THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA
THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA
ï¿½ 
2006, PG-13, 106 mins.
Miranda Priestly: Meryl Streep / Andy Sachs: Anne Hathaway / Emily: Emily Blunt / Nigel: Stanley Tucci / Nate: Adrian Grenier / Lilly: Tracie Thoms / Christian: Simon Baker
Directed by David Frankel /  Written by Aline Brosh McKenna      / Based on the novel by Lauren Weisberger
Question: Can a brilliant performance trump a      mediocre script? 
Thatï¿½s among the toughest dilemmas the film      critic faces and THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA readily typifies it.  Meryl Streepsï¿½      Miranda Priestly emerges as one of the more memorable characters in any film      from 2006.  Sheï¿½s the editor of Runway magazine, the most influential      publication of its sort in the world and she rules over her domain like a      dictatorial empress.  Streep parades around with pomp, circumstance, and a      nasty - oftentimes repellent - level of indignation for those under her. Sheï¿½s not a cast iron b-i-t-c-h, but a sterling silver one.  Itï¿½s a      brilliant performance of feminine bravado and soft-spoken cruelty and      narcissism. 
Yet, the major problem with THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA is that it never really populates      this wonderfully wicked witch in a story that is equally compelling.
The film is based on Lauren Weisberger's 2003 semi-autobiographical novel of the same name.  Some have claimed that the      story is taken from her literal time working as an intern at Vogue magazine under iconic editor-in-chief, Anna Wintour.  Weisberger, in a smart      marketing move, claims that she never based the book on either Wintour or      her time with the magazine, but many readers chimed in to the contrary.  As a      result, the book became a smash, spending six months on the New York Timesï¿½      Best Seller list.  It became known as the epitome of ï¿½chick lit.ï¿½  The book      certainly made a stir in the sense that it allowed readers the chance to      take an inside look at the gauntlet that is the fashion industry as well as      trying to match up Weisberger's fictional personas with real life ones.
Unfortunately, the film never really emerges      as anything as compelling as the source material might otherwise dictate.  The film is made up of too many divergent and regurgitated elements from      other genre pictures.  The movie parades around as a semi-satirical black      comedy about the often grueling daily lives of the men and woman that make a living working under an ice queen of a woman.  It also wants to provide a      peek into how the world of the fashion industry is Darwinian, to say the      least. 
This ï¿½ at face value ï¿½ could have been the      material for a great, Christopher Guest-style mockumentary or a bleak      satire that never dared to take easy roads with the material.  Instead, THE      DEVIL WEARS PRADA chooses a much more audience friendly approach with the      subject matter.  It allows the satire to segue into redundant,      after-school-special melodrama.  It pains to show us that ï¿½ gasp! ï¿½ the big      fashion industry grabs you, chews you up, and spits you out and that ï¿½ double gasp! ï¿½ young, impressionable woman will become seduced by its allure      and finally ï¿½ triple gasp! ï¿½ working in the industry will teach you valuable      life lessons, like being honorable, trust your friends and donï¿½t be a sell out. 
Yawn.
My main misgiving with the film is with the      coyness with which the story transpires.  Surely, a film about a fashion      magazine and itï¿½s go-for-the-jugular work ethic could have been edgy      and ripe with bleak commentary.  A much more fascinating and invigorating      story would be to see a naï¿½ve and impressionable girl truly be lured in the      circles of fashion hell, never to return from its magnetism.  THE      DEVIL WEARS PRADA takes the road-most-traveled approach.  It wants to be a      smashing expose on how the fashion industry is morally corrupt and how one      woman must come to grips with the ethical choices that mare her daily job.  I guess by "ethical choices" the film means whether she should wear pants made      by Gucci or Armani. 
The film wants our buy in to a plot that is      as predictable and paper thin as an anorexic super model.  Itï¿½s a woefully      predictable fish-out-of-water story about an ugly duckling that becomes an      empowered and well-tailored gopher at her big fashion job and then realizes      ï¿½ gee whiz ï¿½ that her new outward beauty is uglier and less desirable than her      old life.  She re-discovers the beauties of her ï¿½pastï¿½ life and      discovers      that the fashion world ï¿½ dag-nammit ï¿½ is superficial and silly.  To call THE DEVIL      WEARS PRADA trite is an huge understatement.
Perhaps one of the larger problems is with      the casting of the ugly duckling of the film ï¿½ the gorgeous Ann Hathaway.  Excuse me, but has she not played this part before in THE PRINCESS DIARIES?  Also, maybe sheï¿½s just too pretty of a presence even when she is      introduced as a fashion virgin.  Perhaps a better casting choice would have      been to get an actress less glamorous and fetching in order to make her transition      from Ivy-league graduate student to pompous and snobby fashion guru more      effective.  I like Hathaway, but her presence in this film is a distraction.
The film opens with Hathawayï¿½s character -      Andy Sachs, a recent graduate of journalism - trying to make her way in      the big city and live her dream as a magazine writer.  Gee, letï¿½s cross off     obligatory starry-eyed dreamer story plot elements:
A       live-in boyfriend that loves her, but slowly will begin to      grow weary of the woman she will becomeï¿½check. 
A loving and caring father that will come to visit her and      also grow equally despondent with the career choices she will makeï¿½check.
A Faustian protagonist that does not give Andy her dream job,      but eventually lures her over to her intoxicating and power-trippy      lifestyleï¿½check.
A mentor figure that works with Andy that will ï¿½ despite      being initially      displeased with her presence ï¿½ help assist her with the inï¿½s and outï¿½s      of her job and will ï¿½fix her upï¿½ as to please her bossï¿½check.
Another handsome man with power that swoops into Andyï¿½s life      and that does immeasurable favors for her when the plot demands it and later      makes her repay the favors when a chance at becoming a writer can be      supplied through himï¿½check. 
Anyway, Andy decides to apply for a job      working at Runway magazine, despite having no fashion sense whatsoever (or,      at least in our eyes, a normal fashion sense), nor has she even heard      of the editor.  What she does not realize is that itï¿½s editor, Miranda      Priestley, is the most powerful person in the industry and she wields power      like none around her.  However scared Andy is, she decides to stick to her      guns, get the job, stay with it for a year, and hopefully it will open new      doors for her. 
Her interview is perhaps the best scene in the film.   When      she arrives Miranda is not in her office when she does arrive the fashion offices throws      themselves into preparing for her arrival like the Queen of England was      coming.  When she arrives she listens to Andy.  ï¿½I just graduated from      Northwestern," she explains, "and I was editor of the Daily Northwestern.ï¿½ ï¿½The      details of your incompetence do not interest me,ï¿½ Miranda dryly responds.  Soon,      Miranda turns to her number one girl, Emily (Emily Blunt, in the filmï¿½s      second decent performance) and tells her, ï¿½Hire the fat, smart girl.ï¿½
Andy predictably has no idea what she has      gotten herself into.  Working for Miranda is ï¿½ in essence ï¿½ like being      a 24/7 butler.  Her daily demands of Andy are astronomically crazy.  She flies into the office, literally throws her hat and coat at her face,      and makes outlandish requests like, ï¿½Find me that piece of paper I had in my      hand yesterday morningï¿½ or ï¿½ at one point ï¿½ "get me two copies of the new      HARRY POTTER book."  No problem, says Andy, but when she discovers that      Miranda meant the unpublished manuscript for the book that has not      even been published yet and she wants it in a few hours or sheï¿½ll be fired,      she begins to realize that she is literally working for a devil in heels.
Andyï¿½s home life and friends offer her      solace.  Her boyfriend Nate (ENTOURAGEï¿½S Adrain Grenier) listens to Andyï¿½s      daily diatribes about the stresses and demands of working for a monster.  She carries a cell phone every minute and is often interrupted during the      most intimate moments to fetch the most needless items for her boss.  Nate      canï¿½t understand why she does not quit, and her growing indifference to      quitting her job creates a riff between the two.  To make matters worse,      Andy slowly ï¿½ shock of all shocks! ï¿½ begins to pamper herself up and become      the very thing she thought she hated.  With the help an office designer      named Nigel (the always funny Stanley Tucci), Andy pretties herself up and      starts looking like she just came off the runway.  The problem is that Andy      is ï¿½ amazingly ï¿½ too large to fit most of Nigelï¿½s clothes that he has at      his disposal.  She is a size six.  Nigel, trying to motivate her, says, ï¿½Six      is the new fourteen.ï¿½
Andy soon becomes more and more entrenched      with her job and gets so good at it that ï¿½ my God! ï¿½ she will surpass Emily      in her position.  Emily eats, drinks, and sleeps her job.  She      can't wait to go on special assignment in Paris (she amusingly states that,      ï¿½I'm on this new diet for Paris. I don't eat anything until I feel like I'm      about to faint, then I eat a cube of cheese. I'm one stomach flu away from      reaching my goal weightï¿½).  However, when Emily gets      too sick to follow Miranda there ( she gets what she calls an ï¿½incubus      or viral plagueï¿½), Miranda then forces Andy to break the dastardly news to      Emily that she will be replaced by her, knowing full well that itï¿½ll break her heart.  Oh my, the ethical      choices one has to make for the sake of a job.
You may have noticed a sly level of sarcasm      in my review, and itï¿½s more than intentional.  THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA parades      around from one routine plot point to the next with such a numbing      inevitability.  The film is essentially a broadly spun morality play that      becomes as superficial as Mirandaï¿½s wardrobe.  Andyï¿½s developing      self-actualization that ï¿½ holy Hanna ï¿½ she works for a horrible person and      that she is also becoming a horrible person ï¿½ is dull and tedious.  Because      of this, the film never really develops any decent forward momentum because      the viewer knows precisely where itï¿½s heading.  There is not one surprising      development in the film.  Even more blatantly telegraphed is a tertiary      character played by Simon Baker, a power player in the industry that ï¿½ you      just know ï¿½ will be able to get that HARRY POTTER manuscript for Anne, make      her fall for him, and allow her journey to the Dark Side of the fashion      Force complete. 
Again...Yawn.
I guess my review thus far has been one big      proof to show that one virtuoso, standout performance canï¿½t save a film with      a lackluster and formulaic screenplay.  Meryl Streepï¿½s scenery-chewing      performance as a fashion boss without any discernable heart of gold      dominates every minute of the film that she occupies.  If anything, THE      DEVIL WEARS PRADA is on remarkably solid footing whenever sheï¿½s on screen.  Framed around her intoxicatingly vile performance is a cautionary tale of      how absolute power corrupts absolutely and one womanï¿½s journey to realizing      that ï¿½ yikes ï¿½ she just doesn't want to be a Valentino-garbed lap rat for a      trendy and posh fashion empire.  If for only one reason, see THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA to      watch Streep march around in her tour-de-force portrayal of a      deliciously amoral figurehead.  As for the filmï¿½s lightweight and laughably      limp story of how the cutthroat, back stabbing fashion world eats up      unassuming prey?  Wellï¿½let's just say that the film needs a large makeover.