I haven’t read the book, so can’t really make a comparison, but this was a really fun movie. I thought all the acting was really good, which is surprising for this genre of movie. Meryl Streep was really brilliant and I love Anne Hathaway and Stanley Tucci so… yeah, not about to change my life forever, but I thought it was really well done.

Quite different from the book…yes, its been out for awhile. BUT, if you haven’t seen it yet, remember it wanders (at some points!) quite a bit from the book.
It’s worth it, simply for stanley tucci alone (I love him!!!). I’m glad I only spend $4.25 on it, otherwise I would have been a little more disappointed that I didn’t get my money’s worth. There was definitely a bit too much hype over it, than it actually deserved. However, I do enjoy Anne Hathaway, so that was also a bonus.

Overall, it was cute!

I haven’t come across anything as backlash-entoned as this since I last saw “Working Girl” and “Fatal Attraction”, heard hatred spewed towards women or read Susan Faludi’s book “Backlash” – obviously.

Yes, it is subtly done, I give the film-makers that.

In this film, the working woman is The Devil. Please, don’t mistake me for some dried-up slag; the main character repels herself, whatever that means, twice over (at least) in this forsaken piece of Meryl-Streep-rules-it-yes-but-it’s-still-pap, first, by trying to become something other than a drab, everyday, boring-but-still-human-person, which means becoming an over-worked eentity, a character, albeit an archetype – an archetype for a woman who, if in the guise of a man, would rule the effing world. Second, by forsaking her new, successful self to become everything her boyfriend wanted her to be which is a quote from the film, and is of course double-edged, as he’s played by the dude who plays a thoroughly see-through main character in the meta-series “Entourage”. How lovely. If you’re used to mainstream Hollywood-productions from the past 50 years, this is what you’re served.

Of course, there are women who are worse than The Working Woman here, i.e. the woman who’s hierarchically above her. What, do you really think The Rich Libertine-ish Male Author breathes anything other than fairy-dust and finds work…tiresome? No. He’s elite. He probably cries when he doesn’t get his want; or doesn’t he?

Meryl Streep’s character is an Ice Queen. A “dragon”, as she refers to (a magazine possibly referring to) herself in her solitary sobbing moment of this film, where she finds herself inept to be perfect – because she cannot hold onto a man. Oh, glorious film! as subtle as a sledge-hammer art thou, glistening against the utter phallic symbol in any common advertisment, oh, film!

It’s too bad a flick like this, obviously sponsored by Apple, builds a good feel in the start – mostly due to Streep’s and Tucci’s acting-abilities, not to mention their acting – couldn’t achieve the sense of style.

To quote K.T. Tunstall’s “Suddenly I See”, one of the first tracks off the soundtrack from this film:

“She got the power to be
The power to give
The power to see
Suddenly I see”

Yes, I see: this is crap. Let me sum the lesson this film teaches us: if you’re female, don’t have big ambitions, unless those go towards serving your man. And by the way, if you’re male and homosexual, you lose, too.

it’s worth watching but only because of streep and tucci. the two of them were worth the price of admission, eclipsing hathaway and her circle of friends into oblivion. they were flat-out just more interesting to watch, not because of the way it was written but because of the way that they played it. but then again, both of them are classically trained theater actors that are as comfortable on stage as they are in front of a camera. as far as i can tell, the best actors usually are.

the whole thing felt very “sex and the city” - like i was watching an update on young post-college (white) female new york city life. that whole wide-eyed (white) girl in the city thing - single, taken or otherwise—(and hathaway was very wide-eyed) has become a massive cliche. it’s so annoying, to see a lifestyle and a world that has been marketed and packaged to sell to middle america instead of something that’s a little more inclusionary, a little closer to what the city is really like. but hey. that’s just me.

i must say, streep’s performance is a thing of wonder. (that montage with the coat and purse on the assistant’s desk made me laugh out loud.) she is a consummate actress, period. one wonders how people can carry on over julia roberts the way that they do when streep nails it time and again and again. they even carried on over her when she bombed miserably on broadway.

hm. i guess roberts has the better publicist.

Total rubbish.

I’ll write why later.

it was cute. worth the couple hours or whatever. anne hathaway looked very pretty.

I really enjoyed it. I was just surprised that I actually wanted to go and spend the money to see it as well. I’m not one for the theatre, so that says something, haha. It was a cute film, funny, but I don’t think really cheesy. It’s at least worth renting on DVD when it comes out.