Sarah Jessica Parker in a see-through dress on the NY set of SATC 2

fp_3524142_parker_sarah_jessica_cwny_090109

Sarah Jessica Parker spent most of this morning running around Manhattan revising her famed role as Carrie Bradshaw. Of course she did this in a possibly mildly see-through dress, but I think it’s just due to the inherent issues with wearing white. No word on whether it was an accidental wardrobe malfunction or part of the plot, but she looked fabulous. Especially in her gold Christian Louboutins.

I’m starting to think Sarah Jessica should seriously consider sticking to Carrie Bradshaw roles, because she’s gotten nothing but heinous reviews for everything else she’s done. And nothing but fabulous reviews for her “Sex &the City” work. This weekend I saw “Julia & Julie” (like the reviewer below) and was forced to endure the trailer for SJP’s next film “Did You Hear About The Morgans” with Hugh Grant. To say it was the most abysmal part of my night is an understatement: and I was wearing really painful shoes that left me with over 11 huge blisters. But I’d gladly suffer another dozen just to have walked out before I had to sit through that awkwardness. Here we go:

Over the weekend a friend and I were forced to sit, “Clockwork Orange”-style, through the painfully unfunny trailer for “Did You Hear About The Morgans” before we could enjoy the butter-soaked fun of “Julie & Julia.” The trailer features Hugh Grant doing what Hugh Grant thinks Hugh Grant does best — playing a yippity man-boy who can’t quite grasp the concept of love — and Sarah Jessica Parker as his humorless wife who’s moments from leaving him when they witness a murder.

Then, as if out of a movie, (oh, wait) the two are shuttled into a Montana-based witness protection program where they inevitably learn about horse riding, small town mentalities and themselves. Bad film aside, there is one major problem that will prevent “Morgans” from being super successful: Sarah Jessica Parker isn’t a movie star. She a square peg in cinema’s round hole. After starring as the small screen’s greatest dater ever, I get why Sarah Jessica thinks romantic comedies are her best bet for big screen success — but it’s a catch-22.

Because Carrie Bradshaw is who most rom-com inclined ladies aspire to be, any character short of her is a failure. And since SJP very intentionally opts for very un-Carrie-like women to play on the big screen, everyone is continually disappointed. Which is assuming audiences show up in the first place, which history says they don’t. Most of her non-“SATC” big screen adventures have been as profitable as they have been entertaining — which is to say, not very. In her 25-year career, only one other film has crossed the million dollar mark (“First Wives Club”) while none of her post-Bradshaw roles have lit the box office on fire.

And while other rom-com staples, like Kate Hudson or Katherine Heigl, can push a subpar script past $100 million based almost solely on sex appeal, SJP comes up short. I mean, the website Sarah Jessica Parker Looks Like A Horse.com offers enough supporting evidence to qualify her for The Breeder’s Cup. Don’t take this as me calling SJP fugly, I’m simply saying that to play the lead in a romantic comedy, an actor must be desirable to the opposite sex. And I’m not sure at this point, Sarah Jessica (or Hugh) is really fitting that mold.

So without the support of straight men, SJP has to rely solely on her single ladies — a demo that spends the entire movie wishing they were watching Carrie Bradshaw. Which is why, although I hate the idea, another “Sex and the City” is the smartest move she can make. Because at the end of the day, Sarah Jessica Parker isn’t a movie star … but Carrie Bradshaw is!

[From the NY Post]

I feel more at peace knowing others feel exactly the same way I do. I see Sarah Jessica in any movie and I want to smack her, I’m so annoyed with her for picking such bad roles. Then I see her in “Sex and the City” and want to be her BFF forever. Yeah I know what I just said. And I mean it. Her aversion to Carrie-type characters really isn’t doing her career any favors. Playing a bunch of cold, shrill women doesn’t endear her to anyone. At one point during the trailer I accidentally laughed when there was a comedic pause obviously meant to force people into an uncomfortable chuckle. Which is exactly what I did in my knee-jerk reaction. I was so mortified I clasped my hands over my mouth as if trying to grab that laugh and shove it back in. I can’t imagine how harshly I was judged for that. I felt cheap and tricked, and really, why would I want to pay $12.50 for that when I can get it for free?

Here’s Sarah Jessica in New York City today. You be the judge on the dress. Oh and the trailer for her film; but I’m warning you, you’re going to be angry. Images thanks to WENN.com and Fame Pictures .

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

41 Responses to “Sarah Jessica Parker in a see-through dress on the NY set of SATC 2”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Obvious says:

    My boyfriend and I saw the preview when we saw the Time Travler’s Wife over the weekend. The preview looked worse the Beverly Hills Chihuahua. and that’s scary.

    Stick to Carrie SJP. we like you that way. and that way only.

  2. Praise St. Angie! says:

    come on, now…she was great in “Girls Just Want to Have Fun”…

    on another note, isn’t that movie plot awfully similar to “For Richer or Poorer”?

  3. Just a Poster says:

    ahhh.. now be nice, the trailer looked kinda fun.

  4. Texas Gal says:

    I was so mortified I clasped my hands over my mouth as if trying to grab that laugh and shove it back in. I can’t imagine how harshly I was judged for that. I felt cheap and tricked

    Lol!!!!!

  5. HEB says:

    “only one other film has crossed the million dollar mark (”First Wives Club”)”

    I humbly beg to differ….

    Hocus Pocus was a big hit too.

  6. vale says:

    She looked AWFUL in that trailer. Just awful. Much better in these pictures.

  7. Lynnie says:

    Oh, my gosh, this woman is over-exposed (and not just in that white dress)! I don’t understand her supposed “appeal.” She’s a fashion icon? Really? Even if I were a teeny, bird-like woman, I wouldn’t wear the crap she does. I just don’t get how/why her mismatched messes of outfits get such applause.

  8. vale says:

    I just saw the trailer posted here for the second time. I take back the big AWFUL, I guess the first-time impact was much harder than the second time around. Or maybe it was in comparison to Meryl Streep/Julia Child’s luminousness. Still, she looks better in the SATC pictures.

  9. Really? says:

    When I see her, him, Aniston, Heigel, McConaughey, Hudson, etc, in these same indistinguishable romcom roles (aside from a slight change in hair), it’s like watching someone make the same mistakes over and over and over again despite warning signs and advice.

    It’s sad, then annoying, then monotonous, then you. just. shut. down.

  10. Smith says:

    I really loved SJP in Miami Raphsody, an underrated gem of a movie with the voice of a mid 90’s Woody Allen (not one of his movies though, just his wit). It has a great ensemble cast but she carries the lead well.

    She’s also a riot in LA Story:

    “Sandy, your breasts feel funny.”

    “Oh, that’s ’cause they’re real.”

    But she was prettier back then too, the long, straight hair in the “Morgans” trailer seriously makes you want to offer her some hay.

    She’s a bit cursed like Jennifer Aniston – every movie she’s in it’s like “why isn’t Rachel Green as funny as she used to be?” “And where’s Ross???”

  11. nelly says:

    This movie is like that one… hummm… Killshot!!? With Rourke and Diane Lane. The only difference is the humour. With Killshot i could laugh although the movie is kinda traggic, but with this one “… about the morgans” i can only cry.

    PS- I dont know what is worse in this trailer. SJP’s hair or Hugh Grant’s accent!!

  12. kelbear says:

    The Family Stone movie was awesome, one of my favorites and i thought she was awesome in that movie. There is nothing wrong with her….

  13. Allie says:

    I guess there is something wrong with me because I thought the trailer looked cute and not a terrible way to spend an evening.

  14. Praise St. Angie! says:

    to Smith…

    yes, she was very funny in “LA Story”.

    I love when she spells her name for Steve Martin’s character…”Oh, and there’s a star at the end”.

    LMAO!

  15. LolaBella says:

    Okay, so on to the important thing about this article: I wish she’d move out of the way so that I could really get a look at the guy behind her in thumbnail #2. LOL.

  16. Nicole says:

    Is it just me thinking that Hugh Grant, although he’s getting slightly too old for those types of movies, is still cute enough to pull off the movie to a degree where it’s really no problem to ignore SJP?

  17. fizXgirl314 says:

    SJP is super thin but it really seems to work for her for some reason… most women don’t seem to be able to carry off being that thin… maybe she’s got smaller bone structure or something…

  18. crash2GO2 says:

    I just watched the Family Stone and I really liked her in that – especially once she got drunk and started flinging herself around the set.

    I’ve always admired SJP. She’s one hell of a hard working woman, and hasn’t let her unconventional looks get in her way, though they’ve gotten in other peoples’ way plenty, and I felt felt badly when she was deemed the ugliest actress ever (or whatever that was).

    Over the years she’s gotten bird thin though. She’s always been tiny, but it’s getting worse. You can see every muscle, vein and tendon in those legs and arms.

  19. Mairead says:

    God that film is badly cast! And what woeful acting! But you never know, maybe it’s a grower – I absolutely detested Zoolander when I first saw it.

    I’m with some others here, she looked far nicer when she was just a little bit bigger, and the fact that one’s cheeks get more gaunt as we age doesn’t help.

    But you’re right, the traditional romcoms don’t suit her; she’s much better in ensemble pieces like Miami Rhapsody (not seen it in years, thanks for the reminder), State & Main and even Hocus Pocus. She’d be much better off going for proper comedies or straight acting.

  20. Davide says:

    The trailer didn’t look that bad. I’m actually going to see it. The only thing they could have changed was SJP’s wig – it does nothing for her.

  21. SolitaryAngel says:

    Looks like the most redeeming quality of that whole thing is Sam Elliot….Le sigh! I could listen to that man talk forever! SJP? Don’t get the appeal at ALL.

  22. Shane Gentry says:

    She seriously needs to get some sort of skin treatment for her hands.

  23. Goddess711 says:

    Please God, PUHLLLLEASE make this next SATC movie worth watching, PUHLEAASSEEE~!! That last script must’ve been written on a paper napkin at a brainstorming session at McPukes. There was no “click” between the characters – had to be complete sh** to have to go into work everyday to spew crap. Somebody tell them to make sure the script suits the characters this time – it’s totally disappointing after the series!!

  24. Katyusha says:

    she has fantastic legs.

  25. Beth says:

    I also thought SJP was really good in The Family Stone. It’s a great movie. I don’t think the dress is see-through, it’s just the sunlight.

  26. Ally says:

    She’s not good in serious parts. But this could be good… I mean all trailers make every movie look like the same terrible movie.

    The 90s “Miami Rhapsody” is one of my favorite films of all time, and incredibly funny! (Note: Patricia Field was SJP’s costumier on that one too.) Rent it or buy it if you’ve never seen it.

  27. Ana says:

    I love her outfit!!! Even if it is see through!

  28. DrM says:

    I agree with those who said it looks fun, I think I’ll see it…and no Katyusha the ‘woman’ does not have ‘fantastic legs’ she needs to eat a pie with tomato sauce very quickly…she’d look a hell of alot better with 15 pounds on her (cause 10 won’t do it)

  29. Sarah says:

    Am I blind? This dress is in no way a see through! It’s a white dress, you always see SOMETHING under it… but see through, I definitely define differently.

    As for her movies… I LOVED her in LA Story and she took the piss out of herself most lovely in Hocus Pocus too.

  30. Hieronymus Grex says:

    Who put a dress on that horse? Oh wait, it’s SJP who stopped being cute after Point of impact.

  31. huriu says:

    I want her necklace!!!

  32. Andrea says:

    Please God, Please, PLEASE make SATC go away already! Always hated the show, havent bothered with any of the movies. The whole thing – the totally unrealistic lifestyles, the “oh god i will die without a man” themes, the pathetic characters, ugh, may it please just go away.

  33. jmarie3 says:

    The dress and necklace are great, but her feet in those shoes look awful!
    Are they too little for her, or too high of a heel, cause the veins in her feet are about to pop?!?

  34. Caroline says:

    Well, I have to say…I really like all of her movies. Make fun of me if you will, but I think she’s great. And omg, girls just wanna have fun was one of my all time favorite movies! Plus, I think her newer ones are funny too, especially Family Stone. And I think Did you hear about the Morgans looks equally ammusing…..P.S. I think she looks FABULOUS in that white dress, and I want to know who it’s by, not to mention her shoes are KILLER

  35. hey, it's me! says:

    Andrea, Aniston criticized SATC for that same reason, saying it’s all about getting the man. And she didn’t find that empowering for women or whatever.(Like Aniston has any room to criticize others. Her rom-coms are pretty bad.) I think that’s a shallow view of the show. Most of the women date, make up, and break up. The one constant in their lives is each other.

  36. Diablo says:

    SJP needs to dress her age. She always tries to look like a 16-year old whore.

  37. original kate says:

    i went with a group of girlfriends (and one gay male friend) to see the “sex and the city” movie and we all agreed it was godawful. the writing was horrible, the acting was horrible… the only redeeming thing were the clothes. i actually think this SJP/hugh grant movie looks slightly better!

  38. Jessica says:

    She kinda reminds me of Madonna back in the day

  39. Katyusha says:

    @ DrM

    Sorry if you don’t like women who are in shape, but I do. If I think she has fantastic legs, then I think she has fantastic legs.
    If you disagree, fine, but she still has fantastic legs.

  40. My husband and i were now satisfied Michael could round up his studies because of the ideas he obtained out of the web page. It’s not at all simplistic to simply always be freely giving guides that other folks have been selling. And now we consider we’ve got the writer to give thanks to for that. All of the illustrations you’ve made, the easy web site navigation, the relationships you make it easier to foster – it’s everything fantastic, and it’s really assisting our son and our family recognize that this theme is brilliant, and that’s particularly vital. Thank you for the whole lot!

  41. fun photos says:

    Great beat ! I would like to apprentice even as you amend your site, how can i subscribe for a weblog web site? The account aided me a acceptable deal. I have been tiny bit familiar of this your broadcast provided shiny transparent concept