Movie was very good...lead character could have been better

Rating: 6/10 (4 February 2007)

I would've given the movie a 10 if it weren't for the non-convincing acting job of ANNE HATHAWAY. Pitting her against great actresses such as MERYL STREEP and Golden Globe winner EMILY BLUNT made her performance seem even worse.
She even made ADRIAN GRENIER look bad...and that's a pretty hard feat to master.
Her scenes were emotionless - there were times when she should've been pensive, or tearing, or aghast...but she gave the same 'deer-caught-in-the-headlights' look throughout the movie. Even in the final 'should've been dramatic' scene with Meryl Streep in the car (in Paris), when Andy finally realizes that she 'doesn't want to be like Priestly' there's no moment of realization on the face of Hathaway, but just that same 'deer-in-the-headlights' look she'd given throughout EVERY emotional moment in the movie. Oh, would you like another example? Sure.
When she was kissed in the art gallery by her 'pursuer' - her non-response made it look like her girlfriend was overreacting terribly when, in fact, Hathaway was 'under-acting'. Then when her boyfriend shows up and says two words to her she blows up in anger - now THAT made no sense at all because there was no build-up from the previous scene! I could go on and on until Armageddon...but I still will not be able to understand why Anne Hathaway was placed in this role. From something as silly and frivolous as 'Princess Diaries' and 'Ella Enchanted' to 'Prada'? Someone posted a 'goof' above regarding a bagel popping in and out of a scene (in Hathaway's hand)...the biggest goof was the director casting Hathaway in this role.
Too bad Andy couldn't have 'poofed' off the screen and when she came back could've miraculous turned into someone like...hmm, I don't know maybe - RACHEL McADAMS, someone who can REALLY act! Sorry to be so crude, but it annoyed me to spend over 2 hours watching bad acting. I could've been watching fresh paint dry.