Was it good for you? "Sex and the City" mines box office gold

Sex and the City shocked Hollywood this weekend by proving the power of the female and gay male dollar at the box office. It grossed $55.7 million, which was twice the industry prediction. Not only was it the biggest opening in history for a female led movie (surpassing Tomb Raider), but it was the biggest opening ever for an R rated comedy, and the fifth biggest for any R-rated film.

Predictably, the reviews were wildly mixed, with the movie scoring a middling 55% on the Tomatometer. Looking at a sampling of some of the reviews, a couple of interesting patterns emerge. First is how many male (and presumably straight) critics have to repeatedly point out that they're "not the target audience", as if to either apologize for not liking it, or if they do like it, to assure us to not to read anything "gay" into it. The other is how venomous some of the negative reviews are. Some of these critics don't just dislike the movie, to them it represents everything that's wrong with society. Here is a sampling of some of the most extreme views:

The Globe and Mail - "This is a pricey handbag of a movie, uncontaminated by anything so crass as substance, filled only with the perfumed air of a culture at rest – concept blissfully free of content. Walking on high heels, our culture hits a new low."

Film Threat - "privileged hags frantically trying to give meaning to their petty, grasping existence."

EfilmCritics - "Here, the characters are simply not amusing or sympathetic by any means--they are snotty, snobby and shamelessly materialistic status seekers and rather than look critically at their stunning levels of self-absorption, the film celebrates their narcissism wholeheartedly."

Brian Orndorf - "I loathed the film because it’s a lazy, mean-spirited commercial for cultural deterioration. Even the most outlandish of fairy tales have some sense of magic and a feel for limitations. “Sex and the City” exists on another planet, where materialism is a desired component of life and a woman is worth nothing if there’s not a man to love her"

Orlando Weekly - "Is it any sort of inroad for a summer film to prove that ladies, too, can surrender to pummeling materialism, a blinkered emphasis on self-gratification and hollow objectification of the opposite gender? Plus, Darren Star and his “creative” crew must be laughing their sphincters loose knowing that their amoral fantasia has been welcomed as gospel by genuine urban women, instead of their obvious target demo: Iowan paralegals too tipsy and titillated to notice that the characters are actually semiotic stand-ins for gay men. We’re realists here. We know that nothing we might write could dim a fan’s enthusiasm for rejoining the continuing adventures of Carrie and Samantha and … uh, Dopey, and … uh, the Pink Power Ranger. And maybe that’s as it should be, because everybody has the right to indulge his or her particular pop-culture obsession in a state of unmolested respect. So knock yourselves out, skanks"

Then there's the "critic" for The New York Observer, Rex Reed (yes, he's still around). His review starts out with "There’s nothing wrong with Sarah Jessica Parker that couldn’t be cured by wart-removal surgery", and just goes downhill from there. You can read his typically nasty review HERE.

Just keep repeating to yourself, it's only a movie ... it's only a movie. My favorite SATC review came on Friday's Today show, when legendary gap toothed supermodel and actress Lauren Hutton let loose with a stream of consciousness diatribe that started with "It's written by guys, who happen to be gay, who are sluts. That's what I think. Let's face it most men are sluts", and then veered off into something about hunters and gatherers. You can see that entertaining rant HERE.

Anyone catch the movie? What'd you think?