I just watched The Devil Wears Prada for the first time
I forced myself to sit through it.
It really wouldn't have taken a lot to have been a much better film and still made the same points.
The characters were SO single dimensional.
The lovely pretty Anne Hathaway...who almost becomes nasty due to her ambitions, but then sees the light.
Her honest, sensitive, hipster boyfriend...there's always one of them, isn't there?... living with the lead in a funky downtown railroad apartment.
Does this thing want to be a movie for grown ups or teenage girls? The tacky, tacked-on radio pop music drowned out half the dialogue.
Meryl's performance is one note.
I really think it has the bones of an enjoyable film, but it is so infantile. A much better script and a much better director and it could have said something.
|by Anonymous||reply 141||10/20/2013|
Diana Ross would have been a better Miranda Priestley
|by Anonymous||reply 1||11/04/2012|
Yes, Diana Ross would have been great, but that would have been a different film.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||11/04/2012|
How about Vanessa Williams? She played someone simialr on Ugly Betty.
I didn't like Devil for the reasons cited above, but also becuase I think Meryl Streep is incredibly overrated.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||11/04/2012|
I think Diana already played that role in "Mahogany".
|by Anonymous||reply 4||11/04/2012|
Why are guys touting Diana Ross? What has she ever done to prove she can play a convincing Anna Wintour?
|by Anonymous||reply 5||11/04/2012|
It was just as bad when it was called "The Best of Everything."
|by Anonymous||reply 6||11/04/2012|
Loved it and thought M was great. She looked like she had a lot of fun playing Miranda. So many great quotes too:
"Florals? For spring? Ground breaking"
"Tell Richard I saw the pictures that he sent for that feature on the female paratroopers and they're all so deeply unattractive. Is it impossible to find a lovely, slender, female paratrooper? Am I reaching for the stars here?"
"By all means move at a glacial pace. You know how that thrills me."
"I said to myself, go ahead. Take a chance. Hire the smart, fat girl. I had hope. My God. I live on it. Anyway, you ended up disappointing me more than, um- more than any of the other silly girls"
|by Anonymous||reply 7||11/04/2012|
I liked it. I wasn't expecting "Gone with the Wind."
|by Anonymous||reply 8||11/04/2012|
The Devil Wears Prada is a great example of a movie being way better than the book. The Anne Hathaway character was a much bigger pill in the book; it was also poorly written.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||11/04/2012|
Thank you, OP. There's at least two of us now. Every gay guy I talked to wanted to put an ice pick in my back when I trashed this waste of celluloid.
They recently re-ran an interview of Meryl on Fresh Air during pledge drive, and played a clip of her supposedly tour-de-force performance as Miranda. On radio it was even more obvious how bad her performance was. Did she not know it was a comedy?
|by Anonymous||reply 10||11/04/2012|
In the book Miranda was very one-dimensional. I don't know if it was the script or Meryl, but in the movie Miranda had many layers and was much more humanized.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||11/04/2012|
You seem like a drag to be around OP, it was a fun movie Streep gave a great performance (though honestly being nominated for an Oscar was a stretch).
|by Anonymous||reply 12||11/04/2012|
OP, you wanted a movie adaptation of that book with multi-dimensional characters? You're not asking for a lot, are you?
|by Anonymous||reply 13||11/04/2012|
Agreed R9. The character thought that because she aspired to be a 'serious' writer she was better than everyone else.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||11/04/2012|
[quote]I liked it. I wasn't expecting "Gone with the Wind."
As if GWTW is some acting tour de force.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||11/04/2012|
I don't think anyone regards it as a good film on it's own. It's just one of those films you watch for Meryl Streep's performance. Are you going to pretend Meryl Streep is not a great actor? I would like to see some other actress elevate the mediocre material she has worked with.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||11/04/2012|
[quote] I would like to see some other actress elevate the mediocre material she has worked with.
It surely didn't work for that piece of shit of a film "The Iron Lady." Her gift at being a mimic couldn't save the awful script and patchwork directing.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||11/04/2012|
r17 is right. Streep's performance was great, but the movie was awful and boring.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||11/04/2012|
It's good by romantic-comedy standards, but only due to the performances of Streep, Tucci, and Blunt. Hathaway is unremarkable.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||11/04/2012|
[quote]You seem like a drag to be around OP, it was a fun movie Streep gave a great performance
Thanks for confirming that this was meant to appeal to teenage valleygays.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||11/04/2012|
Loved it when I first saw it, but I find it difficult to watch now, only because the scenes with Adrian Grenier and her friends outside the fashion industry are just too horrible to tolerate more than once.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||11/04/2012|
I would have loved to see Helen Mirren as Miranda. I felt Meryl wasn't mean enough.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||11/04/2012|
The first third or so if fun in an AbFab way, Meryl is very funny, but then it starts taking itself way too seriously and any entertainment value disappears.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||11/04/2012|
[quote]I would have loved to see Helen Mirren as Miranda.
Even she wouldn't have made anything of the thin 'girlfriend' script.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||11/04/2012|
Meryl is playing Mike Nichols, whose work has been one note his entire career.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||11/04/2012|
What almost everyone here is saying:
Meryl was great in this. She truly elevated the material, which of course was the point of hiring her.
It's one of her strongest performances imo.
She has a couple of scenes in this film where she is genuinely scary, the death stare at her house being one of them.
She is also *brilliant* in that scene where she dresses down AH; basically all interactions with her employees are so well observed, realistic, scary, and funny at the same time.
Meryl's Oscar nomination was richly deserved.
I love that she chose to play a quiet, soft-spoken monster too. She based that performance on Mike Nichols, did you know?
Emily Blunt was perfect as well.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||11/04/2012|
I saw it on a plane. I must say, it's the kind of movie that should play on the back of a seat.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||11/04/2012|
r22, that was the point.
She was NOT supposed to be a caricature.
Helen Mirren would have overplayed her; cf. her over-the-top performance of a Russian woman in the Last Station.
Meryl walked a fine line, a lot of observation went into this performance.
Nobody could have done a better job.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||11/04/2012|
I wish The Steep toll (tm) would drop dead.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||11/04/2012|
Lol, I just watched it this weekend too, with my good gay friend. He insisted that I watch it, "you're gay and you haven't seen it?" he asked.
Well, there were some funny moments, good line deliveries, icy gestures, etc., but overall I thought it was pretty boring. But, at least know I've seen it.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||11/04/2012|
[r28]: I wasn't asking for a "caricature", I was saying she wasn't mean enough. Mirren would have rocked it.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||11/04/2012|
It could have been so much better if in the end it didn't sell out to the big fluffy ending and Ann's character became a young Miranda.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||11/04/2012|
She would not have rocked it, r31.
She's prone to overacting in these "grande roles" (again, confer the Last Station, and the upcoming Hitchcok movie).
She's great for quiet, intense roles, such as Prime Suspect or the Queen.
In Devil Wears Prada she would have peeked through her performance non-stop. Something which Streep manages to avoid.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||11/04/2012|
Also, r31, it WOULD have been a caricature if she had been any meaner.
That was my point.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||11/04/2012|
ITA with R35. M was mean enough. So much so that you wonder why Andy didn't just throw a latte in her face and walk out.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||11/04/2012|
It's absurd to find fault with Meryl in this, she was perfectly cast. The overly serious second half, cheesy ending and too much of bland Hathaway were the problems.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||11/04/2012|
I think Streep was entirely brilliant.
That being said, I think Michelle Pfeiffer could have been a great Miranda as well.
If you wanted to go English, I would put forward Kristen Scott Thomas as being a better Miranda Priestly option than Mirren, though she'd never have been a big enough name for the project.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||11/04/2012|
I'm glad most people understand what finely calibrated work Meryl delivered in this film.
A very intelligent performance, based on weak original material. Not easy, and she pulled it off.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||11/04/2012|
Meryl should have won for the "belt scene" dressing-down speech. Emily Blunt shaking her head in disgust/exasperation at Anne during that speech was worth a nomination as well.
Anne, her hipster douche bf and their free-loading friends were not remotely sympathetic in the film. I found myself agreeing with Meryl and Stanley Tucci's view of the "industry" early on.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||11/04/2012|
Mirren would have been better.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||11/04/2012|
I was refering to that scene earlier, r40.
One of Meryl's finest moment in film, and yes, she should have won the Oscar that year, for that one alone.
NOBODY could have delivered it like that, not Mirren, and most certainly not Michelle Pfeiffer or K. Scott Thomas.
And that is: the truth.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||11/04/2012|
Meryl and Emily Blunt were great...but Anne Hathaway and Adrian Grenier (as well as the annoying BFFs) made the film nearly unwatchable. Watch Miranda Priestly clips on YouTube and you've seen the only parts of the film worth viewing.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||11/04/2012|
A curious movie -- the scenes at the magazine seem, in the end, so much more real and honest than those when Andy is with her friends or family. Probably a lot of the reason is that the three main magazine characters (by Streep, Tucci, and Blunt) are just better done.
In any case, what the movie does capture, better than any other film I know, is the sense of what "style" means. Gay culture worships style, but rarely gets a chance to think about what it is. Of course, this is by no means a towering intellectual idea, but one that I love seeing explored.
And yes, the movie is far better than the book.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||11/04/2012|
Its the little moments - the cerulean speech, Blunt throwing Anne's briefcase with "this is FOUL", the death stare on the staircase, "oh my god you went upstairs, you WENT upstairs", hideous skirt convention, and meryl's berating of her idiotic staff (i'd be driven to do the same).
The scenes outside the office are not worth watching even on a first viewing.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||11/04/2012|
Loved Meryl, Tucci, Blunt & Hathaway.
Plus all the delicious lesbian fan fiction it inspired
|by Anonymous||reply 46||11/04/2012|
It also seems to not understand how fashion works. Someone like Miranda wouldn't have to ask Calvin Klein for 15 skirts - they would just be sent along with Hermes scarves. They need the magazine, not the other way around. And getting a Harry Potter manuscript would involve one phone call to the editor or JK herself.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||11/04/2012|
"NOBODY could have delivered it like that, not Mirren, and most certainly not Michelle Pfeiffer or K. Scott Thomas."
Mirren would have totally blown Streep out of the water with that scene. Easily.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||11/04/2012|
Streep is good, but the movie is a dud, save for a few exchanges here and there.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||11/04/2012|
I thought the Streep Troll promised to leave months ago.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||11/04/2012|
It's not a great movie, in fact, it's downright boring when Meryl isn't on the screen.
Meryl is fantasic in this; she makes her character more human than in the book, but a trimph of narcissism nevertheless. Priestly is a goddess in her own world, surrounded by worshippers, and able to seduce an outsider like Annie into her self-centered religion. Meryl is able to play both the goddess and the human underneath, and to have the character's human frailties make her manipulation more dangerous.
I'm not the Meryl troll, really.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||11/04/2012|
I guess I'm in the minority, but I thought Anne gave a solid performance.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||11/04/2012|
That movie is very lucky to have that cast. In terms of filmmaking, it is like a parody of bad '80s films with all its montages and pop score and dull camera set-ups. framed but little else. Almost weird how much of a throwback it was.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||11/04/2012|
[quote] it is like a parody of bad '80s films
Yes, it reminded me of Slaves Of New York.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||11/04/2012|
It's a comedy. And it's very funny. Streep and Tucci deliver many hilarious lines perfectly.
Forget the rest.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||11/04/2012|
[quote]It's a comedy. And it's very funny
Simple Simon got here just in time.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||11/04/2012|
I think Anne looked better as the thicker tomboy than the thinner model type.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||11/04/2012|
"Slaves of New York", yes -- and "About Last Night". I was waiting for Sheena Easton to start singing 'So Farrrrr, So Goooood" every time Anne made some progress at Vogue.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||11/04/2012|
PS. Think what Gus Van Sant would've done with this movie. Or Almodovar at his peak. John Waters. Where are all the directors with true style these days, the ones that elevate material instead of just setting up shots? Was Aranofsky (sp) the last one?
|by Anonymous||reply 59||11/04/2012|
I LOVE THIS MOVIE! That's all
|by Anonymous||reply 60||11/04/2012|
Faye Dunaway would have been better.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||11/04/2012|
[quote]Faye Dunaway would have been better.
I soooo agree.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||11/09/2012|
Faye would have been different. Meryl played it with more nuamce than Faye would have.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||11/10/2012|
Maybe too obvious, but I have a feeling that "Patsy Stone" could have worked in the role.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||11/10/2012|
Glenn Close would have been DA BOMB as Miranda Priestly!!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 66||10/14/2013|
Who should have played Andie?
|by Anonymous||reply 67||10/14/2013|
My partner and I walked out of the theater half way through. I love Meryl but that movie was poop.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||10/14/2013|
Please, move away from the screen at a glacial pace.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||10/14/2013|
I for one live in fear to know what movies the OP admires.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||10/14/2013|
I like the film. I can watch it whenever it's on TV. However, the casting of Anne Hathaway and Emily Blunt was weird. They keep calling Anne fat, which she obviously isn't - even in the fashion world. She's much more pretty and glam and thin than Emily, regardless of how she's dressed. All those remarks kept throwing me out of the film.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||10/14/2013|
My favorite line is when Miranda Priestley tells Andy that she always hires the same girl, fashionable, skinny, in love with fashion, but they always end up a disappointment, so she decided to take a chance on the fat, smart girl. The movie was just okay. If this is really how the world of fashion functions I'm glad I shop off the rack.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||10/14/2013|
R73 - She was a size 6/8 before she lost weight. That's big in the modeling world.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||10/14/2013|
The movie is a SUBSTANTIAL improvement on the book.
And it was also the only time Anne Hathaway was likable in a movie.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||10/14/2013|
Really? What is the book like?
|by Anonymous||reply 77||10/14/2013|
[quote]She was a size 6/8 before she lost weight.
But she never LOOKED that size.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||10/14/2013|
This movie is watched every day. It's one of the few films that gets the fashion business right. It's so tired to pick on Meryl Streep, who is more successful than most, but sadly it's the easiest way here to get attention. She is the best.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||10/14/2013|
She looked size 6 or so. She had a body typical of a tall athletic woman with a little meat on her bones. She did not look like a waifish model.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||10/14/2013|
R44, that was always my problem with Ugly Betty. The people who worked at Mode were so colorful, larger than life, entertaining, and had the best lines. And then wet blanket Betty had barge in and kill everyone's boners with a bunch of self-righteous, moralistic bullshit.
It was the perfect example of a showrunner destroying his own creation. The Marco Pennette seasons were top notch, but when Silvio Horta took over completely, it became less fun at Mode and more boring Betty nonsense.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||10/14/2013|
[quote] It's so tired to pick on Meryl Streep, who is more successful than most, but sadly it's the easiest way here to get attention. She is the bes
Whatever happened to Streep Troll (tm), anyway?
|by Anonymous||reply 82||10/14/2013|
[all posts by tedious troll removed.]
|by Anonymous||reply 84||10/14/2013|
The devil is in the details and Anna W would never be caught dead with such cheap accessories (those K-Mart hoop earrings, those bargain bin LensCrafters eyeframes; vinyl looking handbags) or in most of the clothes. If you can't get those details right in a movie about high fashion, you've lost me. Why do they always feel they need to dumb it down so that the flyover fraus are not too intimidated? If you want a believable film wardrobe, look no further than Tilda Swinton in I Am Love.
Prada my eye.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||10/14/2013|
Could not stand AnnE in the film, nor her backstabbing friends. The lead character was unsympathetic and basically stated she was "slumming" at the "empty" fashion magazine. Thank God for Meryl and Stanley's hot daddy character.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||10/14/2013|
Hathaway only got the part after Rachel McAdams turned it down, allegedly.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||10/14/2013|
I wonder how "dated" the fashion looks now...it was all very severe post-war style Chanel, right?
|by Anonymous||reply 89||10/14/2013|
A R89. Didn't Patricia Fields from Sex and the City do the wardrobe for this movie. I like her creative flare but her costumes for TV and film always look like just that - costumes, and not clothes that real-life New Yorkers would actually wear.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||10/14/2013|
R90 - Pat definitely did the wardrobe.
|by Anonymous||reply 91||10/14/2013|
Great hair on Meryl in this, but definitely overrated.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||10/14/2013|
I liked it. It had some funny scenes and some good characters dressed in pretty clothes.
Blunt's character was overly bitchy for what seemed like no reason at all.
It also had Simon Baker sprinkling his hot sexiness all over AnnE.
Sadly, it also had Giselle Bundchen stinking up her small part. No more movies for you, Mrs Tom Brady.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||10/14/2013|
Rachel McAdams would have been a very different Andie.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||10/14/2013|
It was interesting when Priestly waxed lyrical about a particular color, and that was in a small way a quite informative thing, but overall it was dull.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||10/16/2013|
I hated the scenes where they talked about how Andi killed her little brother when she drove off that bridge when she was high.
Brought that movie to a standstill.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||10/16/2013|
R9, I couldn't agree more. The book easily have been was written by a junior, in high school, or Taylor Swift. It was that awful. The movie was entertaining, minus Anne's so very earnest performance. Emily Blunt stole EVERY scene from Anne. It was hard not to feel sorry for Anne, but I managed.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||10/16/2013|
"The book could have..." My mistake.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||10/17/2013|
"Why is no one RED-eeee?"
An Oscar for that line alone.
She's playing Mike Nichols, is she not?
Everything without Streep is unwatchable.
(I mean that as a comment on life, too.)
|by Anonymous||reply 101||10/17/2013|
Diana Ross would have been WAY better as Miranda.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||10/17/2013|
I agree with OP. I went to see it with a friend I fancied (she asked, I said yes) when it came out. Couldn't believe how bad and uninteresting it was.
Friend and I never made out, btw, although she flirts with me every chance she gets. I don't see her much anymore.
Now my girlfriend loves the movie and we have it at home. I've seen it countless times and I don't mind anymore. It's not a movie I sit through, but it's nice background. I like some of the music, some of the montages and Emily Blunt is a lot of fun.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||10/17/2013|
Agreed, R21 about the scenes with her friends. What tripe. And Adrian whathisname is a terrible, terrible actor. How was he the lead of a show for more than a year seems impossible to comprehend.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||10/17/2013|
Oh, I do love The September Issue though, and for that I have to thank this movie first. Actually, it's September Issue that reconciled me with Prada movie.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||10/17/2013|
[quote]I for one live in fear to know what movies the OP admires
In fear of knowing...(in future you'll know).
Because I didn't like this piece of shit? Don't be frightened because I'm not going to tell you.
|by Anonymous||reply 106||10/17/2013|
[quote]Oh, I do love The September Issue though,
I do too. I'm not sure liking one has much to do with liking the other.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||10/17/2013|
Ah, R85... I Am Love, what a truly great movie. I'm not much to notice wardrobe, but my girlfriend instantly pointed out Tilda Swinton's gorgeous wardrobe in this.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||10/17/2013|
Watching Anne Hathaway in this film made me appreciate Julia Roberts and I can't stand her.
McAdams would have been so much better, R88.
|by Anonymous||reply 109||10/17/2013|
Dark times are coming when we start to appreciate or long for Julia Roberts.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||10/17/2013|
Because that's what this 6 billion dollar industry is all about, isn't it? Inner beauty?
Tucci is awesome in this.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||10/17/2013|
Never got and still don't get the Adrien Grenier love. Ruined Entourage for me. Not in Ann's league and Aquaman? Are you fucking kidding me?
|by Anonymous||reply 112||10/17/2013|
Do you think Julia Roberts would be the first choice if it had been made in the early 90s? I think Sandra Bullock would have been better.
|by Anonymous||reply 113||10/17/2013|
This movie had Faye Dunaway written all over it.
|by Anonymous||reply 114||10/17/2013|
[quote]This movie had Faye Dunaway written all over it.
Wasn't Laura Mars the same sort of character? It's so long since I saw it.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||10/17/2013|
No, R113, because Roberts was a headlining star. The Andie character is a supporting character, even though she's the lead. If that makes sense. She is the least interesting character in the script. I can see why Rachel McAdams passed on it.
|by Anonymous||reply 116||10/17/2013|
R118 - It kind of does. So, who would have been the leading contenders for Andie if the movie had been made in 1992?
|by Anonymous||reply 117||10/17/2013|
[quote]So, who would have been the leading contenders for Andie if the movie had been made in 1992?
I'm sure Winona Ryder would have been offered the part.
|by Anonymous||reply 118||10/17/2013|
Hate to say it, but Goop was the fresh ingenue on the scene back then. She did Flesh and Bone in '92, could have been considered for this.
|by Anonymous||reply 119||10/17/2013|
Winona is too short. It would have to be someone who could like like a tomboy and a model.
|by Anonymous||reply 120||10/17/2013|
Well, Miranda keeps calling the emaciated Hathaway fat, so someone like Ricki Lake or Marissa Jaret Winokur would have been more appropriate.
|by Anonymous||reply 121||10/17/2013|
It was a HIT OP, get over it.
|by Anonymous||reply 123||10/17/2013|
I thought the script only tried in the Miranda scenes. The rest of it was After School Special.
Adrian Grenier looked like a monkey, the black girl was a sanctimonious bore and the fat, smart boy friend should have been bent over by Stanley Tucci and shown a thing or two.
|by Anonymous||reply 124||10/17/2013|
[quote]It was a HIT OP, get over it.
Mini brain stopped by to comment.
|by Anonymous||reply 125||10/17/2013|
R120, its called movie magic. They can make Tom Cruise seem 6 feet tall.
|by Anonymous||reply 126||10/17/2013|
R126 - Not in 1992. Besides Winona would have been too twitchy.
|by Anonymous||reply 127||10/17/2013|
Emily Blunt was the only interesting thing in that movie. Hathaway is a mediocre actress at best and Streep was just OK. Ordinary, boring HOllywood movie fare.
|by Anonymous||reply 128||10/17/2013|
R128 speaks the truth. Try to watch it a second time and it is boring beyond belief. Emily Blunt gives a very good comic performance and we believe she exists in the fashion world. Anne is as lovely as she ever will be, and Meryl has thought it all out. It is a dull movie.
|by Anonymous||reply 129||10/17/2013|
Devil/Prada is like Julie/Julia. You just keep moving to the scenes with Meryl, Emily and Stanley. The hipster boyfriend was in the restaurant business, a business we all know if famous for respecting boundaries, letting their employees go home at a reasonable hour so they can complain about how their girlfriend works late.
|by Anonymous||reply 130||10/17/2013|
It was hard to believe the Anne Hathaway character went to NYC after college for a career in journalism and didn't know who the equivalent of Anna Wintour was. I think the narrator in the book knew who she was.
|by Anonymous||reply 131||10/17/2013|
I also thought of Faye Dunaway, not in Laura Marsh, but rather in Network, as the ambitious Diana Christensen.
And every stitch of clothing she wore so elegantly and confidently in that movie (Theoni V. Aldredge did the costume design) I could see Wintour wearing today without having to change anything.
|by Anonymous||reply 132||10/17/2013|
I agree with R128 and I'll add that the clothes are horrible. I don't know if that was a bad year for fashion or what but I thought most of the clothes were awful.
|by Anonymous||reply 133||10/18/2013|
I am ticked off. I've just bought the book because someone said that it was good and Miranda was much more monstrous. Now all I'm hearing is that it's crap.
|by Anonymous||reply 134||10/18/2013|
Rachel McAdams was right to pass on this borefest. Emily Blunt got the best part and made the most of it. Before this, her only audience were a few lesbians who knew her as the "evil" rich girl from Summer of Love.
|by Anonymous||reply 135||10/18/2013|
Emily Blunt is exceptional when she eats and speaks at the same time in her hospital bed.
|by Anonymous||reply 136||10/18/2013|
Just watch September Issue, R134. It is a fun movie. And you'll get to see Anna Wintour for realz.
|by Anonymous||reply 137||10/18/2013|
Yeah thanks R137, I've got that. I'll dig it out again.
|by Anonymous||reply 138||10/18/2013|
This is also a very good (BBC) documentary about Anna Wintour. Narrated by DL fave Glenda Jackson. Well worth a watch.
|by Anonymous||reply 139||10/18/2013|
The movie is clueless about fashion, even for the time it was made. They play up the idea that the fashions in Vogue are absurd, like that ridiculous scene with the jean jacket over the red ballerina gown and turquoise belt. In reality if you look at the editorials they feature pretty standard-issue looks from the latest collections. Also, no fashion editor is getting skirts from and old warhorse like Calvin Klein or moldy old scarves from Hermes.
|by Anonymous||reply 140||10/18/2013|
I have to say, my girlfriend watches it as if it were the gospel.
|by Anonymous||reply 141||10/20/2013|