn't the term "lover" make you uncomfortable? I bet you'd like me never to use it again.

The first film surprised me in how sad and heavy the subject matter was. And without Carrie's voice chirping narration throughout the film, it was very different from the series. But I get where writer/director/producer Michael Patrick King was coming from. The series had ended four years earlier, and the characters lives had gone on. He had to advance their story lines, and that involved some pretty major life changes for the ladies.

Now that we're on to the second film, I am expecting a little more of the fun and flamboyance that made the series so outstanding. That's what leads me to my ambivalence: a lot of the fun of Sex and the City was living vicariously through four glamorous women who live in a city more exciting than ours, financed by the kinds of careers we dreamed of as school girls, wearing clothes we can't afford, attending parties we're not invited to, drinking cocktails we've never heard of, and dating men we'd love to go out with (if we're single). Basically, they're living the dream. That's why we love them, right?

The trailer for Sex and the City 2 shows the girls not in "the city", but jetting off to a far away land for a luxurious vacation...in Abu Dhabi? Was I not cc'd in the memo that states that women across America are all adding "vacation in the Middle East" to their bucket lists? Has Michael Patrick King just been dying to live out this "Arabian Nights" fantasy on the big screen? I know that since they went to Mexico in the last film, any old vacation won't do for this installment. This is Sex and the City, after all, we can't have our ladies in a Sandals resort. But why do they have to go on vacation at all? After the bleakness of the last film, I was hoping for some more fun in New York. United Arab Emirates isn't even a nation I've dreamed of visiting. If the trailer is any indication, a hefty portion of the film is set in this location. I'm stumped. The French Riviera or Greece make more sense to me...but Michael Patrick King didn't consult me, the Super Fan.

Since I can't knock back girly cocktails in the theatre with a group of girlfriends, and I promised not to drag Steve to any chick flicks for the foreseeable future, I'm not sure when I'll get around to seeing this film. I'm certain that I will, but I haven't logged onto Fandango just yet. I waited patiently for two years for this sequel, and now that it's finally here...well, I'm pouting, that's all. I really hope that the trailer is simply designed to keep the details of the film a secret, but right now it feels like they're forcing the Abu Dhabi storyline on us. As if watching the ladies vacation in the desert is what fans have been waiting for. Just watching the trailer left me with sand in my bra. Ehh, whatever. I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

*I know Steve will have something to say to me when he reads my "Manwich" comment. So, to clarify, Steve has never fed me sloppy joes. It's truly a metaphor, and not taken from my life experiences.