The more I think about this movie the more disappointed I get. But is it supposed to be more than a cartoon? What was the book like?
The missus and I liked the movie (Streep is great), but had many mis-givings:
Andy did nothing wrong going to Paris. The sub-text was that it was bad to be ambitious (especially if you are a woman), we would have liked to see a more balanced view. The boy friend was a jerk. He should have put up with it for a year so that she could “get a job on any magazine”. We would have liked to see more of a transformation of Andy. At the end of the movie she was pretty much like the start. It would be better if she was dressing with a greater sense of style (if not fashion) and understanding that everyone is putting on an image, even if it is “I don’t want to look like I care about how I look”. Overall, could have been better.
The premise seemed odd too that Streep would hire an unknown; wouldn’t she have someone in mind for the job, someone from inside?
It was another one of those things where you are supposed to feel for someone you previously are supposed to hate
I get it that Meryl Streep’s character is a bitch but then you are supposed to feel bad that she is needy in the face of her husband’s demands. And you’re supposed to care about her because she cares about her kids [BTW, isn’t she supposed to be late 50s? How does she have ten-year-olds?]? In the classic words of DB Sweeney in The Cutting Edge, “I don’t switch gears that fast.”
Dan:
I thought so too about Paris, but then I thought that when she said “I had no choice”, well, Streep’s character had no choice either. I was surprised to see Emily still had a job at the end; I thought Streep saying she was no longer part of her best team meant she was gone completely. And I just don’t get what was so special about Andy. She ended up being a clone of the other girls and basically like them.
I absolutely hated the book so I won’t be seeing the movie. It was one of the worse novels I’ve ever had the misfortune to read. All I can is thank god I got it out of the library so I didn’t shell out any to the idiot author.
Eve, your Liza Minelli comment had me laugh so hard I scared the cat out of my lap.
Then my work here is done.
I agree about the book, by the way, it was awful. Flat, 2D characters, unsatisfying ending. Being a “disgruntled ex-emploee” does not make you a “writer.”
I hated the book as well. Unfortunately, I didn’t get it from the library.
Won’t be seeing the movie.
I never read the book, but the reveiwer for the New Yorker said that he thought the movie was much better. It’s a well-done movie and I found the “fashion world” to really just be it’s setting, not a central theme.
Anyway, I saw the movie Monday, and really enjoyed it. I can’t really comment on its portrayal of the fashion world, but puppy-dog eyes Hathaway and icy Streep make for perfect foils.
Streep was excellent. She spent so much time treating people as if they were part of her environment that when she actually made eye contact with somebody, you wre frozen with anticipation. It was the type of performance where you just enjoy seeing her look over the top of her glasses, or cock her head. Her hairdo had more charisma than some actors. Great hair. Great outfits. Great make-up.
Yes, it was funny. I laughed throughout.
Don’t overlook the performance of the first assistant. I’ve never seen her before; she was excellent.
The scenes in the work environment were the most entertaining. Plenty of times, they cut away to scenes of Hathaway and her friends, but instead of dragging the movie, it just gave a slight respite from, and appreciation of, the good stuff, which they always snapped right back to.
The plot line – gotta give up your soul to get ahead in your career – is definitely tired, and perhaps a better handling of that could have pushed this movie to great. As it is, I found it to be a good escapist Summer movie with just enough substance to grab onto. Well written. Very well acted.
So did I. I don’t know why some people didn’t find it funny.
Meryl and the red-haired actress were good.
Women who seem to be struck-up, unfriendly robots actually have a human side after all.
Just who played Emily, anyway? Does anyone know?
True, but they also didn’t try to REDEEM (with a capital R) Streep, which was nice. Sure, they had a couple brief moments of softening her slightly but one could imagine a lesser movie giving us, “what have I done with my life. I’ve accomplished nothing of substance and made no friends and blah blah blah.”
The New Yorker reviewer indicated that she was somewhat likeable just because she was so good at her job. Well. . .
You can find the review here
The partner Slip and I saw it on the Fourth. In Provincetown. With about 150 other gay men.
With that group, it could have been a freakin’ test pattern and still been funny 
Seriously, though … I adore Meryl’s comedic antics. “She-Devil” (with Roseanne Barr) and “Death Becomes Her” are two of my favorite movies. While Hathaway was fairly uninteresting, there was enough Meryl on the screen to make for an enjoyable afternoon, IMHO.
My wife and I saw it. She liked it because she found it interesting to watch a movie about a female boss at work (she’s a project manager in a mostly male-dominated industry). But the notion that if a man acted like Miranda he wouldn’t raise any comment hasn’t been true for years.
I found it completely empty, with characters too unlikable to root for, and a totally wasted opportunity to make some fun of the fashion industry. (I kept waiting for someone to say to Miranda: the only difference between you and Larry Flynt is that Flynt is honest about what he does.) What the movie needed was an equal for Streep who could say things to her face. There have to be those people even in her world.
Really, Anne Hathaway as the plain one?
No cocaine use? Hell, no smoking?
What it mostly reminded me of was those sex and decadence biblical epics of the 50s, in which the audience was encouraged to wallow in the sex and decadence for two hours and then get the moral satisfaction of watching Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed.
It was tripe, but too well done to be awful. I just wanted to wash my brain when I came out of the theater.
A-men. It’s one of two books I’ve ever read that I’ve actually pitched across the room upon finishing. (The other one was How to be Good by Nick Hornby, which I threw for much different reasons)
That said, I’ll be going to see the movie tonight with a few friends. I’ve heard a lot of good things about Streep’s performance, and I’m really hoping this is one of those rare better-than-the-book films. Also, I’m bored and it’s something to do.
I enjoyed the movie much more than I expected to (didn’t read the book). I am clueless about fashion itself, let alone the fashion industry, so I didn’t have to suspend any disbelief about inaccuracies, etc.
I expected more of a comedy. Instead, I liked the fleshed-out stories of each character. It would have been so easy to descend into cliche jokes about gays in the industry or air-headed models. But each character had a real and believable reason for being there. The one minor exception was Andy’s boyfriend, whose character seemed a little two-dimensional.
Meryl Streep was perfect for her role. Anyone else would have played it over the top and under-playing was what it really needed. But despite her spot-on performance, I thought it was Stanley Tucci who stole the show. I think he should be nominated for a best supporting actor oscar.
They’d first have to right a wrong by going back in time and nominating him for The Terminal, and then they could nominate him for this.
I agree though, he was really good in TDWP.
Couldn’t agree more.
That may well be true, especially from you, Eve.
On the other hand I quite liked the book as a publishing guy. It can be handy.
Example: My 16 years younger sister a few years ago was near to graduating college. She expressed an interest in entering publishing. I told her to read the book. She’s now an investment broker. Voila!
As usual, I’m late to the show.
Saw this flick the other day and, tho it didn’t rock my world, was entertained.
Meryl was a stitch. My favorite line of hers: Where is that piece of paper I had in my hand yesterday morning?
(I’m not a huge MS fan, but part of that may be unfairly colored by a friend of my who worked for her and said she was an incredible bitch.)
I’m another big Stanley Tucci fan.
I also had a problem with the suggestion that the AH character was wrong for sacrificing a year to further her career. Such as when it seemed like she might advance her writing through connections with the writer and his magazine editor.
My biggest problem concerned confusion as to the relationship between the 4 friends.
As I understood it, AH was a recent grad from Northwestern (Chicago-area). There was no mention of her being previously emplyed in NY, and her father was from Ohio. Just how long had she supposedly been in NY?
I didn’t quite understand how she had developed such deep relationships with such diversely successful folk.
The black female gallery manager said something like, “I’ve known you for 16 years and now I don’t know who you are.” Are we supposed to believe they knew each other back in Ohio? At Northwestern?
And the boyfriend - was he in culinary school in Chicago while AH was in journalism school?
And how did they expect to carry on a relationship at the end with both starting new jobs but 1 in Boston and the other in NY?
Just one of these things that still nags at me 2-3 days after seeing the flick.
I saw the movie a while back and really enjoyed it. Meryl Streep did a great job and I only sensed a few false notes. I couldn’t buy Andy following a child’s directions to go upstairs when she was explicitly told to leave the manuscript on the hall table.