devilwearsprada影評

① 穿普拉達的女王英文影評，和中文翻譯

the review of the movie The Devil Wears Prada
The story tells the professional adventure of Andrea, whose greatest
dream is to become a journalist. Andrea gets a job in the fashion
instry through Runway magazine, the most famous of its type, to make
ends meet. But Andrea won't develop her writing skills in the magazine,
but her talents as the editor in chief's assistant, Miranda. The problem
is that Miranda is a merciless, posh and cruel woman, making the
experience a living hell for the girl. The environment in the place will
be cold and extremely critical with the physical appearance. The girl
will have to change her simple and plain style, for a more trendy and
elegant one, in order to gain the acceptance of her ruthless boss and
colleagues, specially Emily, her unpleasant workmate. Despite everything
against Andrea in the office, she will consider the experience as a
challenge, drastically changing her clothes and self-image, with the
help of Nigel, the magazine's art director. Nevertheless, the job
becomes extremely demanding, because of Miranda's tough work rhythm and
nearly impossible tasks, leaving Andrea without a private life with her
boyfriend, family and friends. Maybe the old Andrea has gone, now more
preoccupied about her image and her future in the magazine.

安迪就想千千萬萬的名牌大學優等畢業生一樣，「黃金履歷」在手，在學校成績優良，人格天真善良。然後，她也面臨了和千千萬萬人一樣的問題——找工作。然後她也做了大家都會做的事——四處投遞履歷。接著，她還是和千千萬萬的人一樣——去面試。但是，當世界著名時尚先鋒雜志總編輯，集傳奇和名望與一身的米蘭達（梅麗爾·斯特里普飾）從她的轉椅中抬起頭，聽見那句「我很聰明」時，她頓時從千千萬萬人當中脫穎而出，並且她的人生也因此而悄然改變。

② 穿普拉達的女王英文影評

（2）

About ten minutes into this movie, I was hoping against hope that one of them would strike up a conversation with... maybe a sanitation worker, or a street vendor, or bag lady, anybody with some depth of character -- somebody interesting, real, human!!! What a waste of film!

The only character in the movie with any semblance to a real human being was Andy's father -- at least he expressed some genuine love and interest for somebody!? All others were unbelievably shallow, fake, vain, cruel, indifferent, snarkey, smarmy, etc., etc., etc., ... They tried all too hard to impress everybody, and wound up impressing nobody. Real Hollywood types!

Why the moguls in Hollywood would think the average movie patron would be interested in such despicable people is a total mystery? Why would they think the main character would be even remotely sympathetic to us all when she displayed her disdain for the "evil, vain" fashion publishing instry buy quitting to get away from all the phonies, only to take a job with a phony left-wing fraulent "newspaper" where she supposed she could "do real work?" and shack up with a phony, shallow "sous chef" boyfriend. Don't any of these people have real lives, children, families? In a way, it's kind of sad.

What a waste of time. Uhggggg!

（3）

Andy Sachs says that "I learned a lot" while she worked at Prada. Beside work practice, she learns that her inner self can't be changed by glamour.

She's ambitious, intelligent, working hard. Also surprised me that she always manages to have a smile even in very difficult times. She proves herself that can reach the stars in one year but that means...losing friendships, humor and a boyfriend. She doesn't like to quit but control the adversities. I was enchanted by her from beginning to end.

Meryl Streep plays excellently Miranda's role and I hope and believe that this achievement means Oscar. (Also Oscar for costumes!) We come to know what is behind her glacial air into the second part of movie. There is a part when she confesses to Andy her disappointments in marriage. There we can see a different face of the Dragon Woman. She is dressed casually and her face expresses sadness. In other scene Miranda says "Everybody wants to be us" and then gets out of the car in a bath of photo snaps. This way of creating an atmosphere that prolongs the dialog is good for movie.

It's not a comedy with gags. I laughed occasionally though I smiled a lot.

Very good dialog, photography, costume design, score, and playing(Emily Blunt,Stanley Tucci and the rest of actors). Well everything about a movie creation. And personally I think it's the best movie of 2006.

（4）

In New York, the simple and naive just-graated in journalism Andrea Sachs (Anne Hathaway) is hired to work as the second assistant of the powerful and sophisticated Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep), the ruthless and merciless executive of the Runway fashion magazine. Andrea dreams to become a journalist and faces the opportunity as a temporary professional challenge. The first assistant Emily (Emily Blunt) advises Andrea about the behavior and preferences of their cruel boss, and the stylist Nigel (Stanley Tucci) helps Andrea to dress more adequately for the environment. Andrea changes her attitude and behavior, affecting her private life and the relationship with her boyfriend Nate (Adrien Grenier), her family and friends. In the end, Andrea learns that life is made of choices.

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

Title (Brazil): "O Diabo Veste Prada" ("The Devil Wears Prada")

（5）

I think this is one of the most brilliant movies I have seen. It is quite scary. There is one quote that Miranda (Streep) has later in the movie and I think it is dead on 100% correct: "everybody wants to be like us".

The movie sends a strong message, more than just a quest for self-knowledge. It tells us more than fame isn't everything. It tells us that in order to truly be happy as yourself, you must experience what you want to be. Everybody wants to be famous. Everybody wants to be skinny. Everybody wants to be sexy. Only when you are famous, skinny, sexy, famous can you be satisfied of it. There is a quote a friend of mine used a while back; "You can't be taught what bitter tastes like. No matter how many people tell you that you won't like something bitter, you will want it. Everybody must taste something bitter and learn that they don't like it." This quote applies very well to this film. Go see it!

（6）

If you like watching a beautiful woman wearing beautiful clothes, see this movie. If you like acting, see another Meryl Streep or Stanley Tucci film, preferably one that is well enough written to let the actors do their jobs. The attempt to develop a "Friends"-like energy among Andy's young friends stalled totally, and their characters never passed the first-draft/first-reading level of development--a tragic waste of the talents of an actress like Tracie Thoms. The secondary love interest (Simon Baker) didn't make us feel she should be attracted to him, while the boyfriend (Adrian Grenier) made us wonder why she took up with him in the first place. Meanwhile, we only get a vague impression of the tension between Andy's growing respect and even sympathy for her boss and her horror at the costs of following Miranda's footsteps. Streep and Tucci deliver in spades, of course, but the only bright light among the younger actors was Emily Blunt, who plays her role as the suffering-servant senior assistant with a nice comic touch.

（7）
To say Meryl Streep doesn't deserve an Oscar for her performance As Miranda Priestly is ludicrous at best. She brings a fluid motion to Miranda most of us would like to be able to achieve in our own lives. But what grabs hold of you and makes you sympathize with Miranda is at that moment she discusses with Andy about her second husband's departure from her life and how it affects her. All of a sudden I felt myself feeling her loss. Miss Streep's ability to make you believe she is the one of the characters she portrays tells me she is more than a performer; she is an entertainer, a person who through her tremendous talent has allowed me to forget my troubles for the length of this film. The entire film from start to finish was well put together. All aspects from music, lighting, camera angles, cinematography, costumes, even makeup were sewn together in this perfect dance.

（8）

I love this movie on so may levels. First, Anne Hathaway, for me at least, is the new Audrey Hepburn in terms of beauty and appearance on screen. Her transformation in this film reminded me of Audrey Hepurn's transformation in "Sabrina." Meryl Streep does an outstanding job as Miranda and plays the character without going over the edge, so to speak. The movie speaks volumes about how we, as human beings, really are and it lets you know that everyone, on some level, is human and hurts like hell at some point in life, no matter how glamorous and successful. And it does end quite beautifully!! That is all I can really say without a spoiling someone else's fun. If you haven't seen it, go see it. It is well worth the price of admission.

P.S. The clothes are fabulous!!!!!

③ 求《黑天鵝》的英文影評

Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan is an examination of obsession. Obsession in striving for beauty, acceptance, and most of all perfection. It explores the dichotomy involved in both loving and hating yourself.

Though the themes in this movie may be formulaic and familiar, the arena in which it takes place, as well as the circumstances of each of these characters is what makes the film unique enough to stand on its own feet. Leroy, the dance instructor, announces to his company in the beginning that he wants to open with "Swan Lake", which as he acknowledges has been done to death - but not like this.

The portrayal of the dancing world with all of its gossip and back biting was very realistic as was the competitive edge and deep fear of failure that was always present. The overbearing mother who was a master manipulator and control freak added another level of dread and creepiness to the atmosphere. I immediately felt uneasy every time she was in the scene.

As Nina (Natalie Portman) begins to lose her mind it becomes more difficult for the viewer to tell what is real and what isn't. This is the point at which the film starts blurring the lines between psychological thriller and horror. Aronofsky knows how to put focus on the cringe worthy moments and make them even more disturbing than normal. The movie can make one feel uncomfortable at times, grossed out, and tense. The whole audience moved and gasped as one or flinched and turned their head away from the screen multiple times throughout the movie, showing just how powerful the Black Swan can be.

Lily was played perfectly by Mila Kunis. Though she's no stranger to the temptress role her sective eyes and sly smile steal the show when she's on camera. You can see exactly why Nina would be intimidated by her. While some of the symbols and metaphors were a bit heavy-handed and obvious like the giant black swan tattoo on Lily or the constant use of mirrors that reminded me of Donald from Adaptation, overall the devices used were well timed and effective.

④ 關於《The Devil Wears Prada》這部電影的英語介紹和影評哪裡能找到大神們幫幫忙

For the past month or so, I have been eagerly awaiting this movie. I love Meryl Streep, I like Anne Hathaway, I though the world of magazine publishing could make a great setting for a movie, and I thought the premise of the book 'The Devil Wears Prada' had a lot of movie potential. So, now that I've seen it, I have to say it is one of the funniest movies I've seen this year. The screenwriter has maintained everything that was funny about the book, as well as chucked a lot of the ller subplots, and has formulated a movie that is a great deal more enjoyable than the book. I'm sure you're all familiar with the basic premise - naive small-town girl comes to the big city hoping to be a journalist, and gets a job as assistant to Miranda Priestly, the much-feared editor of 'Runway' magazine (a thinly veiled take on 'Vogue' magazine, and its editor). Thankfully, the cast was almost perfect (though I did think Simon Baker was somewhat miscast at the rakish writer who takes a liking to the protagonist, Andrea), and elevated the movie to a level it would not have otherwise reached. Meryl Streep is absolutely amazing as Miranda Priestly, and I especially liked the way that, as Miranda, she never raised her voice above normal speaking level. Streep has said she based this mannerism on Clint Eastwood, who as Dirty Harry talks very quietly but still intimidates. This made Miranda much more interesting than the stereotypical, screaming gorgon she could have become. She is certainly the best thing about this movie, and I think the odds are good that she'll score a best-actress nod at the next Oscars. Miranda is also made more complex (and slightly more sympathetic) than in the book, which I thought was very good. In the book, which I recently read, the author (who actually worked as an assistant to 'Vogue' editor Anna Wintour) was very bitter and whiny about the difficulties of her former job, and she made Miranda out to be a totally two-dimensional villain with absolutely no redeeming qualities. However, the movie shows us (briefly) a different side of Miranda - we see the compromises she has had to make to get to the top, and we see the toll this has taken on her personal life. We aren't made to agree with her diva-like behaviour, but we can understand how hard her life must be. I also thought that Anne Hathaway was very appealing in her role - she made Andrea more likable and less snobbish than she was in the book (although the screenwriter deserves credit for that, as well), and she looked great in the couture she wore through most of the movie. The supporting players were also very good, especially Emily Blunt (as Andrea's caustic fellow assistant, Emily) and Stanley Tucci (as Miranda's loyal but beleaguered right-hand man, Nigel). On many occasions, they stole scenes from the ostensibly 'central' character of Andrea. The movie, while maintaining the book's premise, does not follow the book too closely, which I liked. The entire 'Lily' subplot from the book is eliminated (readers of the book will know what I mean), and Andrea's parents and boyfriend are less significant in the movie than in the book. I agreed with these changes, though - I found those aspects of the book to be quite boring, and their omission made for a more streamlined movie. I strongly recommend this movie to virtually anyone, and I just hope "The Nanny Diaries" (another somewhat-similar 'chick lit' movie adaptation, coming out soon with Scarlett Johannson, that I am eagerly awaiting) lives up to the shining example of this excellent movie. Was the above comment useful to you?

⑤ 電影時尚女魔頭的英語影評

A great adaptation of an alright book

For the past month or so, I have been eagerly awaiting this movie. I love Meryl Streep, I like Anne Hathaway, I though the world of magazine publishing could make a great setting for a movie, and I thought the premise of the book 'The Devil Wears Prada' had a lot of movie potential. So, now that I've seen it, I have to say it is one of the funniest movies I've seen this year. The screenwriter has maintained everything that was funny about the book, as well as chucked a lot of the ller subplots, and has formulated a movie that is a great deal more enjoyable than the book.

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

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

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

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

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

I strongly recommend this movie to virtually anyone, and I just hope "The Nanny Diaries" (another somewhat-similar 'chick lit' movie adaptation, coming out soon with Scarlett Johannson, that I am eagerly awaiting) lives up to the shining example of this excellent movie.

⑥ 關於 The Devil Wears Prada 這部電影的英語介紹和影評，要詳細一點！

For the past month or so, I have been eagerly awaiting this movie. I love Meryl Streep, I like Anne Hathaway, I though the world of magazine publishing could make a great setting for a movie, and I thought the premise of the book 'The Devil Wears Prada' had a lot of movie potential. So, now that I've seen it, I have to say it is one of the funniest movies I've seen this year. The screenwriter has maintained everything that was funny about the book, as well as chucked a lot of the ller subplots, and has formulated a movie that is a great deal more enjoyable than the book.

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

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

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

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

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

I strongly recommend this movie to virtually anyone, and I just hope "The Nanny Diaries" (another somewhat-similar 'chick lit' movie adaptation, coming out soon with Scarlett Johannson, that I am eagerly awaiting) lives up to the shining example of this excellent movie.

Was the above comment useful to you?

⑦ 《穿Prada的女王》影評

有點長
The Devil & the Gray Lady
All about vogue.

By Mark Goldblatt

ruman Capote, who had a stake in saying so, once famously declared, "All literature is gossip." He was wrong, of course, but it's the kind of declaration that bamboozles literary types by its very implausibility; something so obviously false must be profound, so it gets repeated at cocktail parties and invoked in book reviews (like this one) until it becomes an inside-out cliché, a false truism, a knowing nod towards nothing whatsoever.
Still, an interesting question emerges if you reverse Capote's dictum and ask whether all gossip is literature. It's a question that surrounds the most gossipy novel in recent years, The Devil Wears Prada by Lauren Weisberger, and percolates within the critical jihad the book ignited at the New York Times. The fact that the paper twice reviewed a literary debut by a previously unknown author would be noteworthy in itself; what's unprecedented is the fact that its reviewers twice ripped the book to shreds — arguing not simply that it fails as literature, but that it should never have been published in the first place.

Why all the fuss?

Weisberger, it seems, once worked as a personal assistant to Vogue editor Anna Wintour, and the novel is thinly veiled account of her nightmarish experiences at the magazine. That this should matter to reviewers at the Times is slightly bizarre — even if, unlike me, you care about Anna Wintour, or you think Vogue has made a significant contribution to Western Civilization. It's not as though Weisberger is sailing into morally uncharted waters. Saul Bellow's latest work, Ravelstein, is a thinly veiled account of his friendship with the critic Allan Bloom, and arguably Bellow's greatest work, Humboldt's Gift, is a thinly veiled account of his friendship with the poet Delmore Schwartz. Both of Bellow's books are warts-and-all portraits, and the same can be said, in spades, for Weisberger's portrait of Wintour. The fact that Wintour is still alive, whereas Bloom and Schwartz were deceased when Bellow immortalized them, cuts both ways. Wintour may be psychically injured by the appearance of her fictional counterpart, Miranda Priestly, but at least she has the chance to distance herself from the ogre Weisberger gives us. With a nod to Capote, then, if at least some gossip is literature, why should Weisberger be pilloried for engaging in it?

None of which is to suggest that The Devil Wear Prada is great art. It is, rather, a wildly uneven book, by turns clumsily self-righteous and wickedly funny. The wafer-thin plot recounts the struggles of the narrator, Andrea Sachs, to maintain both her integrity and her sanity after she lands a "dream job" as personal assistant to Miranda Priestly at Runway. The detail that Andrea's real ambition is to write for The New Yorker would be a perfect ironic touch — she must enre the slickness of fashion in order to achieve fashionable slickness — except that the author seems to regard this as a altogether commendable goal. She is reminded to keep her eyes on the prize by her devoted boyfriend, Alex, who (gag me) teaches underprivileged children; also keeping Andrea grounded is her roommate Lily, whose hard drinking and promiscuity derive from the fact that "she loved anyone and anything that didn't love her back, so long as it made her feel alive."

The chapters with Alex and Lily are at times almost unbearable. Fortunately, they are offset by chapters in which Miranda Priestly takes center stage. Miranda is one of the great comic monsters of recent literature; Cruella de Ville is an obvious antecedent, but Miranda more closely resembles a Hermes-scarf wearing Ahab in pursuit of the great white whale of immediate, absolute inlgence. In Miranda's universe, two pre-publication copies of the latest Harry Potter book must be flown by private jet to Paris so that her twin daughters can read them before their friends; it's up to Andrea to make the arrangements on a moment's notice. Tough, but do-able. More finesse is required when Miranda asks Andrea to hunt down the address of "that antique store in the seventies, the one where I saw the vintage dresser." Of course, Andrea wasn't with Miranda when she saw the dresser, so she winds up trekking to every antique store — and, just to be safe, every furniture store — between 70th and 80th Street in Manhattan, grilling clerks to find out whether the famous Miranda Priestly had stopped by recently. Three days later, Andrea admits defeat . . . only to have Miranda inform her, impatiently, that she's just located the store's business card, the one she thought she'd lost. The address is on East 68th Street.

Miranda requires up to five breakfasts per morning so that whenever she arrives at the office, a hot meal will be waiting; reheating isn't an option. The other four must be thrown out because her assistants aren't permitted to eat in her presence. Nor are they permitted to hang their coats next to hers. Nor to request clarifications if her demands are indecipherable: "Cassidy wants one of those nylon bags all the little girls are carrying. Order her one in the medium size and a color she'd like."

There's a kind of grotesque heroism in this, an obliviousness to the feelings of others that is larger than life — and thus mesmerizing. When Weisberger's novel succeeds, it succeeds on these terms. No one who reads the book will forget Miranda Priestly.

Towards the end of The Devil Wears Prada, Andrea's novelist friend informs her, "What you don't seem to realize is that the writing world is a small one. Whether you write mysteries or feature stories or newspaper articles, everyone knows everyone." Indeed, it's hard for an outsider to grasp just how incestuous, how inbred, the New York publishing scene is nowadays. The odds of finding a non-conflicted reviewer for a gossipy roman a clef about the scene itself are therefore remote. In theory, this isn't a problem — as long as the reviewer approaches the task in good faith. (In good faith, for example, I should note that Weisberger's former writing teacher is a close friend and co-author of mine; on the other hand, her editor at Doubleday once turned down a book I wrote . . . and keep in mind that I'm really an academic, so I'm kind of bivouacked on the outskirts of the milieu Weisberger describes.) To say that the Times lacked good faith in reviewing The Devil Wears Prada understates the utterly unconscionable, and downright vindictive, way the paper went after the thing.

The onslaught began with a full-page review in its Sunday edition by former Harper's Bazaar editor Kate Betts. Betts herself was once Anna Wintour's protégé, a point Betts mentions in her final paragraph — not as a disclaimer but rather as an excuse to lecture Weisberger on the ethics of having written her novel: "I have to say Weisberger could have learned a few things in the year she sold her soul to the devil of fashion for $32,500. She had a ringside seat at one of the great editorial franchises in a business that exerts an enormous influence over women, but she seems to have understood almost nothing about the isolation and pressure of the job her boss was doing...."

This may or may not be true, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with what's between the covers of Weisberger's book. That, however, is the least of Bett's concerns in a review which alternates between sniping at the author and sucking up to former Vogue cronies. "Nobody would be interested in this book," Betts declares, "if Weisberger were spilling the beans about life under the tyrant of the New Yorker." (Tell that to Brendan Gill whose memoir Here at the New Yorker was a bestseller in 1975.) Betts refers to one of Weisberger's characters as "a pale imitation of the incomparable André Leon Talley" (For the record, I know more than a few people in the fashion instry, and they're all remarkably comparable.) and to another as "a cheap shot at the food writer Jeffrey Steingarten, whom she [Weisberger] should have been studying for lessons in how to write." This is nasty stuff. And it's of a piece with the rest of Betts's review — which displays all the emotional maturity and intellectual balance of Leo Gorcey in the old Bowery Boys films. Betts is not critiquing a work of fiction; she's putting up her kes to defend her home turf.

You'd think Betts's outburst would suffice, from the Times's point of view, would stand as an awkward lapse in editorial judgment but nothing more. You'd be wrong. The newspaper, it turns out, was not through with Weisberger by a long shot. One day later, Janet Maslin weighed in for the daily edition — and matched Betts's spitefulness point by point. Maslin's review begins: "If Cinderella were alive today, she would not be waiting patiently for Prince Charming. She would be writing a tell-all book about her ugly stepsisters and wicked stepmother . . . dishing the dirt, wreaking vengeance and complaining all the way. Cinderella may have been too nice for that, but Lauren Weisberger is not."

Again, what's actually between the covers of The Devil Wears Prada is mere background noise; first and foremost, Maslin is reviewing not the novel itself but the idea of the novel. She refers to it as "a mean-spirited 'Gotcha!' of a book, one that offers little indication that the author could interestingly sustain a gossip-free narrative." With an indignant nod towards Weisberger's recent publicity tour, Maslin speculates that the author "can devote a second career to insisting that [the novel] is not exactly, precisely, entirely one long swat at the editor of Vogue." And again: "The book's way of dropping names, labels and price tags while feigning disregard for these things is another of its unattractive qualities. It's fair to assume that nobody oblivious to names like Prada will be reading this story anyway."

Curiously, Maslin neglects to mention the name Anna Wintour even once in her review. "That was very deliberate on my part," she later explained to the Daily News. "I think that when a tell-all author takes a cheap shot at a well-known person — in a book that would have little reason to attract attention without that cheap shot — then reviewers need not compound the insult (or help promote a mediocre book) by reiterating the identity of the target."

Fair enough, but then why review the book in the first place? Given how many books are published each year, and how few the Times actually reviews, why would the paper twice in two days go out of its way to hammer a first novel by a hitherto unpublished writer? (Another point of disclosure: The Times did not review my first novel last year.) The answer cannot be that The Devil Wears Prada was heavily promoted . . . since even a cursory glance at its own bestseller lists will reveal many mega-hyped books the Times wouldn't touch with a ten-foot highlighter.

Of course, the Times has bigger problems these days — Jayson Blair's tendentious, fabricated reporting and subsequent resignation, Howell Raines's white-man's-burden agonizing and subsequent resignation, and Maureen Dowd's sneaky doctoring of a presidential quote — than the integrity of its book-reviewing process. In another sense, however, the treatment of Weisberger's novel is consistent with, for lack of a better phrase, an absence of alt supervision on 43rd Street.

⑧ 求穿個普拉達的女王的英文電影影評 要二百字左右謝謝

穿個普拉達的女王的英文電影影評二百字左右，見附件。

如果看不到附件，請用電腦訪問。