Sunday, January 07, 2007

That's All

I would so be fired as Miranda Priestly's assistant. Here's a woman who needs a dozen Hermès scarves to land on her desk in the time it takes to purse her lips, and I can't even spit out a review in less than six months. Another... disappointment. Frankly, the movie's a bit of a disappointment, too, although its bright spots are very bright. One wishes that the director and screenwriter had taken equal care with all of their actors and subplots, and that everything bracing and deft in the opening sequences had survived into the crammed and abbreviated second half. Still, I gotta admit this movie is a hoot, and though nobody quite has me screaming "Oscar!", I have several nice things to say, especially with regard to the three leading ladies, in my new full review.

(Image © 2006 20th Century Fox)

Labels: ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nick, even if you wrote one review every 10 years you would still be the best film reviewer ever! May you continue to write as many or as few reviews as you have time for!

11:31 AM, January 08, 2007  
Blogger tim r said...

Loudly seconded. You've nailed all this film's nattiest, most teasing paradoxes and silliest lapses of concentration. I still had a blast with it — the campy pleasure of the whole confection, if we follow its own logic, comes close to Satan-worship, right? That ending is so crestfallen it's hard to take seriously — as you say, it's straining to be a ten-hour miniseries, or at least to let Hathaway rise a little higher up the ranks before her irritating attack of morality. It ends only because it has to. I'm glad to see it's grown on you, though: wasn't the original grade a C+?

2:01 PM, January 08, 2007  
Blogger NicksFlickPicks said...

Indeed it was, and I'm still waffling, but I'm impressed by how long the film has been troubling me to sort out my reaction to it—especially because it seems so fluffy and discombobulated on first impression (a good and a bad thing, but not an immediate signal of weight or durability), and because enthusiasms like Nathaniel's and strong dissents like JJ's are equally interesting and persuasive to me.

Plus, I've been repeating lines like "Why isn't anyone read-dee?" and "By all means move at a glacial pace..." and "Yes, she described every detail of her decision-making – and then we brushed each other's hair and gabbed about American Idol" a few times too often to pretend the film didn't win me over, by hook or by crook.

2:54 PM, January 08, 2007  
Blogger Glenn Dunks said...

I have issues with the film too, but I have so much fun with it that it fails to bother me. My biggest complaint (and one you didn't mention) was Andy's dumbass friend (the girl who was in Rent). Like, she and Andy's boyfriend were so clueless about Andy's job trying to make her quit and feel bad that she, SHOCK, has a job that requires her to be on service for more than usual. Like, I'm sorry we can't all work at an art gallery putting up paintings.

"with Grenier somehow reconciling with his estranged girlfriend while simultaneously revealing that he has taken a job in another city;"

A week or so after seeing the movie my friend said she wished Andy didn't get back with her boyfriend and I was all "She did? I thought he was leaving town and she got a new job!" and then we were both confused.

7:13 PM, January 08, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home