Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Devil Wears Prada (2006) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Story: The Devil Wears Prada starts as newly graduated journalist Andy Sachs (Hathaway) gets a chance to work as the second assistant to editor-in-chief Miranda Priestly (Streep) at a high fashion magazine. Andy is one of many applicates only she doesn’t have the knowledge of the fashion world, unlike the first assistant Emily (Blunt).
Andy must learn to get through the cold nature of Miranda who always looks down on her and everybody, to get through a year which could put her in a position in the journalist world she has always been dreaming off.
Thoughts on The Devil Wears Prada
Characters – Miranda Priestly is the feared editor-in-chief of a fashion magazine, her presence makes her employees dress to impress, everybody in the industry respects her opinion and for some reason she decides to take on Andy, she pushes Andy to the limits to see if she is good enough to work or her, like all the employees. Andy Sachs is a journalist graduate who is looking to a job in any publication, she doesn’t understand the fashion industry with this job being her gateway to her dream job, but she must learn fast or face being eaten alive in this industry. Her time in the job sees her change who she once was, pushing her friends and boyfriend away. This one-year job could see her future open, but her friendships vanish. Emily is the first assistant under Miranda, she knows the ins and outs of the business and has been waiting for this role for years. She doesn’t like Andy because she doesn’t have the same desire in the fashion industry. Nigel is the only person in the office that Andy gets along with, he does help put her on the right track for success under Miranda.
Performances – Meryl Streep is fantastic in this leading role, she brings a horrible boss to life, without making her seem like a truly horrible person, just somebody career driven. Anne Hathaway is wonderful too, to start with it seemed weird that she wasn’t considered the right body shape for position in the fashion world, but it does make perfect sense with how this world is working. Emily Blunt brings what should be a small role, to be one of the most interesting and entertaining part of the film. Stanley Tucci is a delight in the supporting role being the moral compass for the Andy character.
Story – The story follows a recent graduated journalist that takes a job working under one of the most notoriously difficult editors in the industry, here she must learn the industry to stand a chance to above water in this world, while gaining the experience she requires for her own success. This story first shows how difficult finding the first job for experience could be for any former student trying to get int the industry, it shows how fast the learning curve could be, how you can be looked upon as a replacement for others job too. It shows us how careers can take over lives if you let them which is important for how Andy changes through the story. most importantly it shows us just how you should never forget where you came from and the people that were there for you when you needed them. You will also get to have a laugh at how the fashion industry is considered to operate at the pace which could make or break careers in no time.
Comedy – The comedy in this film come from seeing how the world operates, seeing Andy needing to learn fast, the relationship with Emily and just how everyone can act over the top about the smallest detail.
Settings – The film is set mostly in New York, it shows how the business lives can move at such a pace it would be hard to keep up.
Scene of the Movie – Andy sees a real side of Miranda.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not understand brand names.
Final Thoughts – This is an enjoyable comedy with wonderful performances from the whole cast.
Overall: Enjoyable comedy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/23/meryl-streep-weekend-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/
Andy must learn to get through the cold nature of Miranda who always looks down on her and everybody, to get through a year which could put her in a position in the journalist world she has always been dreaming off.
Thoughts on The Devil Wears Prada
Characters – Miranda Priestly is the feared editor-in-chief of a fashion magazine, her presence makes her employees dress to impress, everybody in the industry respects her opinion and for some reason she decides to take on Andy, she pushes Andy to the limits to see if she is good enough to work or her, like all the employees. Andy Sachs is a journalist graduate who is looking to a job in any publication, she doesn’t understand the fashion industry with this job being her gateway to her dream job, but she must learn fast or face being eaten alive in this industry. Her time in the job sees her change who she once was, pushing her friends and boyfriend away. This one-year job could see her future open, but her friendships vanish. Emily is the first assistant under Miranda, she knows the ins and outs of the business and has been waiting for this role for years. She doesn’t like Andy because she doesn’t have the same desire in the fashion industry. Nigel is the only person in the office that Andy gets along with, he does help put her on the right track for success under Miranda.
Performances – Meryl Streep is fantastic in this leading role, she brings a horrible boss to life, without making her seem like a truly horrible person, just somebody career driven. Anne Hathaway is wonderful too, to start with it seemed weird that she wasn’t considered the right body shape for position in the fashion world, but it does make perfect sense with how this world is working. Emily Blunt brings what should be a small role, to be one of the most interesting and entertaining part of the film. Stanley Tucci is a delight in the supporting role being the moral compass for the Andy character.
Story – The story follows a recent graduated journalist that takes a job working under one of the most notoriously difficult editors in the industry, here she must learn the industry to stand a chance to above water in this world, while gaining the experience she requires for her own success. This story first shows how difficult finding the first job for experience could be for any former student trying to get int the industry, it shows how fast the learning curve could be, how you can be looked upon as a replacement for others job too. It shows us how careers can take over lives if you let them which is important for how Andy changes through the story. most importantly it shows us just how you should never forget where you came from and the people that were there for you when you needed them. You will also get to have a laugh at how the fashion industry is considered to operate at the pace which could make or break careers in no time.
Comedy – The comedy in this film come from seeing how the world operates, seeing Andy needing to learn fast, the relationship with Emily and just how everyone can act over the top about the smallest detail.
Settings – The film is set mostly in New York, it shows how the business lives can move at such a pace it would be hard to keep up.
Scene of the Movie – Andy sees a real side of Miranda.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not understand brand names.
Final Thoughts – This is an enjoyable comedy with wonderful performances from the whole cast.
Overall: Enjoyable comedy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/23/meryl-streep-weekend-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Stand by Me (1986) in Movies
Jun 15, 2018
A Modern Classic
Remember the days of your youth, when Summer was just one long vacation - where you and your buddies would take off and let the day unfold as it presents itself - no schedules, no meetings and the only clock was the rising and setting of the sun?
Such, nostalgic, feelings and remembrances is at the heart of the 1986 Rob Reiner film, STAND BY ME, a "coming of age" tale of boys on the cusp of leaving boyhood behind.
Based on a Stephen King novella, STAND BY ME follows the adventures of Gordie LaChance and his pals Vern, Teddy and Chris as they set off to find the body of a young man who has been missing - and presumed dead.
But it is not the destination that is at the heart of this story, it is the journey - and what a journey, filled with heart, it is. We join in with these 4 boys as the walk towards the unknown - both physically and (more importantly) metaphorically, growing and developing in front of our eyes.
Credit for this film has to start with Director Rob Reiner - mainly known before this film as "Meathead" on the classic TV Series ALL IN THE FAMILY. This was Reiner's 5th film as a Director and, I believe, announced his "arrival" as a signature Director. Look at the run Reiner had. In order, he directed THIS IS SPINAL TAP, THE SURE THING, STAND BY ME, THE PRINCESS BRIDE, WHEN HARRY MET SALLY, MISERY and A FEW GOOD MEN. I would also include THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT and GHOSTS OF MISSISSIPPI in this list, but they come after the misfire NORTH. But, 9 out of 10 good films is quite the track record.
What struck me in this showing of the film (seen on the big screen for the first time by me since 1986) is the contrast between intimacy and enormity. When the boys are on their trek, Reiner shoots a good deal of these scenes from a distance - showing how small these boys are in comparison to the world around them. But, when the scene is an intimate, dialogue, character-driven scene, he tightens his shots right into the faces of the 4 leads, creating an intimacy that draws us into these characters.
The other credit has to go to whomever cast this film - for the 4 unknown boys that were cast in the leads were well cast, indeed.
Start with Wil Wheaton as Gordie. Gordie has spent his whole life in the shadow of his over-achieving "All American" brother, trying to be noticed for who - and what - he is, an author, not an athlete. Wheaton brings the right combination of determination, intelligence and vulnerability to Gordie, giving us a protagonist we can root for. Jerry O'Connell was funnier than I remembered as the "fat kid", Vern, who just wants to play by the rules, but always goes along with his friends, despite his better judgement. Corey Feldman has never been better than he is here as Teddy Duchamp - a young boy with a troubled home life - and a troubled life - that is trying to control, and understand, the rage inside of him.
But it is the work of the late River Phoenix as Chris Chambers, the "leader" of this group that really shines. He is the glue that keeps this foursome together, strong but showing a vulnerability and a "realistic" view of what it is to be a misunderstood youth - the hurt that comes with that and the walls that one puts up to combat that. Phoenix commands the screen in every scene that he is in and when the scene is just Phoenix and Wheaton, you are drawn into a real friendship.
I was surprised, at this viewing, at how serious this film is - and the topics that this film addresses - but those moments are wisely balanced by scenes of action/adventure (like the train tressel scene), comedy (like the the "lard-ass" pie eating scene) and "other" moments (the leaches!).
This is one of those films that is getting better with time - it is aging well - and, rightfully, fits in the category of "Modern Classic".
Letter Grade: A
Such, nostalgic, feelings and remembrances is at the heart of the 1986 Rob Reiner film, STAND BY ME, a "coming of age" tale of boys on the cusp of leaving boyhood behind.
Based on a Stephen King novella, STAND BY ME follows the adventures of Gordie LaChance and his pals Vern, Teddy and Chris as they set off to find the body of a young man who has been missing - and presumed dead.
But it is not the destination that is at the heart of this story, it is the journey - and what a journey, filled with heart, it is. We join in with these 4 boys as the walk towards the unknown - both physically and (more importantly) metaphorically, growing and developing in front of our eyes.
Credit for this film has to start with Director Rob Reiner - mainly known before this film as "Meathead" on the classic TV Series ALL IN THE FAMILY. This was Reiner's 5th film as a Director and, I believe, announced his "arrival" as a signature Director. Look at the run Reiner had. In order, he directed THIS IS SPINAL TAP, THE SURE THING, STAND BY ME, THE PRINCESS BRIDE, WHEN HARRY MET SALLY, MISERY and A FEW GOOD MEN. I would also include THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT and GHOSTS OF MISSISSIPPI in this list, but they come after the misfire NORTH. But, 9 out of 10 good films is quite the track record.
What struck me in this showing of the film (seen on the big screen for the first time by me since 1986) is the contrast between intimacy and enormity. When the boys are on their trek, Reiner shoots a good deal of these scenes from a distance - showing how small these boys are in comparison to the world around them. But, when the scene is an intimate, dialogue, character-driven scene, he tightens his shots right into the faces of the 4 leads, creating an intimacy that draws us into these characters.
The other credit has to go to whomever cast this film - for the 4 unknown boys that were cast in the leads were well cast, indeed.
Start with Wil Wheaton as Gordie. Gordie has spent his whole life in the shadow of his over-achieving "All American" brother, trying to be noticed for who - and what - he is, an author, not an athlete. Wheaton brings the right combination of determination, intelligence and vulnerability to Gordie, giving us a protagonist we can root for. Jerry O'Connell was funnier than I remembered as the "fat kid", Vern, who just wants to play by the rules, but always goes along with his friends, despite his better judgement. Corey Feldman has never been better than he is here as Teddy Duchamp - a young boy with a troubled home life - and a troubled life - that is trying to control, and understand, the rage inside of him.
But it is the work of the late River Phoenix as Chris Chambers, the "leader" of this group that really shines. He is the glue that keeps this foursome together, strong but showing a vulnerability and a "realistic" view of what it is to be a misunderstood youth - the hurt that comes with that and the walls that one puts up to combat that. Phoenix commands the screen in every scene that he is in and when the scene is just Phoenix and Wheaton, you are drawn into a real friendship.
I was surprised, at this viewing, at how serious this film is - and the topics that this film addresses - but those moments are wisely balanced by scenes of action/adventure (like the train tressel scene), comedy (like the the "lard-ass" pie eating scene) and "other" moments (the leaches!).
This is one of those films that is getting better with time - it is aging well - and, rightfully, fits in the category of "Modern Classic".
Letter Grade: A
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Thaw (Seasons of Love, #2) in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Abby is an introverted librarian happily living a regular life in Brooklyn. But things change when she attends a charity gala with a friend and meets Gabrielle, a famous actress and model. The two connect on the dance floor, and Abby is immediately taken by this lovely woman known in modeling circles as the Ice Queen. And while she can see how Gabrielle has earned this nickname, she also senses a softer side to her. Gabrielle asks Abby on a date, and the two begin to get to know each other, discovering they have a lot of similar interests. But even though Gabrielle seems to let her guard down around Abby, she also has problems opening up about her past. Meanwhile, while Abby finds Gabrielle fascinating, she's worried what will happen to their relationship when she admits she's asexual. She's also dealing with issues in her own personal life related to her library position. Can these two women overcome a variety of obstacles to find love?
This novel definitely follows the trope of a regular gal falling for the rich, remote, often angry lesbian: you have to surrender yourself to that and you'll enjoy the book more (much like watching a romantic comedy). There is a little too much focus at times on the fact that Gabrielle runs hot and cold, and her personal dynamics can be slightly weird at points. Still, even while occasionally annoyed, I found myself intrigued and interested at her reticence and wondering at its cause.
However, the real star of this show isn't Gabrielle, but Abby. Abby is just a real sweetheart. She's truly the force of the book. I personally identified with her and adored her love of books, avoidance of makeup, and general introverted self. She was a well-written character, and I found myself wanting to protect her. The fact she's asexual is interesting, and it really cast a light on a sexual orientation that I knew very little about. It was a good learning experience, honestly.
Much like said romantic comedies I mentioned earlier, a lot of this plot is predictable, but the book was written well-enough that I didn't mind: it's what I had signed up for, after all, and I was happy to be along for the ride. I still was really excited for the outcome and read the entire thing in about 24 hours. Besides, the novel has a hidden depth to it, giving us an interesting commentary on society's expectations about sex and relationships. Plus, Springer inserts some hidden inside jokes about books, literary series, and such. A lot of the novel just made me smile, between Abby, the asides, and the overall resolution. It was surprising and for the most part, very enjoyable. Probably a 3.75 stars, but bumped up to 4 stars due to the way it made me feel. I will definitely seek out the other novels in Springer's Season of Love series (this was actually #2, but it seemed to stand-alone just fine).
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 04/24/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
This novel definitely follows the trope of a regular gal falling for the rich, remote, often angry lesbian: you have to surrender yourself to that and you'll enjoy the book more (much like watching a romantic comedy). There is a little too much focus at times on the fact that Gabrielle runs hot and cold, and her personal dynamics can be slightly weird at points. Still, even while occasionally annoyed, I found myself intrigued and interested at her reticence and wondering at its cause.
However, the real star of this show isn't Gabrielle, but Abby. Abby is just a real sweetheart. She's truly the force of the book. I personally identified with her and adored her love of books, avoidance of makeup, and general introverted self. She was a well-written character, and I found myself wanting to protect her. The fact she's asexual is interesting, and it really cast a light on a sexual orientation that I knew very little about. It was a good learning experience, honestly.
Much like said romantic comedies I mentioned earlier, a lot of this plot is predictable, but the book was written well-enough that I didn't mind: it's what I had signed up for, after all, and I was happy to be along for the ride. I still was really excited for the outcome and read the entire thing in about 24 hours. Besides, the novel has a hidden depth to it, giving us an interesting commentary on society's expectations about sex and relationships. Plus, Springer inserts some hidden inside jokes about books, literary series, and such. A lot of the novel just made me smile, between Abby, the asides, and the overall resolution. It was surprising and for the most part, very enjoyable. Probably a 3.75 stars, but bumped up to 4 stars due to the way it made me feel. I will definitely seek out the other novels in Springer's Season of Love series (this was actually #2, but it seemed to stand-alone just fine).
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 04/24/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
It has been four years since Harold and Kumar embarked on their munchies induced quest for White Castle hamburgers. The resulting chaos and mayhem that resulted led to solid box office and DVD sales and spawned the sequel “Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay”.
The film picks up at the conclusion of the last film and finds Harold (John Cho), planning a trip to Amsterdam with his friend Kumar (Kal Penn), in order to surprise his new girlfriend Maria (Paula Garces). Kumar is thrilled at the idea of the trip fueled in large part due to Amsterdam’s very tolerant attitude towards drugs.
As they prepare to board their plane, the duo meet Kumar’s old girlfriend Vanessa (Danneel Harris), who is about to marry a powerful and conservative Texan named Colton (Eric Winter), who has designs on being the President someday.
Unwilling to let on that he still holds a torch for Vanessa, Kumar attempts to get high during the flight and ends up getting himself and Harold mistaken for terrorists. Before the duo know what has hit them they have run afoul of Homeland Security agent Ron Fox (Rob Corddry), and are sharing a cell in Guantanamo Bay.
Desperate to escape their plight, the duo soon find themselves on the lam with Fox and the nations law enforcement officials in hot pursuit.
Harold and Kumar hope to make it to Texas in order to seek help from Colton as Harold thinks that due to their friendship and his connections he can get the duo out of their predicament. Kumar is all for this as not only is it the best way to get out of their situation but he secretly thinks he can get Vanessa to come back to him before it is too late.
Along the way the duo look to find help from their bizarre friends, and run into all manner of obstacles ranging from the Klan, Rednecks, and Neil Patrick Harris in a very funny cameo, and countless other bizarre people and situations.
The film is crude but if you were a fan of the last film, you will likely find this film very funny. The chemistry between Cho and Penn is good and it is fun to see the misadventures of the two best friends and hear them argue amongst themselves over their plight. Harold being the more level headed of the two is furious over the irresponsible Kumar and how he got them into this situation, but he is willing to stand by his friend to a point, which results in one of the fun moments in the film when the duo end up in a brothel in Texas.
Penn and Cho also seem to be having a good time playing the characters and despite the abundance of crude and drug related humor, there are some genuinely funny moments in the film and it is better than the first film in the series.
Those expecting a deep plot and characters will be disappointed, but if you came into this film looking for those elements, then you must have gotten into Kumar’s stash. That being said, take the film for what it is, and enjoyable if light piece of comedy, and you are likely to be glad that you are along for the ride.
The film picks up at the conclusion of the last film and finds Harold (John Cho), planning a trip to Amsterdam with his friend Kumar (Kal Penn), in order to surprise his new girlfriend Maria (Paula Garces). Kumar is thrilled at the idea of the trip fueled in large part due to Amsterdam’s very tolerant attitude towards drugs.
As they prepare to board their plane, the duo meet Kumar’s old girlfriend Vanessa (Danneel Harris), who is about to marry a powerful and conservative Texan named Colton (Eric Winter), who has designs on being the President someday.
Unwilling to let on that he still holds a torch for Vanessa, Kumar attempts to get high during the flight and ends up getting himself and Harold mistaken for terrorists. Before the duo know what has hit them they have run afoul of Homeland Security agent Ron Fox (Rob Corddry), and are sharing a cell in Guantanamo Bay.
Desperate to escape their plight, the duo soon find themselves on the lam with Fox and the nations law enforcement officials in hot pursuit.
Harold and Kumar hope to make it to Texas in order to seek help from Colton as Harold thinks that due to their friendship and his connections he can get the duo out of their predicament. Kumar is all for this as not only is it the best way to get out of their situation but he secretly thinks he can get Vanessa to come back to him before it is too late.
Along the way the duo look to find help from their bizarre friends, and run into all manner of obstacles ranging from the Klan, Rednecks, and Neil Patrick Harris in a very funny cameo, and countless other bizarre people and situations.
The film is crude but if you were a fan of the last film, you will likely find this film very funny. The chemistry between Cho and Penn is good and it is fun to see the misadventures of the two best friends and hear them argue amongst themselves over their plight. Harold being the more level headed of the two is furious over the irresponsible Kumar and how he got them into this situation, but he is willing to stand by his friend to a point, which results in one of the fun moments in the film when the duo end up in a brothel in Texas.
Penn and Cho also seem to be having a good time playing the characters and despite the abundance of crude and drug related humor, there are some genuinely funny moments in the film and it is better than the first film in the series.
Those expecting a deep plot and characters will be disappointed, but if you came into this film looking for those elements, then you must have gotten into Kumar’s stash. That being said, take the film for what it is, and enjoyable if light piece of comedy, and you are likely to be glad that you are along for the ride.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated A Good Day To Die Hard (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
To me, the original Die Hard (1988) was the birth of the modern action movie that we now take for granted. We have a seeming normal everyman in Bruce Willis, playing a likable but tough as nails NYPD cop John McClane, who just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. (Yes, Story if his life.) The street smart hero uses whatever resources he could muster to become a thorn in the side of an intelligent and sophisticated villain, while dropping a few comedy one-liners along the way. This being the 5th installment of the Die Hard series the formula seems to be working, only not as well as past films in the series.
As a fan of the series there are many things this film does well. The soon to be 58 Willis is still as likeable as ever as John McClane. The film does a good job of making fun of his age just enough to make you feel that he is old, but not TOO old. The improbable action is as big as ever which leads to mass destruction in typical John McClane fashion. This action helps the 97min runtime feel fast paced and fun. Also Jai Courtney (Jack Reacher) plays John’s son CIA agent Jack McClane and actually plays strong against Willis. The whole father-son dynamic is interesting and gives some new depth to this familiar character. This dynamic leads up to a redeeming moment for John McClane that makes you wonder if this is Willis’s swan song in the series and if the reins are being passed to Courtney?
As a fan of the series there are many things this film does not do well. Perhaps the most notable are the lack luster one-liner jokes that always seem to stand out in the previous films. They exist, however they are not really that funny. Also the same joke was recycled over and over that by the end I do not recall laughing about anything in the final 40 mins of the film. Perhaps my biggest complaint is that the villain in this film is vanilla. So plain that I do not care to even look up his name. Just know that if you are a fan of the film he is nowhere near the Brilliance of the characters Hans Gruber or even Simon Gruber in previous films. And for this series that is a big problem. We know John McClane is a bad ass, but what is the point of all his destruction if he is not using it to stomp someone who is equally menacing.
In the end I can say that this film is a guilty pleasure that I enjoyed. It is far from a good movie but fans of the series and anyone just looking to watch a run of the mill action flick will be entertained. Leading up to this film I watch the previous four films and I have to say that this film is better than Die Hard 2: Die Harder and Live Free and Die Hard but behind the Die Hard With A Vengeance and far behind the original Die Hard. If you have never seen a Die Hard film, do yourself a favor and use the price of admission to rent the original.
As a fan of the series there are many things this film does well. The soon to be 58 Willis is still as likeable as ever as John McClane. The film does a good job of making fun of his age just enough to make you feel that he is old, but not TOO old. The improbable action is as big as ever which leads to mass destruction in typical John McClane fashion. This action helps the 97min runtime feel fast paced and fun. Also Jai Courtney (Jack Reacher) plays John’s son CIA agent Jack McClane and actually plays strong against Willis. The whole father-son dynamic is interesting and gives some new depth to this familiar character. This dynamic leads up to a redeeming moment for John McClane that makes you wonder if this is Willis’s swan song in the series and if the reins are being passed to Courtney?
As a fan of the series there are many things this film does not do well. Perhaps the most notable are the lack luster one-liner jokes that always seem to stand out in the previous films. They exist, however they are not really that funny. Also the same joke was recycled over and over that by the end I do not recall laughing about anything in the final 40 mins of the film. Perhaps my biggest complaint is that the villain in this film is vanilla. So plain that I do not care to even look up his name. Just know that if you are a fan of the film he is nowhere near the Brilliance of the characters Hans Gruber or even Simon Gruber in previous films. And for this series that is a big problem. We know John McClane is a bad ass, but what is the point of all his destruction if he is not using it to stomp someone who is equally menacing.
In the end I can say that this film is a guilty pleasure that I enjoyed. It is far from a good movie but fans of the series and anyone just looking to watch a run of the mill action flick will be entertained. Leading up to this film I watch the previous four films and I have to say that this film is better than Die Hard 2: Die Harder and Live Free and Die Hard but behind the Die Hard With A Vengeance and far behind the original Die Hard. If you have never seen a Die Hard film, do yourself a favor and use the price of admission to rent the original.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated The Comedian (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Welcome to the year 2017 …. Another year which promises to bring you HUGE blockbuster theatrical releases including long awaited sequels, groundbreaking independent films, and breakout performances from some of cinemas great veterans as well as its rookie newcomers!
Alright … alright … that’s your standard P.R. HYPE. Not that it’s entirely untrue but let’s face it, we all have a pretty good idea as to what’s in store for us this year am I right?
Today’s film is amongst 2016s ‘leftovers’ if you will. No that that’s a bad thing. Example … leftover pizza. I don’t know one individual who doesn’t like leftover pizza. You can think of this film as such.
The selection we present to you is the dramatic comedy ‘The Comedians’. The latest from film legend Robert De Niro. The film premiered at the AFI Fest on November 11th and will be released in theaters on February 3rd. Directed by Taylor Hackford (An Officer And A Gentleman, RAY) and written by Lewis Friedman, comedian Jeff Ross, Art Linson, and Richard LaGravenese (The Fisher King) the film features an all star cast including Robert DeNiro, Leslie Mann, Harvey Keitel, Danny DeVito, Veronica Ferres, Patti LuPone, Edie Falco, Cloris Leachman, Charles Gordin, Jim Norton, Gilbert Gottfried, Jimmie Walker, Brett Butler, Lois Smith, Happy Anderson, Hannibal Buress, and an appearance by Billy Crystal.
DeNiro is Jack ‘Jackie’ Burke. A comedic legend best known for his iconic T.V. role decades before who has spent the years since then attempting to reinvent himself as an ‘insult’ comic. Despite rave performances and praise from fans and his fellow comedians, he is still frustrated that he cannot escape from the shadow of his television career and the mistakes he made during those years as a husband, father, and brother. During a performance at a comedy club on the outskirts of New York City he berates a husband and wife in the audience who are filming him for their internet show without his permission and later attacks the husband. At his court hearing, he is offered a plea deal but upon learning that part of the plea involves apologizing to the husband and wife he openly berates them in the courtroom and is sentenced to 30 days in jail plus community service. Once out of jail, Jackie begins his community service serving meals to the homeless while fine tuning his act at a local church. However, since he has not worked and has no money he pays a call upon his estranged brother whom he has not visited in ages to ask for a loan.
Jackie’s brother agrees but only if Jackie will appear at his niece’s wedding. Late one evening at the church he meets Harmony (Mann) whom is also serving community service for assault and battery. Shortly after, Harmony and Jackie make the rounds at some of the New York comedy clubs where Jackie is still ‘welcome’ after which Jackie proposes a trade of sorts, Harmony will be Jackie’s date to his niece’s wedding if Jackie will appear at the dinner to celebrate the birthday of Harmony’s father (Keitel) who is a huge fan of Jackie’s television persona. At the wedding, Jackie performed a variation of his stand-up act to the delight of his niece and her fiancé while simultaneously offending the majority of the other family members. A few days later, Jackie accompanies Harmony to her father’s birthday dinner only to become aggravated when Harmony’s father insists Jackie reenact his T.V. character’s. Jackie responds by sarcastically professing his intentions to sleep with Harmony. Without giving everything away, what follows is a re-awakening of sorts in which Jackie comes to terms with the inevitability that he will always be known for the one role he tries so desperately to get away from and realizes that if he wants to distances himself from it, he’s going to have to embrace the character.
Despite the all star cast and the fact there were indeed many laughs in the film, it was honestly a waste at the end. This could’ve been an amazing film but it was lacking in its story. The script just didn’t have the ‘heart’ to combine with the premise and the great performances given by the actors. It’s not that they didn’t try, the film just failed to measure up. The acting was great, the directing was good, and there were indeed a few laughs here and there …. it just didn’t have any life to it. Heaven forbid I criticize a DeNiro film, but I can’t give this one more than two out of five stars. I REALLY wanted to like the film, I just didn’t. If it shows up in your digital cable package, go ahead and give it a try. Rent it on iTunes even. Honestly though, I can’t see myself buying the movie.
Alright … alright … that’s your standard P.R. HYPE. Not that it’s entirely untrue but let’s face it, we all have a pretty good idea as to what’s in store for us this year am I right?
Today’s film is amongst 2016s ‘leftovers’ if you will. No that that’s a bad thing. Example … leftover pizza. I don’t know one individual who doesn’t like leftover pizza. You can think of this film as such.
The selection we present to you is the dramatic comedy ‘The Comedians’. The latest from film legend Robert De Niro. The film premiered at the AFI Fest on November 11th and will be released in theaters on February 3rd. Directed by Taylor Hackford (An Officer And A Gentleman, RAY) and written by Lewis Friedman, comedian Jeff Ross, Art Linson, and Richard LaGravenese (The Fisher King) the film features an all star cast including Robert DeNiro, Leslie Mann, Harvey Keitel, Danny DeVito, Veronica Ferres, Patti LuPone, Edie Falco, Cloris Leachman, Charles Gordin, Jim Norton, Gilbert Gottfried, Jimmie Walker, Brett Butler, Lois Smith, Happy Anderson, Hannibal Buress, and an appearance by Billy Crystal.
DeNiro is Jack ‘Jackie’ Burke. A comedic legend best known for his iconic T.V. role decades before who has spent the years since then attempting to reinvent himself as an ‘insult’ comic. Despite rave performances and praise from fans and his fellow comedians, he is still frustrated that he cannot escape from the shadow of his television career and the mistakes he made during those years as a husband, father, and brother. During a performance at a comedy club on the outskirts of New York City he berates a husband and wife in the audience who are filming him for their internet show without his permission and later attacks the husband. At his court hearing, he is offered a plea deal but upon learning that part of the plea involves apologizing to the husband and wife he openly berates them in the courtroom and is sentenced to 30 days in jail plus community service. Once out of jail, Jackie begins his community service serving meals to the homeless while fine tuning his act at a local church. However, since he has not worked and has no money he pays a call upon his estranged brother whom he has not visited in ages to ask for a loan.
Jackie’s brother agrees but only if Jackie will appear at his niece’s wedding. Late one evening at the church he meets Harmony (Mann) whom is also serving community service for assault and battery. Shortly after, Harmony and Jackie make the rounds at some of the New York comedy clubs where Jackie is still ‘welcome’ after which Jackie proposes a trade of sorts, Harmony will be Jackie’s date to his niece’s wedding if Jackie will appear at the dinner to celebrate the birthday of Harmony’s father (Keitel) who is a huge fan of Jackie’s television persona. At the wedding, Jackie performed a variation of his stand-up act to the delight of his niece and her fiancé while simultaneously offending the majority of the other family members. A few days later, Jackie accompanies Harmony to her father’s birthday dinner only to become aggravated when Harmony’s father insists Jackie reenact his T.V. character’s. Jackie responds by sarcastically professing his intentions to sleep with Harmony. Without giving everything away, what follows is a re-awakening of sorts in which Jackie comes to terms with the inevitability that he will always be known for the one role he tries so desperately to get away from and realizes that if he wants to distances himself from it, he’s going to have to embrace the character.
Despite the all star cast and the fact there were indeed many laughs in the film, it was honestly a waste at the end. This could’ve been an amazing film but it was lacking in its story. The script just didn’t have the ‘heart’ to combine with the premise and the great performances given by the actors. It’s not that they didn’t try, the film just failed to measure up. The acting was great, the directing was good, and there were indeed a few laughs here and there …. it just didn’t have any life to it. Heaven forbid I criticize a DeNiro film, but I can’t give this one more than two out of five stars. I REALLY wanted to like the film, I just didn’t. If it shows up in your digital cable package, go ahead and give it a try. Rent it on iTunes even. Honestly though, I can’t see myself buying the movie.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Us (2019) in Movies
Apr 10, 2019 (Updated Apr 10, 2019)
Fantastic performances all round (2 more)
Brilliant direction
Lighting is on point
Just You & I
Contains spoilers, click to show
I saw Us last night and I really enjoyed it. It's the latest movie by comedian turned horror auteur Jordan Peele and after how much I loved Get Out, I was very much looking forward to seeing this. I think that if Us had came before Get Out, I probably would have enjoyed it more, as for every element that I enjoyed in Us, I couldn't help but keep thinking that it had already been done better in Get Out.
Okay, from this point on I am going to dive into spoilers, so please make sure that you have seen the movie before you continue reading.
The main reason that I am having to go into spoilers pretty soon into my review is because the shit hits the fan in this film fairly early on. In Get Out the first 3 quarters of the movie was build up before things eventually got nuts in the last 30 minutes, whereas in Us we are only just at the end of the first act when crazy shit starts to go down. I get why Peele did this from a filmmaker's perspective; in Get Out, we didn't really know what we were in for and he had the benefit of keeping us in the dark for as long as he wanted to, whereas in Us we all went in expecting bizarre things to take place, so rather than messing about for too long building tension, Peele lets things get weird fairly early in the film. Whether you prefer the slower burn of Get Out like I did, or the faster pace in Us will be down to personal preference.
The worst thing about Us is that it is following Get Out. Even when something really cool happens, it was done better in Get Out. Take the score for example; it is pretty great in Us, but was superior in Get Out. The same goes for the editing, the script, the cinematography and a whole load of other technical elements. One thing that did stand out was the fantastic use of lighting. It was perfect in every scene throughout the film and conveyed the feelings that Peele was subjecting the audience to flawlessly.
The performances were also great. The whole cast did a fantastic job, (including the kids,) but the stand outs for me were Lupita Nyong'o and Elisabeth Moss. They were pretty good as the normal versions of their characters, but they really shone when they got to play the psychotic doppelgangers, for way more reasons than just how scary they were.
Another thing that I liked was that for the most part, the film doesn't treat you like you are dumb, with one exception. The film opens on a shot of an old CRT TV showing various adverts. One of these is an advert for Santa Cruz tourism and another tells us that the year is 1986. In the very next shot we are shown a title card reading, "Santa Cruz, 1986." This isn't an outrageous inclusion, just one that causes an eyeroll for anyone actually paying attention to what they are seeing onscreen.
Another thing that didn't quite work for me was the use of comedy. Where Get Out used comedy to cut away from the intensity and give the audience a breather, Us intertwined it more with the carnage, which made it come off as fairly messy in parts. Don't get me wrong, any comedic lines were well written and well delivered, I just feel that they could have been implemented a bit better.
Overall, Us is another great horror/thriller from Jordan Peele. I know that I compared it to Get Out all the way through this review, but even when watching it, it is extremely hard not to make comparisons. That does not mean that this is a bad movie by any stretch though and I am very much looking forward to seeing Peele's upcoming Twilight Zone series as well as any other projects he is working on.
Okay, from this point on I am going to dive into spoilers, so please make sure that you have seen the movie before you continue reading.
The main reason that I am having to go into spoilers pretty soon into my review is because the shit hits the fan in this film fairly early on. In Get Out the first 3 quarters of the movie was build up before things eventually got nuts in the last 30 minutes, whereas in Us we are only just at the end of the first act when crazy shit starts to go down. I get why Peele did this from a filmmaker's perspective; in Get Out, we didn't really know what we were in for and he had the benefit of keeping us in the dark for as long as he wanted to, whereas in Us we all went in expecting bizarre things to take place, so rather than messing about for too long building tension, Peele lets things get weird fairly early in the film. Whether you prefer the slower burn of Get Out like I did, or the faster pace in Us will be down to personal preference.
The worst thing about Us is that it is following Get Out. Even when something really cool happens, it was done better in Get Out. Take the score for example; it is pretty great in Us, but was superior in Get Out. The same goes for the editing, the script, the cinematography and a whole load of other technical elements. One thing that did stand out was the fantastic use of lighting. It was perfect in every scene throughout the film and conveyed the feelings that Peele was subjecting the audience to flawlessly.
The performances were also great. The whole cast did a fantastic job, (including the kids,) but the stand outs for me were Lupita Nyong'o and Elisabeth Moss. They were pretty good as the normal versions of their characters, but they really shone when they got to play the psychotic doppelgangers, for way more reasons than just how scary they were.
Another thing that I liked was that for the most part, the film doesn't treat you like you are dumb, with one exception. The film opens on a shot of an old CRT TV showing various adverts. One of these is an advert for Santa Cruz tourism and another tells us that the year is 1986. In the very next shot we are shown a title card reading, "Santa Cruz, 1986." This isn't an outrageous inclusion, just one that causes an eyeroll for anyone actually paying attention to what they are seeing onscreen.
Another thing that didn't quite work for me was the use of comedy. Where Get Out used comedy to cut away from the intensity and give the audience a breather, Us intertwined it more with the carnage, which made it come off as fairly messy in parts. Don't get me wrong, any comedic lines were well written and well delivered, I just feel that they could have been implemented a bit better.
Overall, Us is another great horror/thriller from Jordan Peele. I know that I compared it to Get Out all the way through this review, but even when watching it, it is extremely hard not to make comparisons. That does not mean that this is a bad movie by any stretch though and I am very much looking forward to seeing Peele's upcoming Twilight Zone series as well as any other projects he is working on.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 22, 2019)
Childs Play is a strange & maybe unnecessary reboot of a cult classic series of films that are still going strong. That being said this new film does manage to hold its own as a solo slasher & throws in enough new ideas to keep things feeling fresh & fun while most importantly of all staying faithful to the original formula. Lets get one thing out the way here the doll design of chucky in this film is horrendous & down right hideous looking (not in a good way) I get they needed to change the way he looked slightly but this doll side on especially has one ugly & bulky side profile. Its not so bad when he's face on or half shadowed in darkness & there are some genuinely creepy scenes involving the glowing eyes. Mark Hamill is the perfect choice voice wise & really does bring life, comedy & creepiness to an other wise soulless character. Plot is quite basic & characters are also fairly paint by numbers too but the cast do bring the movie to life with believable acting & fun interactions with each other. Atmosphere is built up nicely especially in the first half as its tense, unnerving & slowly paced making the viewer earn its kills & scares. These a big sense of nostalgia here too & the film does over all feel like it was made in the 80s despite its squeaky clean look at times. References, nods & inspirations litter the film too & genuinely feel clever rather than like a cheap 'remember this'. Delivering on gore this instalment has some nasty death scenes & the finally is deliciously over the top. I did however much prefer the first half over the second half as I found the slower pacing way more tense & creepy especially seeing this doll gradually learn to kill with almost a sense of naivety, innocence & good intention to it. You could also argue the creation of the doll is our fault as consumers & our desire to want more/connect more. Chucky could also be metaphor for how soulless & desensitized we have become too. Childs Play doesnt need to exist at all but manages to stand on its own two feet as a ridiculous, creepy, devilishly funny & extremely entertaining just dont expect anything ground breaking or intelligent & you will be sure to have a blast Buddi.
A film with dodgy voices.
Catching up here with a review of a film I saw a couple of weeks ago.
What a great film “Get Out” was. Jordan Peele’s classic which unpeeled (sic) race relations in a wholly novel and horrifying way. Yes, the story was a bit ‘out there’ and unbelievable, but he pulled it off with great chutzpah.
With his follow-up film – “Us”…. sorry but, for me, it just didn’t work.
From great beginnings
It all starts so promisingly. Young Adelaide Wilson (a fine debut performance by Madison Curry) is on a seaside holiday with her mother and careless father when she wanders onto the deserted Santa Cruz beach at night. There sits, like some gothic horror ghost train, the Hall of Mirrors. “Find Yourself” it taunts. She makes the mistake of entering and changes her life forever.
Spin forwards 30 years and Adelaide, now a married mother of two, is back in Santa Cruz with a terrifying feeling that things are about to go pear-shaped. And of course they do!
Why oh why oh why those voices?
This film had me gripped until a particular point. Having people stand still and silent at the end of your drive is an incredibly spooky thing to show. But then, for me, the wheels came off big time. The “reveal” of who these people were I could take. But the manner of their behaviour and – particularly – how they talked was horrifying; and not in a good way. When “Red” started speaking I couldn’t believe my ears: Joe Pasquale after swallowing Donald Duck.
From there, the film became farcical for me, descending in progressive stages to a tunnel-based apocalypse: a plot element that was just so paper thin it bore no scrutiny at all.
This was, no doubt, an attempt at a satirical dig at the class structure of America (“We are Americans” adding a double meaning to the name of the film). If it had been played as a deliberate comedy farce it might have worked. But otherwise no.
Flashes of Peele brilliance
This is not to say that there are not positives in the film. The excellent Lupita Nyong’o gives the whacky material her all, and the other adult female lead – Elisabeth Moss (from TV’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”) – is good value as Kitty Tyler: a diabolical incarnation in either form!
Peele also delivers flashes of directorial brilliance. The “hands across America”, disappearing into the sea, is a sight that stays with you. I also liked the twist at the end, although in retrospect it’s difficult to relate it to the rest of the story and strikes of desperation in the storytelling.
Overall, a big disappointment
I know there are some who really like this movie. Each to their own, but I was not one of them. After “Get Out” I was hoping for something much better. I hope that was just Jordan Peele’s “difficult second album”.
What a great film “Get Out” was. Jordan Peele’s classic which unpeeled (sic) race relations in a wholly novel and horrifying way. Yes, the story was a bit ‘out there’ and unbelievable, but he pulled it off with great chutzpah.
With his follow-up film – “Us”…. sorry but, for me, it just didn’t work.
From great beginnings
It all starts so promisingly. Young Adelaide Wilson (a fine debut performance by Madison Curry) is on a seaside holiday with her mother and careless father when she wanders onto the deserted Santa Cruz beach at night. There sits, like some gothic horror ghost train, the Hall of Mirrors. “Find Yourself” it taunts. She makes the mistake of entering and changes her life forever.
Spin forwards 30 years and Adelaide, now a married mother of two, is back in Santa Cruz with a terrifying feeling that things are about to go pear-shaped. And of course they do!
Why oh why oh why those voices?
This film had me gripped until a particular point. Having people stand still and silent at the end of your drive is an incredibly spooky thing to show. But then, for me, the wheels came off big time. The “reveal” of who these people were I could take. But the manner of their behaviour and – particularly – how they talked was horrifying; and not in a good way. When “Red” started speaking I couldn’t believe my ears: Joe Pasquale after swallowing Donald Duck.
From there, the film became farcical for me, descending in progressive stages to a tunnel-based apocalypse: a plot element that was just so paper thin it bore no scrutiny at all.
This was, no doubt, an attempt at a satirical dig at the class structure of America (“We are Americans” adding a double meaning to the name of the film). If it had been played as a deliberate comedy farce it might have worked. But otherwise no.
Flashes of Peele brilliance
This is not to say that there are not positives in the film. The excellent Lupita Nyong’o gives the whacky material her all, and the other adult female lead – Elisabeth Moss (from TV’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”) – is good value as Kitty Tyler: a diabolical incarnation in either form!
Peele also delivers flashes of directorial brilliance. The “hands across America”, disappearing into the sea, is a sight that stays with you. I also liked the twist at the end, although in retrospect it’s difficult to relate it to the rest of the story and strikes of desperation in the storytelling.
Overall, a big disappointment
I know there are some who really like this movie. Each to their own, but I was not one of them. After “Get Out” I was hoping for something much better. I hope that was just Jordan Peele’s “difficult second album”.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Devil Wears Prada (2006) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
I was watching The Devil Wears Prada the other day on ITV2 and forgot just how brilliant a film it is, it really did exceed expectations back then in 2006 and even now in 2011. Here’s the review I wrote all those years ago. Enjoy!
David Frankel, a rather unknown television director makes his debut on the silver screen in this stunning adaptation of Lauren Weisberger’s not so stunning novel, The Devil Wears Prada.
Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep join a mesmerising cast in this surprisingly brilliant rom-com. The premise is simple and kept that way to ensure all detail is carried across in depth without missing any major points from the novel. Weisberger should be astounded that Frankel managed to turn her rather lacklustre book into a first-rate movie.
Anne Hathaway plays ‘Andy Sax’, an unknown journalist with no eye for fashion who wants to get her foot on the bottom ladder of the media industry. Her character simply leaps off the screen, from her dopey, lovable personality to her cheap, second rate clothing; she is truly a joy to watch. Emily Blunt plays the fashion conscious assistant who would do anything and everything to get as high as possible in the clothing industry; again, her character is played with a love/hate finesse that few actresses of 2006 can match.
However, by far the best performance is given by Meryl Streep as ‘Miranda Priestly’, editor and chief of ‘Runway’ magazine. Sly, career obsessed with a dash of emotionality added in, she is exceptional in her role and should be seriously considered for an Oscar at this years awards. Her dialogue is spoken with a heartless brilliance that no other actress could even hold a candle to, she is perfectly cast in this role.
Stanley Tucci plays a somewhat flat member of the team, possibly due to his little screen time, but he is by no means dull, with personality abound.
The soundtrack is genius, and perfectly matched to the film, from the outset right up until the closing credits, each song is flawlessly integrated into the feature. Camera-work is also on par with the best of this year and really helps the characters stand out in their roles.
Where most rom-coms use cheap gags to gain laughs from the audience, Prada expects you to think a little more about what you’re laughing at, a deep message about ones self discovery is incorporated, but well hidden in the film. Of course there are a few laughs of the cheap kind, but unusually, they are actually funny. Comedy really doesn’t get much better than right here.
Some scenes in the film have been directed so well, that the more emotional among us may be reaching for the tissues. The transition from comedy to seriousness is exceptionally watertight, you’ll be laughing one minute and on the edge of your seat the next.
The ending of the film is perhaps of a slight anti-climax, but it portrays a wonderfully deep message about inner emotion, leaving a huge smile on your face as the credits role.
To put it simply, The Devil Wears Prada is a practically faultless movie which should appeal to a huge and diverse range of people. The acting, direction and soundtrack are all absolutely perfect and I think we may have a found a future classic character in ‘Miranda Priestly.’ It’s a joy to watch. Be a devil and go see it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/01/19/a-blast-from-the-past-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/
David Frankel, a rather unknown television director makes his debut on the silver screen in this stunning adaptation of Lauren Weisberger’s not so stunning novel, The Devil Wears Prada.
Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep join a mesmerising cast in this surprisingly brilliant rom-com. The premise is simple and kept that way to ensure all detail is carried across in depth without missing any major points from the novel. Weisberger should be astounded that Frankel managed to turn her rather lacklustre book into a first-rate movie.
Anne Hathaway plays ‘Andy Sax’, an unknown journalist with no eye for fashion who wants to get her foot on the bottom ladder of the media industry. Her character simply leaps off the screen, from her dopey, lovable personality to her cheap, second rate clothing; she is truly a joy to watch. Emily Blunt plays the fashion conscious assistant who would do anything and everything to get as high as possible in the clothing industry; again, her character is played with a love/hate finesse that few actresses of 2006 can match.
However, by far the best performance is given by Meryl Streep as ‘Miranda Priestly’, editor and chief of ‘Runway’ magazine. Sly, career obsessed with a dash of emotionality added in, she is exceptional in her role and should be seriously considered for an Oscar at this years awards. Her dialogue is spoken with a heartless brilliance that no other actress could even hold a candle to, she is perfectly cast in this role.
Stanley Tucci plays a somewhat flat member of the team, possibly due to his little screen time, but he is by no means dull, with personality abound.
The soundtrack is genius, and perfectly matched to the film, from the outset right up until the closing credits, each song is flawlessly integrated into the feature. Camera-work is also on par with the best of this year and really helps the characters stand out in their roles.
Where most rom-coms use cheap gags to gain laughs from the audience, Prada expects you to think a little more about what you’re laughing at, a deep message about ones self discovery is incorporated, but well hidden in the film. Of course there are a few laughs of the cheap kind, but unusually, they are actually funny. Comedy really doesn’t get much better than right here.
Some scenes in the film have been directed so well, that the more emotional among us may be reaching for the tissues. The transition from comedy to seriousness is exceptionally watertight, you’ll be laughing one minute and on the edge of your seat the next.
The ending of the film is perhaps of a slight anti-climax, but it portrays a wonderfully deep message about inner emotion, leaving a huge smile on your face as the credits role.
To put it simply, The Devil Wears Prada is a practically faultless movie which should appeal to a huge and diverse range of people. The acting, direction and soundtrack are all absolutely perfect and I think we may have a found a future classic character in ‘Miranda Priestly.’ It’s a joy to watch. Be a devil and go see it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/01/19/a-blast-from-the-past-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/