Sex and the City

Fans of Sex and the City will love the movie version. Like the HBO series that gave birth to it, the movie is lots of fun, but it's no frivolous romp.

Beneath its delicate exterior is a carefully engineered marvel, surprisingly substantial -- and, as Samantha might sigh happily, totally satisfying.

Adorned in the most haute of couture, the shiniest of jewels and the highest of heels, the Fabulous Four prove in the film version that age only makes you better.

Here's the thing about Sex and the City, the movie: It's as good as the TV show at its best.

The girls never let us down, and this time is no exception.

On sentimentality alone, one might be inclined to give the film a pass, but there’s no need.

Given the running time, though, not that much happens, and what does has several shades more gravitas. That's as it should be.

The big-screen adaptation of the hit HBO series does have it all. It plays like a mega-sized episode in a thoroughly entertaining mix of chat sessions, romantic pitfalls, life-turning changes and hot sex.

Throughout, the four women turn in sensitive, solid performances -- what you would expect from a cast totally familiar with the territory.

Not perfect. But emotionally satisfying, just like a night out with your girlfriends.

The film runs for a little more than two hours and 20 minutes and yet it’s consistently entertaining, especially thanks to the winning cast who are comfortable after all these years in their characters.

It's a stylized romantic comedy in which the sincerest romance is about friendship.

This big-screen adaptation might be a little glossier than we’re used to, but it’s also as familiar and comfortable as slipping into a pair of Manolo Blahniks.

The film is by no means a masterpiece, but it's a worthy exercise in indulgence that won't disappoint the cosmo-swilling core audience. And fans won't need to swill any cosmos to enjoy it.

The actresses have an undisputable chemistry, and they effortlessly resume their place in the pecking order.

The Sex and the City gal pals put their Manolos in motion in the colorful, playfully naughty and sometimes too cute big-screen sequel to HBO's hit romantic comedy series.

The clothes, shoes and handbags, not to mention the baubles and bangles, are seductive eye candy, equivalent to the cars and gadgets in a James Bond movie.

Suffice it to say that writer-director Michael Patrick King, a longtime executive producer and writer of the series, does right by the women.

In its merchandise-filled way, Sex and the City celebrates a rarity on the big screen: grown-up women's friendship. I'll raise a virtual Cosmo to that, any tim

It pays tribute to what's best about the series and it gives us another chance to spend time with people we thought we might never see again.

If it were 20 minutes trimmer, Sex and the City would be considerably better.

There are some serious life issues being worked on, in between the heavy breathing and rampant consumerism.

It's an unabashed guilty pleasure that goes down as smoothly as a chilled cosmo.

It's way too long and, annoyingly, not much really happens. But diehard devotees of the saucy TV series will so relish being back in the warm company of the "girls" that they'll hardly notice.

A frothy pink cocktail of a movie, Sex and the City will likely thrill all the fans of the original TV show who've been thirsting for its mix of fashion, romance and chatty modern-girl talk.

If you've never watched the show, or you've never sipped Cosmos and hung out with a tightly knit group of girlfriends, or gazed with true adoration at a pair of $500 shoes, this really isn't the movie for you.

Even the most fervent of the faithful would do well to temper their expectations for the movie, which is both satisfying and frustrating.

Sex and the City will not be redefining cinema as we know it, nor does it ever fully justify its existence as a feature film, but if you're a fan of the show, you probably won't care.

Anyone who has an opinion about Sex and the City, positive or negative, is unlikely to be swayed in a different direction by the TV series' big-screen adaptation.

Is it such a big deal anymore to hear women talk about sex as crudely as men do?

The biggest problem is that at nearly two and a half hours, it's too long. The year-long story arc plays out like an entire season condensed into one very bloated episode.

Though not as fierce as the groundbreaking HBO series, this stylish NYC romance is hardly a hot tranny mess.

The movie likely will satisfy die-hard fans of the series, even though watching it is like undergoing a DVD marathon.

The movie is just like a half-season of the series -- a funny, sappy, clumsy, crude, rambunctious, argumentative, gleefully vulgar attempt to balance the fantasy of romance with the reality that the fantasy is impossible.

It’s good to be back in the presence of these fascinating women. It would be better if King had fashioned a more interesting vehicle for them.

Sort of like My Dinner With Andre, only with brighter lighting and more lip gloss.

Writer-director Michael Patrick King, the creative force behind the show's later seasons, can't disguise the fact that the movie is basically five TV episodes strung together.

Fans of Sex and the City will find everything they loved about the TV series in the movie of the same name.

The nagging problem is that the whole thing is so overdone it becomes a distraction from the real relationship drama at the movie's heart, and ultimately an absurd joke.

A male film critic who liked the single-gal sass of the HBO series finds very little of it in the 2 1/2-hour big-screen "sequel."

It's not bad, by any means; it's often funny and sometimes moving. But there's nothing here to justify the leap from HBO to the big screen, other than a devoted fan base that doubtless will follow it.

Writer-director Michael Patrick King dispenses with unnecessary exposition and provides a primer that lasts as long as the opening credits.

You will enjoy Sex and the City -- probably more so if you call things "fabulous" and have more pairs of shoes than you have fingers.

The movie is modest entertainment, a real treat for HBO fans, but more of a shrug to the rest of us.

Ugly-looking, the film resembles a TV show on a really big screen, which is what it is.

If you weren't a fan of the HBO series, you'll probably wonder what the frenzy is about.

Since it clocks in at almost 2 1/2 hours, you may think, sight unseen, that the movie version of the HBO smash Sex and the City is guilty of wretched excess. Pathetic excess is more like it.

It is overly heavy -- at least an hour-and-a-half of its two-and-a-half-hour running time is spent with its heroine in abject heartbreak and depression, and that's when her friends aren't experiencing same.

Each “frank” moment comes wrapped in its own package and seems to stand alone from the story.

The film version might appeal to longtime fans of the show but definitely won't appeal to anyone who's outside the target demographic.

The movie exaggerates some of the show's worst habits but also reminds us of some of the great character work its actors were capable of.

More disappointment than joyful reunion, a tedious and desperately drawn-out affair that tests your patience even as it brazenly courts (and often earns) your contempt.

There's a story here about friendship, following one's heart, and forgiveness. But at 140 minutes, it's buried under relentless product placement, now unremarkable sex talk, and inside jokes.

Two hours and 20 minutes long, and almost nothing happens.

Sex and the City pushed the envelope as an edgy, sexy cable-TV series with peekaboo nudity and saucy relationship talk. The big-screen version just mails it in.

Anyone expecting something remotely fresh is advised to look elsewhere.

Sex and the City is not a painful experience for men (or even guys), just a predictable one.

As a film, it's flabby and utterly predictable.

This movie provides no good reasons to revisit Sex and the City, except to fulfill fans' desires for one more for the road and add millions to Time Warner's coffers.

The film is an ungainly, tedious example of brand extension run amok.