Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

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.

Nasty Meryl.

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 Anonymousreply 14110/20/2013

Diana Ross would have been a better Miranda Priestley

by Anonymousreply 111/04/2012

Yes, Diana Ross would have been great, but that would have been a different film.

by Anonymousreply 211/04/2012


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 Anonymousreply 311/04/2012

I think Diana already played that role in "Mahogany".

by Anonymousreply 411/04/2012

Why are guys touting Diana Ross? What has she ever done to prove she can play a convincing Anna Wintour?

by Anonymousreply 511/04/2012

It was just as bad when it was called "The Best of Everything."

by Anonymousreply 611/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 711/04/2012

I liked it. I wasn't expecting "Gone with the Wind."

by Anonymousreply 811/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 911/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 1011/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 1111/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 1211/04/2012

OP, you wanted a movie adaptation of that book with multi-dimensional characters? You're not asking for a lot, are you?

by Anonymousreply 1311/04/2012

Agreed R9. The character thought that because she aspired to be a 'serious' writer she was better than everyone else.

by Anonymousreply 1411/04/2012

[quote]I liked it. I wasn't expecting "Gone with the Wind."

As if GWTW is some acting tour de force.

by Anonymousreply 1511/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 1611/04/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 1711/04/2012

r17 is right. Streep's performance was great, but the movie was awful and boring.

by Anonymousreply 1811/04/2012

It's good by romantic-comedy standards, but only due to the performances of Streep, Tucci, and Blunt. Hathaway is unremarkable.

by Anonymousreply 1911/04/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 2011/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 2111/04/2012

I would have loved to see Helen Mirren as Miranda. I felt Meryl wasn't mean enough.

by Anonymousreply 2211/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 2311/04/2012

[quote]I would have loved to see Helen Mirren as Miranda.

Even she wouldn't have made anything of the thin 'girlfriend' script.

by Anonymousreply 2411/04/2012

Meryl is playing Mike Nichols, whose work has been one note his entire career.

by Anonymousreply 2511/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 2611/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 2711/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 2811/04/2012

I wish The Steep toll (tm) would drop dead.

by Anonymousreply 2911/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 3011/04/2012

[r28]: I wasn't asking for a "caricature", I was saying she wasn't mean enough. Mirren would have rocked it.

by Anonymousreply 3111/04/2012

"now I've seen it"

by Anonymousreply 3211/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 3311/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 3411/04/2012

Also, r31, it WOULD have been a caricature if she had been any meaner.

That was my point.

by Anonymousreply 3511/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 3611/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 3711/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 3811/04/2012

Agreed, r37.

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.

As always!

by Anonymousreply 3911/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 4011/04/2012

Mirren would have been better.

by Anonymousreply 4111/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 4211/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 4311/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 4411/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 4511/04/2012

Loved Meryl, Tucci, Blunt & Hathaway.

Plus all the delicious lesbian fan fiction it inspired

by Anonymousreply 4611/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 4711/04/2012

"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 Anonymousreply 4811/04/2012

Streep is good, but the movie is a dud, save for a few exchanges here and there.

by Anonymousreply 4911/04/2012

I thought the Streep Troll promised to leave months ago.

by Anonymousreply 5011/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 5111/04/2012

I guess I'm in the minority, but I thought Anne gave a solid performance.

by Anonymousreply 5211/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 5311/04/2012

[quote] it is like a parody of bad '80s films

Yes, it reminded me of Slaves Of New York.

by Anonymousreply 5411/04/2012

Hey, everyone.

It's a comedy. And it's very funny. Streep and Tucci deliver many hilarious lines perfectly.

Forget the rest.

by Anonymousreply 5511/04/2012

[quote]It's a comedy. And it's very funny

Simple Simon got here just in time.

by Anonymousreply 5611/04/2012

I think Anne looked better as the thicker tomboy than the thinner model type.

by Anonymousreply 5711/04/2012

"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 Anonymousreply 5811/04/2012

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 Anonymousreply 5911/04/2012


by Anonymousreply 6011/04/2012

Faye Dunaway would have been better.

by Anonymousreply 6111/04/2012

[quote]Faye Dunaway would have been better.

I soooo agree.

by Anonymousreply 6211/09/2012

It was entertaining.

by Anonymousreply 6311/09/2012

Faye would have been different. Meryl played it with more nuamce than Faye would have.

by Anonymousreply 6411/10/2012

Maybe too obvious, but I have a feeling that "Patsy Stone" could have worked in the role.

by Anonymousreply 6511/10/2012

Glenn Close would have been DA BOMB as Miranda Priestly!!!!

by Anonymousreply 6610/14/2013

Who should have played Andie?

by Anonymousreply 6710/14/2013

Anne Hathaway R67.

by Anonymousreply 6810/14/2013

My partner and I walked out of the theater half way through. I love Meryl but that movie was poop.

by Anonymousreply 6910/14/2013

If not Anne.

by Anonymousreply 7010/14/2013

Please, move away from the screen at a glacial pace.

by Anonymousreply 7110/14/2013

I for one live in fear to know what movies the OP admires.

by Anonymousreply 7210/14/2013

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 Anonymousreply 7310/14/2013

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 Anonymousreply 7410/14/2013

R73 - She was a size 6/8 before she lost weight. That's big in the modeling world.

by Anonymousreply 7510/14/2013

The movie is a SUBSTANTIAL improvement on the book.

And it was also the only time Anne Hathaway was likable in a movie.

by Anonymousreply 7610/14/2013

Really? What is the book like?

by Anonymousreply 7710/14/2013

[quote]She was a size 6/8 before she lost weight.

But she never LOOKED that size.

by Anonymousreply 7810/14/2013

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 Anonymousreply 7910/14/2013

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 Anonymousreply 8010/14/2013

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 Anonymousreply 8110/14/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 8210/14/2013

[all posts by tedious troll removed.]

by Anonymousreply 8410/14/2013

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 Anonymousreply 8510/14/2013

The book is unreadable.

by Anonymousreply 8610/14/2013

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 Anonymousreply 8710/14/2013

Hathaway only got the part after Rachel McAdams turned it down, allegedly.

by Anonymousreply 8810/14/2013

I wonder how "dated" the fashion looks was all very severe post-war style Chanel, right?

by Anonymousreply 8910/14/2013

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 Anonymousreply 9010/14/2013

R90 - Pat definitely did the wardrobe.

by Anonymousreply 9110/14/2013

Great hair on Meryl in this, but definitely overrated.

by Anonymousreply 9210/14/2013

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 Anonymousreply 9310/14/2013

Rachel McAdams would have been a very different Andie.

by Anonymousreply 9410/14/2013

Ugly, hateful film.

by Anonymousreply 9510/16/2013

I enjoyed it.

by Anonymousreply 9610/16/2013

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 Anonymousreply 9710/16/2013

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 Anonymousreply 9810/16/2013

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 Anonymousreply 9910/16/2013

"The book could have..." My mistake.

by Anonymousreply 10010/17/2013

"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 Anonymousreply 10110/17/2013

Diana Ross would have been WAY better as Miranda.

by Anonymousreply 10210/17/2013

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 Anonymousreply 10310/17/2013

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 Anonymousreply 10410/17/2013

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 Anonymousreply 10510/17/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 10610/17/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 10710/17/2013

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 Anonymousreply 10810/17/2013

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 Anonymousreply 10910/17/2013

Dark times are coming when we start to appreciate or long for Julia Roberts.

by Anonymousreply 11010/17/2013

Because that's what this 6 billion dollar industry is all about, isn't it? Inner beauty?

Tucci is awesome in this.

by Anonymousreply 11110/17/2013

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 Anonymousreply 11210/17/2013

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 Anonymousreply 11310/17/2013

This movie had Faye Dunaway written all over it.

by Anonymousreply 11410/17/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 11510/17/2013

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 Anonymousreply 11610/17/2013

R118 - It kind of does. So, who would have been the leading contenders for Andie if the movie had been made in 1992?

by Anonymousreply 11710/17/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 11810/17/2013

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 Anonymousreply 11910/17/2013

Winona is too short. It would have to be someone who could like like a tomboy and a model.

by Anonymousreply 12010/17/2013

Well, Miranda keeps calling the emaciated Hathaway fat, so someone like Ricki Lake or Marissa Jaret Winokur would have been more appropriate.

by Anonymousreply 12110/17/2013

Brooke Shields

by Anonymousreply 12210/17/2013

It was a HIT OP, get over it.

by Anonymousreply 12310/17/2013

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 Anonymousreply 12410/17/2013

[quote]It was a HIT OP, get over it.

Mini brain stopped by to comment.

by Anonymousreply 12510/17/2013

R120, its called movie magic. They can make Tom Cruise seem 6 feet tall.

by Anonymousreply 12610/17/2013

R126 - Not in 1992. Besides Winona would have been too twitchy.

by Anonymousreply 12710/17/2013

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 Anonymousreply 12810/17/2013

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 Anonymousreply 12910/17/2013

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 Anonymousreply 13010/17/2013

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 Anonymousreply 13110/17/2013

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 Anonymousreply 13210/17/2013

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 Anonymousreply 13310/18/2013

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 Anonymousreply 13410/18/2013

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 Anonymousreply 13510/18/2013

Emily Blunt is exceptional when she eats and speaks at the same time in her hospital bed.

by Anonymousreply 13610/18/2013

Just watch September Issue, R134. It is a fun movie. And you'll get to see Anna Wintour for realz.

by Anonymousreply 13710/18/2013

Yeah thanks R137, I've got that. I'll dig it out again.

by Anonymousreply 13810/18/2013

This is also a very good (BBC) documentary about Anna Wintour. Narrated by DL fave Glenda Jackson. Well worth a watch.

by Anonymousreply 13910/18/2013

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 Anonymousreply 14010/18/2013

I have to say, my girlfriend watches it as if it were the gospel.

by Anonymousreply 14110/20/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!