Why is Anthony Lane so annoyed by Sex in the City?

Anthony Lane, one of the movie reviewers for The New Yorker, wrote an extremely snarky review of Sex in the City in the June 9 & 16 issue entitled "Carrie". He basically characterizes the four female leads as vapid men hunters and sneers at any woman who would deign to enjoy this film. The review is filled with cheap shots such as Carrie, Samantha, Miranda, and Charlotte are "banded together like hormonal hobbits, and all obsessed with a ring." He also compares Kristin Davis' acting to a ninth grader auditioning for the Crucible. I mean he just seems plain offended and annoyed by the movie to a degree that I find surprising. I agree that there are parts of Sex and the City that have always bugged me, like the over the top emphasis on clothes and shoes and, well, just about everything about the oversexed Samantha (except for her sweet relationship with Smith and bout with breast cancer--she bugs me). I am far from a fashionista, yet have always been a fan of the show, especially the aspect of the show that holds it together, the female friendships through all its up and downs. The emphasis on their friendship is central to the movie as well. It seemed right how the friends cared for Carrie after her almost marriage (yes I thought the reaction to Big's cold feet was over the top) by arranging her life via cell phone and getting her to laugh at Charlotte's intestinal issues. Really Sex and the City, the movie is simply a female fantasy movie. Just as male fantasy movies have incredible chase scenes and hot babes, Sex in the City the movie has incredible clothes, men, and friends. It's no Anna Karenina, as Lane mentions in the article, but it carried me away, made me laugh, and made me root for their happy ending, man or no.