Bag The SatC Poster: Round 5

June 12, 2008 at 2:37 pm (movies) (, )

Someone finally realized there was more than one person in the movie! Amazing. That is indeed something to be celebrated – which says volumes about the others – but it doesn’t mean this one isn’t a piece of crap too. Just sliiiightly less crappy crap. For example, why are they all looking to their left? Furthermore, if there’s supposed to be something interesting over there, why aren’t they actually looking at the same spot?


Then the one on th far left sure don’t look like Sarah Jessica Parker, whereas the one named “Kim Cattrall,” sure does. They either mixed the names up or, more likely and just as idiotic, never thought to attach the correct name to the correct person, and just randomly plunked them over the top of the title.


Sex and the City was supposed to be a fashion icon, and maybe that’s true, but it sure ain’t coming across on this poster. Okay, so the white dress looks alright. Not great, and pretty boring coming from a fashion icon, but there’s nothing actually wrong with it. But, it’s the only one. Although I like the sparkly on the redhead’s dress, the rest of it is just such an ugly colour. It would have been nice if not for that colour. Then we have the woman with the awful fringe. Her dress is flesh coloured. It’s rare for a flesh-coloured dress to look good, but it’s very rare that they make the wearer look naked either. This case, though… Somehow, at first glance her dress looks like it’s just an incredibly transparent garment with shiny polka dots, even though it’s actually a solid colour. Weird. It probably doesn’t help that it’s so short, though. And we have finally arrived at the delightful monstrosity that Carrie is wearing. It’s so… rainbow… and I thought at first that the sleeves were just extremely baggy, but from the way it joins in the middle, it’s probably a cloak. Her shimmery rainbow dress with it’s own shimmery rainbow cloak attached masquerading as baggy sleeves. So… yeah. This is getting awfully close to being a superhero look. Maybe she could call herself the Queen of Colour or something.


Once again, the lighting is really weird. It doesn’t look like daytime in the background either, but they are mysteriously lit in bright light anyway. Furthermore, some idiot set it up so that their heads and torsos are in nice bright lighting, but their legs get progressively darker as they go down. I think, however, that this is not a stage lighting problem so much as a photoshop one, where some lazyass moron made their legs match the colour of the road more and more moving down them. ‘Cause by the time it gets to their feet, it looks like the lovely ladies had been standing in deep wet cement for a while and got their ankles stuck in it. Not kidding, just look at it. Why anyone would do this, I have no idea.



  1. maxieg18 said,

    ‘Then the one on th far left sure don’t look like Sarah Jessica Parker, whereas the one named “Kim Cattrall,” sure does.’

    This is quite a common thing for movie posters, although I don’t quite understand why this is done.

    Sarah Jessica Parker’s dress must burn.

  2. missbittens said,

    And it shall make rainbow smoke!

  3. BANGKOK DANGEROUS movie poster « The Reel World said,

    […] the City movie poster, starring Sarah Jessica Parker and that god awful dress of hers (check out missbittens’ rant on that poster) and the one for Basic Instinct 2, containing the nonsensical tagline ‘everything interesting […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: