The Devil Wears Prada (2006) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
583 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Move Over Henry VIII, Louis XIV, and Napoleon: Mirander Priestly is Here -- Realistic Exposé of the Feudal-like Realm of the Madison Ave Fashion Scene
classicalsteve4 October 2009
We in the United States like to believe that we reside in a country without royalty and nobility. The only people who think that there is true egalitarianism have never worked in the Entertainment and Media Industries. There is an aristocratic elite, no question, and it is not exactly made up of politicians (although there are some). It is largely composed of those who control media, particularly in television, film, radio, music, fashion, and print. They control what get's seen and what doesn't. When these people put on huge events that involve the press, cameras, and limousines, the public comes out to pay unquestioned homage to these elites, often on the sideline behind a barricade. With cameras flashing, these people are treated like the royalty of the 17th and 18th centuries. "The Devil Wears Prada" examines what is like to be in the inner circle of one of these elites.

In addition to the public's clamoring to glimpse these powerful elites, another segment of the population desires to become one of these people by trying to "break into" the media business. Since there are many more people who dream of being in these circles than there are spots available, this gives enormous power to those already on the inside, particularly those who have sway to either make or break an up-and-coming career. "The Devil Wears Prada" chronicles an aspiring journalist who lands a dream job that, she is told, "thousands would kill for": being the personal assistant to the editor of one of the largest fashion magazines, Runway, whose editor-in-chief makes Bill Gates seem like a softy. The character, Miranda Priestly (played by Meryl Streep in a tour-de-force Oscar-nominated performance) is in fact modeled after real-life Vogue Magazine editor Anna Wintour whose chilling detachment from those around her, her ability to make or break fashion careers, and her cut-throat demands on her staff have become legendary throughout the fashion world.

In the film, the corporation that is "Runway" is no democracy. It is feudalism, with Mirander the absolute queen ruling over her dominion of serfs who constantly scatter about trying to please her. The central character, Andy Sachs, is plunged into this Madison Avenue purgatory without knowing the rules of the game. A journalism-major from Northwestern, Andy knows next to nothing about the fashion world, but it's not just the fashion world--it's the world of the elite in New York. Since everyone wants to gain favor from the higher-ups in order to step up the ladder, there's often over-the-top deference to those in elite positions. I half-expected her female assistants to curtsy when Mirander entered the office. Mirander knows perfectly-well her status and she uses it, often flaunts it, to her advantage. Her staff run around like castle servants anticipating the arrival of the Lady of the Manor.

Streep is magnificent as her voice never reaches past mezzo-piano. When one of her staff has transgressed, or simply cannot fulfill her expectation (I doubt Superman could hold a job there), in the softest tone possible she expresses her disappointment. And yet, the anticipation of her negative reaction is what makes for moments of anti-gravitational intensity. Of course, she never compliments anyone when they've done well. Excellent performance is taken for granted in this kingdom. I've never found the raging tyrant frightening. Rather, it is the even-tempered soft-spoken empress with absolute power who sends anyone who to displeases her to the block with a disinterested wave of the figure that is the most terrifying.

At one point in the film, Andy chuckles when Miranda fusses over some seemingly identical-looking belts which of course spawns a lecture about how Andy's current wardrobe was in fact created by the fashion elite. This does point to another side of the fashion facade which I think may be the point of the film. If you take away the cameras, the celebrities, the allure, the models posing in museums wearing the latest by Christian Dior, at the end of the day all this is about is just jackets, belts, purses, skirts, dresses, and pants. I think one of the characters says as much. These clothes may look wonderful, even stunning, but that's all they are. They are lifeless pieces of fabric cut in a certain way to make the wearer look appealing but that's all it is. The fashion industry of course needs to perpetuate the idea that clothing is much more than clothing: that beautiful fashions will create fairy-tale existences for the purchasers. They are meant to represent a life of luxury and splendor and the purchase of these articles will bring you closer to that reality. When it doesn't, you need to buy more of these clothes. And you need to read Runway (aka Vogue) to tell you what you should buy. Of course, the only ones who actually have these fairy tale existences are the ones providing the clothes. Most of the people buying these fashions are still behind the barricade. Is there an irony here?
88 out of 108 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The real villain was her boyfriend
Laura_Ratings14 April 2022
It's a comfort movie to me that I love to rewatch. All the actors were amazing and it's just a fun, feel-good story. The only thing I have with this is why the main character had to loose weight when she was already pretty skinny, but okay, it was the 00's obsession with skinniness I guess.

Also, the true villains in this movie were the boyfriend and her friends, she was finally doing something she loves and they were hating on her for being successful. Okay, she was super busy and she missed a few social things, but when she started they already knew it was going to be a taxing job. And she only wanted to do it for a year so that after that she could have her pick at any other job. Truly they were holding her back and not celebrating her....
62 out of 76 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
One thing
nkishudak2 November 2020
There's absolutely no chemistry between Anne and Adrian. How the hell did they cast him for this role?! Everyone else is brilliant. Classic fun, love this movie.
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Much better than I had been led to believe
Fred-S5 March 2007
I had been told that Merryl Streep is great in this movie but the movie isn't really very good, so I went in with very low expectations. Maybe that was good: I really liked "The Devil Wears Prada" a lot.

Maybe I liked it because of two things I had in common with Andy: first, I have had the experience of starting a new job with only the vaguest idea of what I was supposed to do (and how to do it) and finding that everyone expected me to perform competently, without any training or help, right away. Second, I have had a boss (female) who was so difficult to please and so willing to tell her underlings how stupid they were that several quit without even waiting until they could find other jobs. In other words, I could really relate to Andy's situation. Stuff like that actually does happen in the real world. Perhaps, that is the reason that I was possibly the only person in the theater who was hoping Andy would not make the choice she made.

One thing that Miranda Priestley (Merryl Streep) had going that my Boss From Hell did not was class. It would have been very easy to create Miranda as a monster, but, wisely and skillfully, Merryl Streep allowed her to have a dignity and intelligence that made her seem to be demanding but not sadistic.

Stanley Tucci is superb as Nigel, the ambitious, hard working man who dreams of having a position of power like Miranda's some day.

"The Devil Wears Prada" is a very funny movie that is not as far divorced from the real world as, I believe, the producers of this movie may have thought.
123 out of 158 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Glossy and entertaining, but a bit shallow!
TheLittleSongbird11 June 2009
This is a glossy and mostly entertaining film, if a little shallow in terms of story and depth. However, there is a well-written script, that sometimes borders toward predictability, and nice camera-work, not to mention the fashionable costumes. The film's main merit is the performance of Meryl Streep, who rarely disappoints in anything she's in. Here she seems to be relishing the role of the hard-to-please Melinda Priestly. Anne Hathaway of Princess Diaries fame, is very charming and suitably dorky as Andrea Sachs, though I will say her clothes at the beginning of the film were hideous. There is also scene stealing support from Emily Blunt, who delights in making catty remarks throughout the film, and Stanley Tucci, who helps transform Andrea from her former self. One may question whether the film is too long, but it's very fast-paced, so I didn't have a problem with the length. The few criticisms I had with the Devil Wears Prada, is the predictability of the story, and sometimes the lack of depth. Overall, an 8/10 Bethany Cox.
18 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Meryl Streep, A Character Actress As Star
borromeot13 July 2007
Unmissable for Meryl Streep fans. She plays second fiddle to Anne Hathaway here - screen time wise, otherwise she's the whole bloody orchestra. She's the one reason to see the film and that in itself is one hell of a reason. Meryl Streep is fearless and part of the joy of going to see her films is that we know for a fact that she's going to dare and dare and dare. From Sophie's Choice and A Cry in The Dark to Death Becomes Her and Plenty. Here the story is as unbearable as most TV commercials but she, Meryl/Miranda transforms it into something else. We connect with her evil queen because her evil queen is much more real, much more human than anybody else on the screen. Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci are fun but they're in the periphery of a story that's so wafer thing they can't really move to the center. Anne Hathaway is kind of invisible and her character only changes costumes and make up. There is no real tangible growth. Now that I got that out of my system. Go see Meryl be Miranda. You'll have a lot of fun.
149 out of 199 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Life Is Made of Choices
claudio_carvalho17 March 2007
In New York, the simple and naive just-graduated in journalism Andrea Sachs (Anne Hathaway) is hired to work as the second assistant of the powerful and sophisticated Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep), the ruthless and merciless executive of the Runway fashion magazine. Andrea dreams to become a journalist and faces the opportunity as a temporary professional challenge. The first assistant Emily (Emily Blunt) advises Andrea about the behavior and preferences of their cruel boss, and the stylist Nigel (Stanley Tucci) helps Andrea to dress more adequately for the environment. Andrea changes her attitude and behavior, affecting her private life and the relationship with her boyfriend Nate (Adrien Grenier), her family and friends. In the end, Andrea learns that life is made of choices.

"The Devil Wears Prada" is a sort of dramatic comedy, with magnificent performances and a great final message. Meryl Streep is fabulous as usual in the role of a cruel bitch; Anne Hathaway is excellent and very beautiful performing the naive and sweet Andrea, a girl who sells her soul to the devil, but returns to her origins and principle; and Emily Blunt is also great, in the role of the caustic and jealous colleague of Andrea. The elegant and sophisticated locations in Paris and New York are nice, and the music score presents many hits. The story is never corny and I really liked this movie. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "O Diabo Veste Prada" ("The Devil Wears Prada")
69 out of 113 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Fully Dressed
tedg2 July 2006
Phil Spector invented modern pop music. Oh, some elements shift from time to time and different performer types are selected to posture in front. But the basic formula is one of filling all the holes. He called it "wall of sound," but Eric Clapton popularized the notion that the lead defines "holes" and its the job of the producer to fill them all.

It has to do with some hardwired notion of richness in the way we perceive things. My own theory is that usually we encounter things that to be understood have to be placed in some sort of context. We have to provide that context by being whole beings who have our own world and understand it. But we don't, usually. We're incomplete, lazy about this. We want prefabricated worlds to provide context and eliminate ambiguities.

That's why we prefer it when an object comes with its own context, like in pop music where there is no vacuum for us to use. Fashion is the same way: there's some sort of bold statement, but it only works if all the holes are filled with accompanying items and attitudes.

And its the same with movies. If you want a movie to be popular, to sit well in the popular eye, you need to make it lush in the small. This project shows signs that it is carefully produced in this way. Look at what happens in the backgrounds: colors, energy, motion. Look at what happens in the blocking: compound events conflated. Look at even the simple setup where a friend sees our young heroine flirt with a suitor. There's a huge amount of attention paid to the environment and the people which surround her.

A Paris street walk is another very fine example.

It isn't as valuable as what I usually look for: actual cinematic art. This is more craft, stagecraft. But it is well enough done to be admired. And entirely apt for a story about an industry that does the same thing.


There are essentially four characters in this. The boss, our young writer, the "first assistant" who is placed in between in several ways, and the gay (we infer) fashion expert who is placed in between in other ways.

Part of the richness is that each of these is fuller than the usual "lesson" movie would have. All four are compelling performances. But if you haven't yet seen this, I'd like you to pay particular attention to Emily Blount. She's the number 1 assistant.

You've probably seen her before in the very special "My Summer of Love," something human about love and seductions. I think she's a real talent, something different than the others. Oh, they're very good at what they do, finding the right notes. But this woman has something else, something more visceral.

You see, you can dance your own context into this and turn it from something that has no room for you. Try it by following the Emily Blount character, whose name is also Emily. (Hathaway's character is the "new Emily.")


The moral issue we are meant to capture is more sophisticated than usual, too. Streep's character isn't a devil at all. She isn't quite a useful person in the manner that she actually creates. She doesn't make anything. She doesn't create or design or do anything normally considered the root of the food chain in term of value.

She's part journalist, a sort of elevated, influential journalism that Anne's character doesn't have the horsepower to accept. She's also an arbiter of what matters. Its not a new notion, that some journalists create the world they present, and make it seem real by absolute consistency and projected confidence. Its what politics is. Fashion and politics, religion.

That final challenge, about whether our young journalist will follow what she sees as the devil, that final challenge is more complex than it seems. And though this is a mainstream movie, part of the enrichment is that they didn't tone it down. And they left us with the conclusion that the girl left and wrote the story we see, one which casts the successful worldbuilder as the devil.


Speaking about worldbuilders and fashion. To appreciate this movie, you must see the one on which it relies, "Funny Face." Audrey Hepburn, with the smile that Hathaway mines. Similar situation: fashion, clunky girl becomes fashionably adept, conflict between the "real" and pretend (in that case, philosophy). A trip to Paris — some of the very same establishing shots in fact. An ambiguous resolution that in Hepburn's case involved photography instead of writing.

That movie made Jackie Kennedy possible, which made Jack Kennedy president, and from there, another "wall of sound" that built a reality, incidentally concurrent with the rise of Phil Spector...

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
36 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Meryl and the Depth Of Shallowness
littlemartinarocena8 February 2007
No! Miranda Pristley can say it or merely breath it and the refusal comes as a devastating blow to her eager bunch of minions . Those moments were my favorites in a film that promises a hearty meal but delivers a frustrating bland soufflé. Meryl Streep however, makes it palatable and some times right down delicious. Anne Hathaway , so good in "Brokeback Mountain", is so uninteresting here that she manages to survive only when she's sharing the frame with Meryl Streep and that's because we're not looking at her. How can the fairy tale be so uneven, how can we possibly root for the evil stepmother rather than Cinderella. That seems a miscalculation of enormous proportions. All in all I could actually seat through the whole thing again just to see Meryl/Miranda purse her lips.
134 out of 235 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Budding fashionista
bkoganbing26 March 2018
The Devil Wears Prada finds an eager young journalism major Anne Hathaway starting a new job at the fashion industry magazine Runway. She's got the writing credentials, but experience in the industry not a bit. Which is going to be tough because she will be working for Meryl Streep a queenpin of the fashion industry. She's a tough and exacting and demanding supervisor and can't seem to keep good help.

Watching Streep as Miranda Priestley I was reminded about how law clerks worked that way for William O. Douglas on the Supreme Court. He went through them like tissue paper he was that demanding. A brilliant jurist not a very nice man.

Anne Hathaway ever since she was a Disney princess seems always to be cast as sunny, upbeat characters and the casting suits her well. Streep really puts her through the ringer. But the girl had grit.

Streep's a survivor, she's tough in a tough business. One wonders when she was up and coming herself what she might have gone through that make her the way she is.

Hathaway's also got relationship problems with her boyfriend Adrian Greiner who is trying to make it in another tough business, cooking. Hathaway temporarily falls for the charming fashion designer Simon Baker on a quick trip to Paris with Streep.

The Devil Wears Prada got two Oscar nominations, one of the many for Meryl Streep as Best Actress and one for costume design. As this is a film about the fashion industry that would almost seem a requirement.

Fans of Meryl Streep will enjoy this one. You might try viewing this back to back with the Susan Hayward classic I Can Get It For You Wholesale. That film will give you an idea where Streep might have originated from.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Meryl stooped pretty low in this
wisewebwoman4 January 2007
And she's the best thing in it too, by a long shot. She was the only reason I watched it, and stopped it and watched it and stopped it, you get the picture, shame there wasn't a picture to see.

Ann Hathaway, Penelope Cruz, Paz Vega, were these triplets separated at birth? Totally interchangeable as actresses down to the simplistic dialogue and the pat script of innocent lost in the big bad cities of the world, interchangeable too.

Andy, the part that Ann Hathaway 'plays' is supposed to be a recent graduate of journalism school but not once did she give the impression of having mastered the English language. "Kinda" was a word she used a lot, the rest of her words had less letters.

The demand for suspension of disbelief was just too much of a burden for this poor viewer to bear. This was a fashion industry running under Lucifer himself. I have worked for some demanding and/or demeaning and/or overbearing bosses but there is always the big option of leaving.

This type of scripting only works in grand opera, broad strokes, stagey gestures, over-reactions but not in a slim little movie like this.

Humanity was occasionally injected into the limp, flaccid script but it was too little and too threadbare. No fleshing out of characters whatsoever - they were all cardboard. What an incredible waste of money.

Save yours.

30 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Classic
eleanoremearns4 March 2022
This movie should be on the top 250. It's original, influential, and stands the test of time. Underrated imo due to the female fan base and mid soundtrack. But the plot is powerful and the outfits are iconic.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
fashion passion
lee_eisenberg27 January 2007
As Meryl Streep has long been known for serious roles - some of them a bit sappy - it was great to see her play the bitchy lead in "The Devil Wears Prada". Anne Hathaway plays a young woman who moves to New York and gets a job working at Streep's fashion magazine, only to find that Streep lives an entire existence based on schadenfreude (she's only happy if everyone else is on pins and needles), wants the most impossible things (e.g., the unpublished Harry Potter manuscript) and that the people in the fashion industry are too full of themselves for their own good (they act like they're curing cancer). Unless she can do something to rock the boat.

I think that Streep had some of the funniest lines that I've heard in a long time, namely her whole monologue about cerulean. It goes to show how ridiculous these people in the upper echelons really are, but I also like some of the stuff (oops, "stuff" is a forbidden word in fashion!) that Hathaway pulls. Like "Pret-a-Porter" and "Zoolander", this movie leaves nothing unscathed. You gotta love it as much as I did. It certainly deserved its Oscar nominations. So yes, don't bore me with your...questions.

Also starring Stanley Tucci, Emily Blunt and Simon Baker.
10 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A great adaptation of an alright book.
CanadianWunderkind1 July 2006
For the past month or so, I have been eagerly awaiting this movie. I love Meryl Streep, I like Anne Hathaway, I though the world of magazine publishing could make a great setting for a movie, and I thought the premise of the book 'The Devil Wears Prada' had a lot of movie potential. So, now that I've seen it, I have to say it is one of the funniest movies I've seen this year. The screenwriter has maintained everything that was funny about the book, as well as chucked a lot of the duller subplots, and has formulated a movie that is a great deal more enjoyable than the book.

I'm sure you're all familiar with the basic premise - naive small-town girl comes to the big city hoping to be a journalist, and gets a job as assistant to Miranda Priestly, the much-feared editor of 'Runway' magazine (a thinly veiled take on 'Vogue' magazine, and its editor). Thankfully, the cast was almost perfect (though I did think Simon Baker was somewhat miscast at the rakish writer who takes a liking to the protagonist, Andrea), and elevated the movie to a level it would not have otherwise reached.

Meryl Streep is absolutely amazing as Miranda Priestly, and I especially liked the way that, as Miranda, she never raised her voice above normal speaking level. Streep has said she based this mannerism on Clint Eastwood, who as Dirty Harry talks very quietly but still intimidates. This made Miranda much more interesting than the stereotypical, screaming gorgon she could have become. She is certainly the best thing about this movie, and I think the odds are good that she'll score a best-actress nod at the next Oscars. Miranda is also made more complex (and slightly more sympathetic) than in the book, which I thought was very good. In the book, which I recently read, the author (who actually worked as an assistant to 'Vogue' editor Anna Wintour) was very bitter and whiny about the difficulties of her former job, and she made Miranda out to be a totally two-dimensional villain with absolutely no redeeming qualities. However, the movie shows us (briefly) a different side of Miranda - we see the compromises she has had to make to get to the top, and we see the toll this has taken on her personal life. We aren't made to agree with her diva-like behaviour, but we can understand how hard her life must be.

I also thought that Anne Hathaway was very appealing in her role - she made Andrea more likable and less snobbish than she was in the book (although the screenwriter deserves credit for that, as well), and she looked great in the couture she wore through most of the movie.

The supporting players were also very good, especially Emily Blunt (as Andrea's caustic fellow assistant, Emily) and Stanley Tucci (as Miranda's loyal but beleaguered right-hand man, Nigel). On many occasions, they stole scenes from the ostensibly 'central' character of Andrea.

The movie, while maintaining the book's premise, does not follow the book too closely, which I liked. The entire 'Lily' subplot from the book is eliminated (readers of the book will know what I mean), and Andrea's parents and boyfriend are less significant in the movie than in the book. I agreed with these changes, though - I found those aspects of the book to be quite boring, and their omission made for a more streamlined movie.

I strongly recommend this movie to virtually anyone, and I just hope "The Nanny Diaries" (another somewhat-similar 'chick lit' movie adaptation, coming out soon with Scarlett Johannson, that I am eagerly awaiting) lives up to the shining example of this excellent movie.
241 out of 391 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
So Boring
yerlo8 August 2008
I watched my watch more than I watched the movie. Streep was over the top, or maybe that was her character. Whatever--it wasn't holding my attention. Hathaway is always darling and it was enchanting watching her for a while, then that got old. The only character that was funny and interesting was what's-her-name, the assistant, who was overtaken by the brilliant Hathaway character, but she couldn't carry the movie for me. Streep's character stayed her unlovable self throughout. Hathaway learned something, the same old something heroines have been learning since the first movie ever made. Then they all lived happily ever after, I guess. I just don't get the hype on this soporific film. I at least expected a dazzling wardrobe. Even that failed me. It was all so ho-hum.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Overrated as HELL
Benedict_Cumberbatch3 November 2007
I saw TDWP on the week it came out, and although I wasn't surprised that it became such a big box-office hit, the glowing reviews it got are beyond my comprehension. Granted, 2006 wasn't the strongest year for movies, but we had at least 10 or 15 better movies and the fact that the National Board of Review included this on their top 10 list is pretty ridiculous. It's nothing more than an average romantic comedy with some above the average performances (read: Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci, all of them steal the show from beautiful but bland leading lady Anne Hathaway), and a nice but predictable satire to the fashion world. As much as I love Streep, I wouldn't give her another Oscar nomination for this (Annette Bening in "Running With Scissors" - a pretty bad movie, but her performance is glorious - or Maggie Gyllenhaal in "SherryBaby", just to name a couple, were better), but then again, she could play a door and the Academy would still recognize her. Gorgeous Brazilian Gisele Bündchen got US$350 grand to appear in 2 brief scenes and proved (again) that, as an actress, she's a fabulous supermodel. If she had to act for a living, she'd be starving now. When you think of so many wonderful actresses who are waiting tables in NYC to pay the rent, this is even sadder...

Anyway, I digress. All in all, marginally enjoyable with some funny moments/good acting, but nothing too special. 5/10.
45 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The perfect movie when youve had a terrible day at work.
waynos-5972410 January 2022
When you've had an utter sh^t day at work and cannot stand your boss for whatever reason, this movie is the cure for that horrible 9-5 stint.

Why? Because you get to see someone else suffer and it's hilarious and comforting knowing that other people in the workforce have much more horrible employers than yours. Oh and the movie is awesome.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Forget about Meryl Streep, forget about Anne Hathaway – Emily Blunt's is the standout performance
Flagrant-Baronessa25 October 2006
... in an otherwise forgettable fluff of a film that remains afloat, but falls apart a little due to morals and messages. There has certainly been buzz surrounding Meryl Streep's devilishly delicious performance as the cold Prada editor, and rightly so, for she does a fine job, capturing the tingling sarcasm in her character's voice, the pursing of her lips and the icy chill in her voice. She perfectly gets her bitch on. However let me debunk the myth that 'The Devil Wears Prada' is exclusively Streep's show: Hathaway's competitive assistant at Runway Magazine is a blunt scene-stealer whose emotional transparency translates sharply into a bitchy-yet-likable-young-career woman. Hopefully we'll see more of her...

When Andy Sachs (Hathaway) first steps foot into the prestigious Runway building – fresh out of Northwestern university and no interest whatsoever in the couture scene – she it met by a world of rapid-fire fashion jargon, cruel stares from skinny models and sass from superiors. It is a whole world of hierarchies, codes and fancy dresses (Runway is more than "just a magazine", after all) but arguably the first thing that jumps out and grabs you is Emily Blunt as Streep's assistant Emily – the sole survivor. The first half of the 'Prada' is an assured success due to its fast-paced navigation of the fashion industry and its many colourful characters like Nigel and Emily; it sucks you in. Hathaway fully reprises 'Princess Diaries' here but it works.

Next it regrettably initiates a process of ticking off clichéd ingredients from a standard formula: the homely-yet-likable-girl makes progress at work, she goes through the mandatory makeover moment from the gay designer and comes out stunningly pretty, her rivalries' jaws open, her boss approves. Cut to her private life, which takes a backseat in the film, but nonetheless suffers the more involved and ambitious she gets at work. The film raises questions such as, how far will she go to get what she wants? Will she conform? Will she be sucked in? Prada tiptoes around these notions for a bit but there is always the underlying message that says a woman has got to choose: love or career. Nice going on the equality front there, Hollywood. Way to perpetuate gender roles.

Nevertheless, 'The Devil Wears Prada' is a good little diversion and for fashion buffs it must surely be heaven, or at least a petit mort, because the amount of product placement is baffling. Undoubtedly high-fashion labels such as Karl Lagerfeld and Jimmy Choo have paid good cash to be 'casually integrated' in the film. There is also a totally solid soundtrack that accompanies key scenes, such as the opening montage of Hathaway getting dressed in the morning in frumpy clothes while juxtaposed with the high-fashion models and their sleek outfits. Fun, but ultimately highly clichéd and too peppered with sexist messages to fully work.

"That's all."

6 out of 10
26 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Wardrobe malfunction
Lejink4 May 2009
Sorry, not my cup of meat at all, to paraphrase Dylan, a chick-flick based on chick-lit - obviously this was my wife's choice for our Saturday night movie! That said, I really did sit down and try to give the movie every chance to entertain me, I mean I love US TV sit-coms which accomplish comedy by presenting likable characters in humorous situations with quick-fire dialogue and, yes, even gags but this flashy empty so-called rom-com scored zero out of three on that scale.

Instead all I saw was a product placement paradise, so much so that I don't doubt the constantly name-checked contributors probably met the full budget for the film! Impossible you may say to make a film about the fashion magazine business without advertising every other fashion house (was Prada the highest bidder, I wonder?) and magazine chain, but it was so in my face and obvious that it distracted from the fare on the screen.

The characters were all cardboard-thick (the oxymoron is deliberate) caricatures, Meryl Streep getting her "Analyse This" make-over to zero effect and Anne Hathaway improbably transformed from geeky, kooky pleb to a made-up, power-dressed woman of today. The characters are too over-exaggerated, not helped by everyone over-acting for all their worth and the plot situations too obviously contrived, despite the true-to-life locations. Hathaway's character, for instance, the (I hesitate to use the word) epicentre of the film and the gal we're all meant to root for, loses all empathy and sympathy with the audience by betraying her ordinary average guy fiancé for a one-night stand with Mr hunky, career-assisting super-journalist in glitzy Paris! I'll just accept that I'm obviously way too far out of the demographics here for the film to connect with me, but, despite being way over 40, happily married and living in Scotland, I still got "Friends" a sit-com about single 30-somethings in New York...

A movie as facile and empty as the world it seeks to further glamourise.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great performances in standard fare
SnoopyStyle4 October 2013
Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway) is a recent journalism graduate hoping for a job at an important news outlet. She gets hired by the ruthless Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep) editor of Runway fashion magazine. Only she feels the magazine is beneath her high minded journalism. Emily Blunt plays Miranda's long suffering assistant, and Stanley Tucci plays her longtime second in command.

Of course Andy learns some lessons, grows in character, and faces a choice. The story is pretty standard loosely based on Anna Wintour editor of Vogue. The big plus is the great performances from all three ladies. Emily Blunt is funny. Meryl Streep nails her performance. And Anne Hathaway is great at holding the screen with these powerful performances.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
more devil, less Prada
santanose30 June 2006
Without Meryl Streep, The Devil Wears Prada would get maybe a 5 rating, but because of Ms. Streep giving a performance that will undoubtedly get her a 14th Oscar nomination it is reason alone to see it. Is it even possible for her to do something that is even remotely similar to anyone of her past characters? The answer is NO! Her Miranda Priestley is once again a completely new role that seems made for her and she is so deliciously devilish that you want her in every scene, but we'll settle for a supporting actress nomination come February in a movie that would have essentially been Pricess Diaries 3 without her. A very enjoyable summer fluff movie that is a great escape thanks, once again to the brilliant Meryl Streep.
198 out of 355 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Drivel Wears Prada
Mr_Pink0518 November 2009
An attractive woman with nice clothes, a handsome boyfriend and her own apartment working at a fashion magazine? Well I never! Stop the presses! That's hysterical! Frankel's fashion farce is a comedy missing one essential ingredient: humour.

A mess of montages and moral emptiness, it's impossible to feel connected to any person, place or thing during this whole ordeal. The characters are so one dimensional you'll wonder if you're watching it on your Sega Master System. There's no real storyline and its intentions seem totally unclear.

It's also far too long. 1hr 40mins might seem O.K, but with pacing that would make the editor of Ang Lee's Hulk cringe you'll think you're approaching the end at around 36 mins....then you'll realise you're wrong...and you'll cry.

Tiresome and nauseatingly smug: I don't know if the Devil wears Prada but he probably helps rubbish like this get made.

WARNING: contains self indulgence and mild Meryl Streep.
12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Devil Can't Act
ray-2808 July 2007
Films like this, and the people who star in them, should thank their lucky stars someone invented the term "hater." The word is a get-out-of-jail free card to anyone who wants to walk over others and not have their victory party interrupted by the noise of those they trampled upon. Like few other films could, this film exposes the hypocrisy not in the fashion industry, but Hollywood itself. It also proves, convincingly, that Meryl Streep is the most overrated actress in the history of the civilized world.

Ask Anne Hathaway to do a nude scene, and she'd likely refuse. If she wouldn't, most actresses on her level would refuse. Ask her (or Streep) to play a role that sends the wrong political message about women (say a movie about how to sexually harass women in your office and not get caught), and she might get up on a soapbox and refuse it. After all, actors are such role models, and their films leave such an impression on their audiences. Just ask Geena Davis, who was thrilled to be playing the nation's first female president. Strong, independent women on film send a great message, and the actresses who play them love being the messenger.

When you can call everyone you oppress a "hater," you can marginalize their statements as sour grapes. You can even call them a hater if they fail to be as happy and enthusiastic about your success as you are, even if yours came at the expense of theirs.

That said, would Hathaway revel in the role of a young legal secretary praying she's pretty enough to be hired and dismissing the concerns of the older women she displaced? Is Streep proud that the 20-minute lunch she assigned her assistants violates NY state labor law? Does she like gender discrimination? I guess so, because we all know that actresses won't do things on film if they don't approve of the political message.

Ever wonder why young Hollywood actresses are always smiling so much? Aside from needing to send a biological signal that they just might be ready to have sex (gets them ahead), they are happy because they get paid six or seven figures to play around with these "important political messages." While they are doing this, and while movies like this are being made, the stories that really need to be told -- the ones about the people left in the wake of narcissistic dimwits like the leads -- are not, because the "devils" in Hollywood don't want that story told, and they don't hire those who can tell it. Instead, they hire the Emilys and Andies of the world, and in the course of mistreating them, destroy the careers of those who never get in their door because they aren't that slither of the population that is young, female, and attractive. Streep was nothing more than a glorified housemom in this film.

Hathaway's "struggling" young adult female in New York City is about as unrealistic character as exists. A fat girl who grows up in Manhattan without family money will find herself boxed out of the job market by Andie, while a space has been reserved for Andie all along, by the powerful men who want her socializing near them and working for them. To her credit, Hathaway is not one of those young women herself, in that she did not capitalize on gender bias at regular jobs to keep her in the big city long enough to sleep her way to the top. She's acted all her life and is also a Soprano, i.e., a real performing artist. Her performance may stink theatrically, but politically she's the cleanest of the film.

Streep's character, Miranda Pristley, must have felt like she was in a kennel with all the scenery being chewed by Streep, whose into-the-wall performance smacked of litte more than her industry-induced narcissism that her "loo droppings" don't stink. Streep has to be the most annoying actress on- and off-screen of this era. Her character in Defending Your Life is a caricature of the undeserved pedestal the public has placed her on throughout her fourteen Oscar nominations. Those who think Barney is the Devil have good reason, but they're wrong, because Streep is a lot closer than he'll ever be. She takes her paychecks and glory from an industry her characters lampoon. This is like when the media complains about political spending in shows sponsored by high-priced political advertising. Hypocritical.

The film is simple enough: Fashion magazine, queen-bee boss (Streep) hires naive assistant (Hathaway), who barely escapes the sharks before becoming one, proves she can survive, and then wonders if she wants the fruits of her struggle. Stereotype the world and present racist, sexist backdrops (did Manhattan turn into South Africa?) without commentary, while pretending to make a meaningful political statement.

Message to the people in this film: there are no wealthy victims in this world, and there are no wealthy activists. Lip service changes nothing, but putting injustice on film for "realism" without showing its ugliness or sparking its eradication is nothing more than profiteering and enabling. But don't worry, anyone who points this out must be a "hater." Pristley is Streep's better half, because she's honest about what she is and what she does.
15 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Hathaway and the audience deserves better
jellyneckr13 October 2006
I'm not a chick flick guy. That may seem like an odd statement, considering they are called chick flicks for a reason, but there are some guys that actually find something to enjoy in the endless reign of female oriented films starring Kate Hudson, Julia Roberts, or the new queen of the genre, Anne Hathaway. With two Princess Diary movies under belt, Hathaway continues her foray into the world of chick film with this adaptation of the best-selling novel by Lauren Weisberger. Hathaway plays Andrea "Andy" Sachs, a wannabe journalist who gets a job working as second assistant to Runway fashion magazine's editor Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep). Priestly is the stereotypical mean and nasty boss seen in just about every film made in the past two decades about working. However, Devil Wears Prada is too light hearted to really dive into Priestly's black heart and instead of dark humor to capture Andy's pain working for her, director David Frankel chooses to settle for lame put downs, such as insulting the way Andy dresses. Maybe there's humor to be found in that for women, but it's hard to imagine any guy finding the jokes here humorous. When jokes aren't failing left and right, the filmmakers throw montage after montage at the audience rather than focusing on character development and telling an interesting story. All this makes 'Prada' impossible rubble to sit through with no fun or wit in sight. Worse, the performances are generally annoying and/or dry. Hathaway, a great actress who has been in more bad films than any actress in recent memory, is given little to do but sound whiny and self-centered. Hathaway and the audience deserve better. 1/10
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Streep: 15 stars out of ten-- film 8 out of 10
gratwicker1 July 2006
Streep: 15 Stars out of 10. The movie: 8 out of 10

Streep plays a boss who lives for her work. She loves her work and becomes the best in the Cosmos at it. She can't tolerate fools gladly--and if she did she would be taking away from the energy she gives solely to her company. It's all for the company.

She needs what she needs NOW and not later and expects to get it. Underlings don't understand; and some of them hate her for it, others merely fear her. None understand that her genius requires, deserves the instant gratification the Miranda (Streep) demands.

Streep masters this part; as an actor she starts at the top and rises still higher. But, except for Stanley Tucci, everyone else in the cast is just coasting. Anne Hathaway is miscast as Andrea, the second assistant, --she doesn't look or fit the part; she's weak, mooney, and her boyfriend, Nate, Adrian Grienier, is just a pretty face playing a sous chef, (well, Woody sees something in him, as he's in a Woody Allen film but, I don't know. I kept wishing that he'd leave the sixties and get a haircut. We've seen his act already in a thousand pictures from the sixties.)

Stanley Tuccci is fine as a gay guy in the company. Loyal to Miranda, helpful to Andrea, he dances though the film and adds to every scene they give him.

Besides the comedy, film goers will note there's a serious theme in the film too.

42 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed