I adore this movie. It's so funny. It is clearly one of the best comedies I've seen so far. Maybe girls love this movie much more than guys.

I guess. Of course, guys aren't necessarily down with stupid, misguided little girls fucking dudes with strange eyebrows and coming home hoping none of it matters.

Unless, of course, you're Adrien Grenier playing the role of the far-too-supportive (unrealistically so) boyfriend who looks like a model and couldn't be bought for half a second as the mate of a struggling journalistic hopeful, let alone that they live in such a posh apartment in Manhattan.

There is nothing redeemable in this film as far as I'm concerned.

I agree with you. It's a "ugly" movie.
And Meryl is very supporting, no leading.

Wow. I disagree entirely. While it's not top 10 material, to be sure, it is a devilishly good time, with sparkling performances all around. It's not without its flaws to be sure, but I personally feel it's a better comedy than something like, say, "Little Miss Sunshine"? Which stretched reality this to the point where I couldn't believe for a SECOND that these individuals, who appear to be of an average intelligence would even CONSIDER doing what they're doing. What's wonderful about "Prada" is that it's based in fantasy, not reality. We know this is a rags-to-riches kind of story, we're not expecting anything terribly unique. But through its general, cookie-cutter storyline we find a cute, altogether fluffy story with one or two perfectly-realized performances littered throughout. I enjoyed it thoroughly.

Well, I think this is only the second time this year I majorly disagree with Kris (the other being Happy Feet, loved it!)... I had a blast watching this movie! Was such a pleasant surprise and a breath of intelligent fresh air amidst the regular summer popcorn fare. And Meryl Streep is amazing in it! I haven't seen A Prairie Home COmpanion yet (not out 'till the new year here), so I can't compare, but I think she deserves a nom for this work!

Meryl Streep gave a brilliant performance, successfully avoiding the many cliches the written-role played into. She does the unexpected. Any other actress would probably have given an over-the-top shrill performance as the "devil." But Meryl, without raising her voice, does wonders with merely a look or an almost-whisper.

While this movie certainly isn't top ten material, and it's laden with chick flick cliches, it's at least decent and watchable.

And this certainly isn't Streep's best performance, but I don't find it possible for her to do bad in a film.

I watched Children of Men a few hours ago, I just can't understand why a film like Prada is having better recognition than Cuaron's masterpiece...

Children of Men the best film of the year!

Kris & I are on exactly the same page where all of this concerned. We only split on Meryl's performance. TDWP is indeed on of the worst movies of the year...considering what it could have been. If this is any example, I don't think Anne Hathaway will ever be a star. It's tedious, unfunny & dreadfully boring. The only bright spot is Meryl. Now, she has definitely done more impressive acting - but I still think she's brilliant & award worthy. Wouldn't really want to see her win for such an empty, unappealing film. But in terms of acting quality, it's more in the vein of She Devil & Death Becomes Her, rather than her first tier dramatic work (Sophie's Choice, The French Lieutenant's Woman, Plenty, Out Of Africa).

I know you can't agree with a person on everything, but articles like this make me wonder if I should be reading you at all. To call this the worst movie of the year is, quite frankly, laugh-out-loud funny... and not in a good way. I'm not saying you have to like it, but come one, be a little realistic and don't throw around phrases like that and expect people to take you seriously. Especially since the consensus out there is that it's an ok movie, and that Meryl's performance is absolutely delicious. That also leads me to think if we should trust your opinion when it comes to acting, really.

"nothing redeemable"???

Not even Emily Blunt?

To my mind, the Best Supporting Actress of the year.

Jose, since when does consensus dictate opinion?

And I'd say your statement of "articles like this make me wonder if I should be reading you at all" are infinitely more hyperbolic, and obviously, intended as confrontational, than anything I've said about this film.

I've stated my case. It isn't like I blindly made a statement and kept on keeping on. And clearly, given what Sherry has said, I'm not totally alone. So be a little more reasonable. If you want to argue the movie, argue the movie. Otherwise, what's the point of your post?

par: Blunt wasn't anything special. To my mind she put out a typical, rote, derivative performance that isn't anything we didn't see in "Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead." All of fifteen years ago.

In my mind there are plenty of movies that were much more infuriatingly bad (American Dreamz, Colour Me Kubrick, etc). This movie isn't trying to be a thoughtful masterpiece, it's meant to be a fun, bright, enjoyable popcorn movie and that's what, in my mind, it succeeds at swimmingly.

The reason it's getting so much play is because people are actually wanting to reward excellence in the mainstream. It's all well and good to think stuff like Babel or whatever is great challenging cinema, but just as pop music is hard to make well, so are popcorn movies. Prada did it well and it deserves to be rewarded.

Technically too, the film is tops. Meryl is fantastic, as is Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci. The costume and art design are fantastic (surely it'll win the Costume and Art Direction guild awards for Contemporary, right?) and the dialogue is whipper smart.

For my money, it's better than most of the regular "awards" movies. I had immense fun watching it, which is more than I could say for a few other high profile awards contenders out there atm.

Plus, it's going to be one of those movies like Pretty Woman or something that are always on tv and that if you don't know what you wanna watch you can just pop the DVD in anytime.

(sorry this was long. eep)

I don't always agree with your taste Kris but this well deserved slam is probably my favorite thing you've ever written.

The Devil Wears Prada has about as much right turning up during awards season as The Break-Up or Lady in the Water, although at least both of those films had honest moments. Prada is pure hacksmanship, a sham start to finish.

Well said Camel. “The Devil Wears Prada” is one of the well-received films of 2006. It deserves to be reawrded. I had so much fun watching this movie and I couldn't stop talking about it with my friends well after the movie ended.
I can name five movies that should be considered the worst of 2006.

1. Basic Instinct 2
2. Snakes on a Plane
3. Just My Luck
4. The Break-Up
5. American Dreamz

I just rewatched it on DVD (thanks Kris, you got me in the mood! lol) and, yeah, it's just a fun breezy way to spend an hour and 40 minutes.

And if we can't honour good popcorn movies, then that's just a darn shame, really.

Well, I'm a guy, and I enjoyed the movie. By the way, Kris, now that the little girl from "Little Miss Sunshine" has been passed over for every precurser, will you finally be taking her off your charts? You've been stubborn about that one.

I haven't been stubborn. She's been on every other damn redictor's list for months as well.

But I'll wait for SAG to snub her before I do. Actors vote for actors at the Academy, not critics.

The worst film of the year? I admit that I have absolutely no discernment when it comes to Streep - I think she's beyond brilliant! I had a rip-roaring time watching her elevate a popcorn movie into the stratosphere. I see no reason why she shouldn't be rewarded for a shrewd, original comic performance. If Depp can get the Pirates vote, let Streep get the Devils vote.

Ok, I may have been a bit impulsive when I wrote the bit about wondering if I should be reading you. But please understand that saying this is the worst movie of the year means that Basic Instinct 2, Scary Movie 4, Date Movie, Snakes on a Plane, Freedomland, Failure to Launch, Firewall, Just My Luck (and I could go on and on) are actually BETTER than Prada. I'm sorry Kris, but even if everyone is entitled to their opinion, it makes you sound ridiculous. You might not accept it and that's fine. I'm just saying.

Prada is what it is, and it works in what it set out to do, which is a fun popcorn chick-flick with a little more brains than usual and its heart in the right place. It has its flaws, especially towards the end where it betrays its one morale and goes off-board. But the worst movie of the year? Meryl's performance being retched, ill-conceived? You do realize it was supposed to be over-the-top bordering on satire don't you? Come on!

You know what..I reckon somebody doesn't like chick flicks (think Dreamgirls, Prada).

That's just it, Jose. It doesn't work as a popcorn flick to me. It doesn't work as ANYTHING to me. It doesn't even hold up by its own standards. The films you listed work on their own terms at the very least. Prada violates its own standards. It's a TV director stumbling in long form, and it shows.

As for the performance, it wasn't over-the-top, it was understated and a poor decision as a result. Who is this person? It doesn't even work as caricature.

Hopefully we can agree to disagree, but I'm happy to keep stating my case if that's what you need to keep from such offensive statements as "no one will take you seriously." That's foolish, and to be honest, if someone's not going to take me seriously because I have a viewpoint that I back up with reasoning, fuck 'em. I'm not here to please anyone when it comes to my opinions on film.

numberina: Not true. And Dreamgirls sure as hell isn't a chick flick.

So basically you disliked the performance precisely for the very reason so many critics and viewers loved it? Instead of a cliched over-the-top, shrill performance, Meryl delivered an original take, reliant on subtle gestures and tone which worked beautifully for comed effect.

She's playing a reveered and feared devilish boss, who sits comfortably on a pedestal above everyone else. You're not supposed to know the details of "who this person is." That's kind of a central point. You simply get little glimpses.

Oops, I meant "comedic" effect.

Good points, Hejla, but you're making assumptions about what I wanted from the performance. I in't want over the top. But I got from Streep that SHE didn't even understand this character.

Don't take this the wrong way, but then why don't you actually specify what it is you wanted from the performance, instead of being so vague in your criticism. Because when you say things like this:

"As for the performance, it wasn't over-the-top, it was understated and a poor decision as a result. Who is this person? It doesn't even work as caricature."

It implies that she should have gone over-the-top and it was a poor decision of her not to do so. Also, since you say that you don't think Streep "undertood the character," you are ascribing your personal view of what you would have liked the character to be like, rather than what it actually was. Your words imply that you somehow have a greater understanding of the character, which in itself is a bit arrogant, but worse, you then fail to add anything substantive in terms of what your "greater understanding" is.

I don't pretend to understand that character better. I said rather plainly "who is this person?" I get the sense Streep didn't have much to cling to either, and as a result, we get a vague performance that may, apparently, lend itself to vague understanding and, I guess, criticism.

I felt the same way about Robin Wright Penn in Breaking and Entering, a film I love, and Patick Wilson in Little Children, a film I didn't love. Sometimes you just feel as though a performer is reading the lines off the page without living in the character he or she is playing, and that's the sense I got from Streep in "Prada."

The only scene where there is any insight is THE scene, the one that's getting her awards attention - the makeup-less, "my husband is leaving" me scene in the third act. That was good and that's where I would have gone to such a low key on the performance, contrasting with what should have been a much more tangible turn of at least MODEST spice throughout the rest of the film.

Again, I didn't want "over the top," but I certainly wanted something worthy of the moniker "devil."

So, I think it's still fair to say that what so many admired and loved about the performance is precisely what you didn't like. It's not that I have a problem with a different opinion,I don't at all, I just always find it incredibly frustrating when people make seemingly hyperbolic statements without explaining WHY.

The film itself isn't very good at all. But for me, Streep's performance, along with Emily Blunt's great work, really elevated the material.

Now, can I ask why we haven't heard more about BREAKING AND ENTERING this season? I've been looking forward to it for a long time, but it almost seems like they're dumping it.

I don't know what the deal is with B&E. There was word for a moment that it had left the 2006 release schedule. I'm not sure if that is still the case, but regardless, it is a very small, very personal film that would have a rough time finding an audience, I think.

It's a shame that B&E is snubbed for this year's Golden Globes. B&E has one of the best all-round performances this year. Hopefully it will do better at the Oscars. The AMPAS love Minghella.