Reply to Topic
Sure, it sounds silly but I think the movie is going to be really good. Supposedly, the movie is based on Anna Wintour, the bitchy editor-in-chief of Vogue but the way the trailer is done sparked my interest. Plus, Meryl Streep is too good. No matter what anyone says, she is the master.
The Devil Wears Prada
so, i just finished reading the book, and was excite to see they were making a movie. then i saw a long@ss "preview" trailer that just ... seemed off the mark. i felt that Meryl Streep would be perfect but she's missing the coldness of the Editor in Chief.
I read somewhere that Anna Wintour went to the opening screening and was deliberately seated far away from the author, and that she left halfway through the movie. When asked to comment she said she found it amusing or something like that and had come to see what all the fuss was about.
I'd also been excited to see Anne Hathaway in the part but I think they overdid it with her "messiness." But she is supposed to be more "put together" and very smart, just not obsessed with superficiality/appearances.
Basically it feels like they made the Editor in Chief more likeable, and the lead character more goofy, and the whole thing more a caricature of the book, so the story told in the movie is going to be more goofy comedy than real life dramedy.
The book dealt with some major issues, such as the lead girl losing her friendships, boyfriend, and bonds with people, alcoholism, etc. I have the sense that the darkness of these factors in the book are going to be pretty much thrown out in exchange for easy laughs and over-the-top situations (ie, they're going to capitalize on the insane worship of others for the Editor in Chief rather than the real emotional and psychological damage this Editor in Chief has caused for others who work for her).
anyhoo. i'll see it, just sad about where it looks like it's going.
I read somewhere that Anna Wintour went to the opening screening and was deliberately seated far away from the author, and that she left halfway through the movie. When asked to comment she said she found it amusing or something like that and had come to see what all the fuss was about.
I'd also been excited to see Anne Hathaway in the part but I think they overdid it with her "messiness." But she is supposed to be more "put together" and very smart, just not obsessed with superficiality/appearances.
Basically it feels like they made the Editor in Chief more likeable, and the lead character more goofy, and the whole thing more a caricature of the book, so the story told in the movie is going to be more goofy comedy than real life dramedy.
The book dealt with some major issues, such as the lead girl losing her friendships, boyfriend, and bonds with people, alcoholism, etc. I have the sense that the darkness of these factors in the book are going to be pretty much thrown out in exchange for easy laughs and over-the-top situations (ie, they're going to capitalize on the insane worship of others for the Editor in Chief rather than the real emotional and psychological damage this Editor in Chief has caused for others who work for her).
anyhoo. i'll see it, just sad about where it looks like it's going.
__________________
life without movies is like cereal without milk. possible, but disgusting. but not nearly as bad as cereal with water. don't lie. I know you've done it.
life without movies is like cereal without milk. possible, but disgusting. but not nearly as bad as cereal with water. don't lie. I know you've done it.
X
User Lists
Originally Posted by thmilin
so, i just finished reading the book, and was excite to see they were making a movie. then i saw a long@ss "preview" trailer that just ... seemed off the mark. i felt that Meryl Streep would be perfect but she's missing the coldness of the Editor in Chief.
I read somewhere that Anna Wintour went to the opening screening and was deliberately seated far away from the author, and that she left halfway through the movie. When asked to comment she said she found it amusing or something like that and had come to see what all the fuss was about.
I'd also been excited to see Anne Hathaway in the part but I think they overdid it with her "messiness." But she is supposed to be more "put together" and very smart, just not obsessed with superficiality/appearances.
Basically it feels like they made the Editor in Chief more likeable, and the lead character more goofy, and the whole thing more a caricature of the book, so the story told in the movie is going to be more goofy comedy than real life dramedy.
The book dealt with some major issues, such as the lead girl losing her friendships, boyfriend, and bonds with people, alcoholism, etc. I have the sense that the darkness of these factors in the book are going to be pretty much thrown out in exchange for easy laughs and over-the-top situations (ie, they're going to capitalize on the insane worship of others for the Editor in Chief rather than the real emotional and psychological damage this Editor in Chief has caused for others who work for her).
anyhoo. i'll see it, just sad about where it looks like it's going.
I read somewhere that Anna Wintour went to the opening screening and was deliberately seated far away from the author, and that she left halfway through the movie. When asked to comment she said she found it amusing or something like that and had come to see what all the fuss was about.
I'd also been excited to see Anne Hathaway in the part but I think they overdid it with her "messiness." But she is supposed to be more "put together" and very smart, just not obsessed with superficiality/appearances.
Basically it feels like they made the Editor in Chief more likeable, and the lead character more goofy, and the whole thing more a caricature of the book, so the story told in the movie is going to be more goofy comedy than real life dramedy.
The book dealt with some major issues, such as the lead girl losing her friendships, boyfriend, and bonds with people, alcoholism, etc. I have the sense that the darkness of these factors in the book are going to be pretty much thrown out in exchange for easy laughs and over-the-top situations (ie, they're going to capitalize on the insane worship of others for the Editor in Chief rather than the real emotional and psychological damage this Editor in Chief has caused for others who work for her).
anyhoo. i'll see it, just sad about where it looks like it's going.
The movie didn't seem believable to me. Claire Danes was perfect for the part, but the movie itself is blah. Anyway, just wondering if you had seen "Shopgirl."
it's definitely not standard chick lit (it is not a celebration of things feminine and womanly, of girl-bonds and friendships). i think i saw an interview with the author and she basically said it was a coming of age story for a smart young girl thrown into a world she knows nothing about. this world means everything to the people in it - but not to her, or those she has in her life. she learns a really hard lesson about the price you pay when you focus on career over values, and the potential to lose yourself to The Man. In this case, she's losing herself to The Woman in an industry fixated on image and clothes.
This character is actually not superficial at all, though she may be judgemental. basically she's a college educated girl in a world of looking cute and she has never before really paid THAT much attention to looking cute. now her very job seems to ride on it - if she doesn't look or act the part of haute couture slave, she is threatened with being fired. what does a girl who has no idea what haute couture is or what brands are, who wears Gap and Old Navy, do in a world like that?
etc, etc. the book is def worth reading. i would say though that it is heavy on the complaining from the protagonist.
i guess it would have more value for younger women in the same age bracket. I'm a few years older and have far more confidence and belief in myself and would never allow anyone, no matter their station, to belittle me for my appearance or lack of style. the entire book, however, is just that for our protagonist, and how she finally learns to stand up for herself.
you know, when i saw the trailer for shopgirl, i wanted to see it. i think just because it was claire danes. then i saw it at the video store and couldn't bring myself to pick it up. i think it's because her two love interests are entirely uninteresting, and I KNEW it would be an eye-closer. haven't seen it, or read it ...
This character is actually not superficial at all, though she may be judgemental. basically she's a college educated girl in a world of looking cute and she has never before really paid THAT much attention to looking cute. now her very job seems to ride on it - if she doesn't look or act the part of haute couture slave, she is threatened with being fired. what does a girl who has no idea what haute couture is or what brands are, who wears Gap and Old Navy, do in a world like that?
etc, etc. the book is def worth reading. i would say though that it is heavy on the complaining from the protagonist.
i guess it would have more value for younger women in the same age bracket. I'm a few years older and have far more confidence and belief in myself and would never allow anyone, no matter their station, to belittle me for my appearance or lack of style. the entire book, however, is just that for our protagonist, and how she finally learns to stand up for herself.
you know, when i saw the trailer for shopgirl, i wanted to see it. i think just because it was claire danes. then i saw it at the video store and couldn't bring myself to pick it up. i think it's because her two love interests are entirely uninteresting, and I KNEW it would be an eye-closer. haven't seen it, or read it ...
X
User Lists
Originally Posted by thmilin
you know, when i saw the trailer for shopgirl, i wanted to see it. i think just because it was claire danes. then i saw it at the video store and couldn't bring myself to pick it up. i think it's because her two love interests are entirely uninteresting, and I KNEW it would be an eye-closer. haven't seen it, or read it ...
I thought Shopgirl was ok...a little weird and you never get why Claire Danes is into Steve Martin, but I did hear the book is better. I am going to an advanced screening of Devil next week and am excited... I heard whoever took Anne Hathaway's part would be banned from Vogue for life...do you think it could happen?
Well, I saw it and I enjoyed it, but it was nothing special. Honestly, the only reason the movie is better than average is because of Meryl Streep's skill, and not to mention Emily Blunt is funny as hell in this. And Stanley Tucci had some good lines himself, but Anne Hathaway was outshined in every scene she was in.
Okay, now those are the good things about the movie. What I don't like about the movie is that everything is sweetened or rather sugar-coated. I heard Anne Hathaway say in an interview that the producers wanted all of the characters to have souls, but not all characters are supposed to have souls. Since Miranda Priestly is based on Vogue editor Anna Wintour, I would think that Miranda's depiction should be a subtle evil. Everything in the movie is a little too positive for me.
Has anyone noticed that most movies these days feel obligated to create a happy ending. That's why I commend films like "Heathers" who don't have a necessarily happy ending; it just is what is.
Okay, now those are the good things about the movie. What I don't like about the movie is that everything is sweetened or rather sugar-coated. I heard Anne Hathaway say in an interview that the producers wanted all of the characters to have souls, but not all characters are supposed to have souls. Since Miranda Priestly is based on Vogue editor Anna Wintour, I would think that Miranda's depiction should be a subtle evil. Everything in the movie is a little too positive for me.
Has anyone noticed that most movies these days feel obligated to create a happy ending. That's why I commend films like "Heathers" who don't have a necessarily happy ending; it just is what is.
Originally Posted by EugMc
I am gonna see this movie. Think its worth full price or should I wait till it comes to the cheap theater?
Aweseome reviews thmilin...I have seen the movie..and felt it was a little bubble gumish but amusing. Meryl streep brought the movie to the level it was at..and I really enjoyed her. I will definitely have to pick up the book!
The book was so good, I was scared to see the movie, because I hate when movies butcher the book and legacy from which they were created, whhich happens 95% of the time. I have to say, it held up! 
Originally Posted by thmilin
so, i just finished reading the book... The book dealt with some major issues, such as the lead girl losing her friendships, boyfriend, and bonds with people, alcoholism, etc. I have the sense that the darkness of these factors in the book are going to be pretty much thrown out in exchange for easy laughs and over-the-top situations (ie, they're going to capitalize on the insane worship of others for the Editor in Chief rather than the real emotional and psychological damage this Editor in Chief has caused for others who work for her).
__________________
letterboxd
letterboxd
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
WARNING: "The Devil Wears Prada" spoilers below
So I just watched this film and was actually taken back how easily Andrea was seduced by that guy without an ounce of regret it 'appeared' as she talked with her boyfriend at the end there.
And the part where Miranda Priestly told Andrea that she did the exact same thing with Emily as she herself did with Nigel to get ahead was a bogus response by her. For starters, Andrea did not lead Emily on as Miranda did with Nigel as she slipped his hopes away with one quick yank, nor did she take away a job from someone who was actually 'wanted' for unlike in Nigel's position until she of course changed it by her own doing.
Ok, that is all. I just had to get that off my chest.
And the part where Miranda Priestly told Andrea that she did the exact same thing with Emily as she herself did with Nigel to get ahead was a bogus response by her. For starters, Andrea did not lead Emily on as Miranda did with Nigel as she slipped his hopes away with one quick yank, nor did she take away a job from someone who was actually 'wanted' for unlike in Nigel's position until she of course changed it by her own doing.
Ok, that is all. I just had to get that off my chest.
|
|