Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › General Discussion › Off topic › The Devil Wears Prada movie
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Devil Wears Prada movie

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 
Well, I was surprised to see this movie (and novel) had no thread yet! I guess it suits the

Quote:

"In the dizzying world of New York fashion, where size zero is the new 2, six is the new 8, and a bad hair day can end a career, Runway Magazine is the Holy Grail. Overseen with a finely manicured fist by Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep) - the most powerful woman in fashion - Runway is a fearsome gauntlet for anyone who wants to make it in the industry. To make Runway the fashion bible of New York and therefore the world, Miranda has let nothing stand in her way... including a long line of assistants that didn't make the cut. It's a job no self-respecting person can survive, yet it's an opportunity a million young women in New York would kill for. Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway) finds herself working as Miranda's junior assistant and has a very hard time deciding whether or not this is really a job to die for."

"Meryl Streep tears up the landscape as demanding fashion editor, Miranda Priestley, of "Runway" magazine. She is a terror to everyone who is around her as is quickly depicted in the opening scenes of the movie. Her first assistant (Emily Blunt) strives to please her and tries to emulate her, but one can sense that she is not quite as hard as she tries to put on. Into this mix comes a young woman (Anne Hathaway) who knows nothing of the fashion industry, has never read the magazine, and doesn't know who Miranda Priestley is. She only sees this as a stepping stone to another journalism position. Showing no fashion sense and immediately scorned by everyone, Miranda nonetheless hires her as the second assistant. When Miranda demands that she obtain the next unpublished Harry Potter manuscript, you can sense that she is trying to force her to quit, but it makes the young woman dig in to please her boss. With the help of one of the magazine's fashion editors (Stanley Tucci), she gets a complete makeover and a new security. However, with her new appearance and the demands placed on her, she starts to lose her friends, family and her live-in boy friend (Adrian Grenier). As she is whisked away to Paris with Miranda and faces all of the glamor that could be hers, including a flashy if not artificial freelance journalist (Simon Baker), she is forced to make the decision of where she wants to be in her life. It is obvious that the film would like to make Anne Hathaway into a young Audrey Hepburn. While she is certainly pleasant, she doesn't quite reach the pinnacle of Hepburn. The film contains adult situations, but no nudity or on-screen sex."




Possible spoilers!
I've read the book and seen the movie and they both were interesting, but the book was definitely smarter. They left out and edited quite a lot in the film so it sometimes was rather confusing and less fun than the book's scenes. The biggest miss were Andy's friends IMO. They seemed like totally irrelevant and dull characters in the movie. However, Meryl Streep played a stunning version of Miranda. She was really great and I think the one who saved the movie.
Possible spoilers!

Did any of you read the book/see the movie?

Trailer & more available on www.devilwearspradamovie.com
post #2 of 9
Haven't read the book, enjoyed the movie. Anne Hathaway and Emily Blunt (the two assistants) were gorgeous and I thought it was pretty good even I didn't agree with the theme of the movie. Clothes were stunning, music was good, camera work was pretty good. It was overall enjoyable and definately a great date movie.
post #3 of 9
Meryl Streep was AMAZING! Loved the movie too:-)
post #4 of 9
The Devil Wears Prada was a miserable experience. I went in the theater just to escape the stifling L.A. heat wave for two hours a couple of weeks ago and came out fully traumatized. It was just too much like my life. Except for the fancy clothes. And the boss who was actually competent at her job. And, of course, the happy ending.

I've walked out of Godard films feeling cheerier...
post #5 of 9
Ever since I saw Anne Hathaway's breasts in Brokeback Mountain, I've been a fan. I guess that's all I have to add...

post #6 of 9
Does anyone know when this comes out on DVD? I cant wait to see it. I never knew it was a book though
post #7 of 9
I"m sorry but it's awful. And the book, from the excerpt I read, really sucks.

If you want to enjoy a great "hollywood babylon" read re the world of fashion check out "The Fashion Conspiracy" by Nicholas Coleridge, it's like HollyBaby, a book you can read over and over again in evil glee.

This film didn't even do such a great job at depicting a sadistic boss. MS, whom I love, said she didn't know any women to base the character upon. Puhleez I guess you lead a pretty sheltered life as a hollywood actress then, people on pretty good behavior with you.

Nobody was that good in it either. Meryl was way too one note except in this one scene with no makeup being all vulnerable (which was the best part of the movie).
post #8 of 9
I went to see the movie, never read the book. I went to see Meryl Streep, and she was a delight, but there's a limit to how much a supporting actress can support.

The story was painfully predictable. Hathaway as Andrea rang hollow and off key. There were no surprises, nothing original, just a very unsatisfying coming of age tale where one wonders if the heroine actually did make any maturational progress. I didn't find anything smart or clever about Andrea, or in Hathaway's portrayal. It seemed a histrionic display of immature fantasies. The martydom and sainthood, at once self-righteous and condescending left me quite cold. Plus, it just seemed so false. Andrea bumbles in and bumbles back out, and seems none the stronger or the wiser. I left feeling like I'd seen a movie written by a thirteen year old girl.

Streep gave her charactor a bit of vulnerability--yeah, that's nice, but it just muddied up her position as the capital V Villianess. Hers was a bit of two-D play, making Miranda seem at least an honest charactor, and human, deserving of respect and perhaps admiration if not actual sympathy.

The photographer was also well played by that actor. His charactor also had humanity and strength. The slightly tarnished, somewhat dented love for the industry was heroic and endearing. I cheered for him, and felt sad but proud for him, a bit of an urge to stand and salute when he goes down in flames.

It still could have worked if it had been balanced by some strength in Hathaway, or-reality check- if Andrea had some slips of greed, a streak of cool satisfaction, a growing taste for blood that emerged to be rejected at the last second. But, alas, no. Christ seems to have wavered more on the cross.
post #9 of 9
Thread Starter 
Nice review, Chicat. I share a lot of your views. The book was definitely better in many of the film's lackings. Somehow the movie just seemed to short/odd scripted to really portray the time and pain that goes on in the book.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Off topic
Basenotes › Basenotes Forums › General Discussion › Off topic › The Devil Wears Prada movie