So Roger Ebert finished his — let’s call it ‘scathing’ — review of Sex and the City 2 with the following question:
Reader, I must confess that while attending the sneak preview with its overwhelmingly female audience, I was gob-smacked by the delightful cleavage on display. Do women wear their lowest-cut frocks for each other?
I’m going to disregard the appalling sexism on display here for a moment and just answer with this picture:
These four women, and the crowds of women behind them, are not dressed for YOU, Roger. They are dressed for ME. And for each other and for their fans and for the idea that fashion is fun and that that is a part of the appeal of Sex and the City.
Today I am going to a screening of Sex and the City 2 as a guest of Women and Hollywood‘s Melissa Silverstein. I am, in a word, EXCITED. I don’t care if the movie is a train wreck, it will still be Sex and the City and it will certainly still be FASHIONFUL. As was last night’s premiere:
Whenever the stars get all dolled up inevitably someone is compared to Grace Kelly.
I nominate Kate Bosworth in Valentino Couture.
It’s a beautiful sunny day. I was thinking I’ll skip a Friday Flashback and not worry too much about CANTM and just post another day. Then I saw this:
First of all the Sex and the City gals were MADE for this website, am I right? They already are Fashion Superheroes! That’s almost their purpose! It is just sad that we are on the destined to be disappointing sequel to a disappointing film after a great run instead of around for its HBO hey-day, but still. Look at them!
Okay, she is not my pick for Best Dressed (!) but she is my pick for Most Superheroine-y. And it’s not just because she has all sorts of experience with the whole secret identity thing (it helps) but look:
She looks like a bruiser in a ballgown. She looks like she is hulking up! Look!
Is it even a contest?
NPH showed up on stage and lit up the auditorium, the blogoshpere, Twitter and the night. His tux GLITTERS.