 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.178.211.68
Nothing heavy or brilliant or inciteful; just thoroughly enjoyable and well done. I think Anne Hathaway is the new Julia Roberts.
Follow Ups:
... for the part.
For almost half the length of the movie - there was crack after crack about her style, her looks and HER WEIGHT??? Personally I didn't really see this hapless ugly duckling the dialogue was suggesting. EVEN in the context of high NYC fashion.Personally, I was a bit confused by her accused frumpiness. She was a babe!
Of course there was a fashion transformation that took place after her character was committed and determined to win the respect of Miranda Priestly - But it could have been a much more pronounced & exaggerated transformation, and more fun for the viewer too see.
I thought Streep was wonderful.
Stories of the gorgeous, trim model or actress starving herself to near death because she thinks she's fat and ugly are far from rare. Its not the chunky ones who kill themselves to lose three pounds. Hathaway's character is probably closer to reality for young women in the high fashion culture than we might think.
I thought the film tedious and contrived and the supposed transformation just a sad tale of if you spend money you will become a happy shiney person.
Calling Hathaway fat was enough for hoots of derision. Calling her failure to buy into the norms of this self serving group of Manhattanites "frumpy" was a return to 1950's stereotyping and conformity.
I thought the film hugely conservative and hugely boring. A film for the Bush generation...
I come to the Asylum to get a little relief from all the politico's...I don't give a f**k about your political opinions or anyone elses on here. There are plenty of outlets for you and me to express our opinions. And no I am not a Bush supporter.(since that was probably going to be your predictable reply).
... was about those who want to return to a ficticious past where everything was fine and dandy.
It was previously called "Reaganite" or "Thatcherite".
If you don't think such things have parallels, and I didn't say that they were used as blatant political propaganda, in culture then that is your choice.
I think its a film which is very much a part of the times.
... was meant to be a reference to the tired cliche of films where the glasses wearing secretary (female of course) would take off her glasses and let her hair down and suddenly her boss (what a surprise... a MAN!!!) would suddenly bust his pants trying to get a date with her.
I'm impressed at the extent you run with the ball
... that's a soccer term by the way!
I guess if they wanted her to be slim and sexy at the end, they had to cast someone slim and sexy at the beginning.
Probably lucky it wasn't turned into an Eddie Murphy vehicle...
she was great in that film....and out of the performances I've seen, I hope she wins the Oscar...I agree with you about Hathaway...I just can't keep my eyes off of her when she is on screen....I think of her as a modern day Marlo Thomas (who I have always loved). Thank God "That Girl" finally came out in a boxed-set...now I can get my fill of Anne Marie 24/7!!!
I've seen many praises of Streep for this one. She did do a great job, but I don't think it was a particularly demanding role.
The character is very low-key and demands more of a look at a person, or the pause taken before speaking. I don't think many actors can pull that off; they usually rely on some other expressive device.
The film is an entertaining fluff, but gets tired quickly with repeated viewings. Yes, well done, like the majority of the Hollywood production - you can blame them for many things, but lack of professionizm is not one of them.
.
"I'm gonna go pack for France."
Well, OK. Have you really watched The Devil Wears Prada "repeatedly?" If so, why? I for one *never* watch films repeatedly so this is inconsequential for me, and if I did this film would not be one I watched again just because in the end it is pretty lightweight. The only art I consume and reconsume is music.
Yes, watched it three times over the period of about two months. Why? Because I had to.***The only art I consume and reconsume is music.
This is a tall statement that is hard to believe. How about architecture and paintings, sculpture? Poetry?
Buildings are encountered multiple times but I've never been particularly into architecture and mostly just walk in and out without deep reflection. That is also a form of "appreciation" or "consumption" based on accidental proximity and I don't go out of my way for it...even though I suppose I appreciate an interesting building as much as the next person. Now certainly there are paintings and other visual arts that I've appreciated more than once so in that sense I did overspeak. but it's nothing like the attention I pay to music. I do like poetry but don't read it so much and there isn't much beyond Rilke that I return to for repeated consumption.In essence my statement can stand even though it contained exaggeration. Just a personal thing as to how connected I feel to music.
eb
"The film is an entertaining fluff, but gets tired quickly with repeated viewings."Just how many times have you watched this one? If you need to see more of Anne Hathaway, you can always repeatedly watch Havoc (or, at least, certain parts of it, while you wife is off doing something else).
While my wife was indeed doing something else.Watched the Devil three times. First two went fine, the last one with some strain.
Saw that, and frankly, I was disappointed to see Hathaway do the graphic sex scene.
as
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
