I can remember wanting to see several movies with the girl this summer, but only distinctly remember two that we actually saw. The first was The Devil Wears Prada and the second was The Descent. Mostly, they were both so much brain candy and mostly I liked both of them. There were a few things that tweaked me about each of them (moreso about Devil than Descent) or else what kind of blog post would this be? "I saw a movie, it was good! Move along now."

First, though (because I am a disorganized thinker) I wanted to say something about movies for young women. I don't see a lot of these movies, but I always mean to, and judging purely on their commercials... I sort of wonder if they don't make more empowering movies for young women than they do for women my age. Maybe I am mistaken, or I just notice those more, but it seems like it. Of course, there are always going to be the "Mean Girls" and "Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen" movies, but I have noticed a new breed, as well. Movies in the vein of "Stick It" and "Bring it On"... movies about girls' stories as seen through their athletic competition. I say more of that. Of course, I say this having never seent he movies. There may be mind-numbing levels of disempowerment going on in them.

Speaking of mind-numbing levels of disempowerment (spoilers ahead!!) The Devil Wears Prada had me wanting to gouge out my eyes once or twice. Other parts of it were charming and positive. It was a mixed bag that I liked somewhat in spite of myself. One that I took the girl to go see, but a movie that we had to talk seriously about after it was over. That might be too much work for most moviegoers, but we tend to enjoy these talks. On the plus side: Anne Hathaway is still just utterly charming, Meryl Streep is deliciously evil (and does this trick with slaughtering people, verbally while never raising her voice above a gentle lilt that I have got to learn) and the movie is ultimately about women with careers, being competent, strong and conquering their world. On the minus side: their world is the world of fashion, which makes it more culturally 'safe' for women to be the conquerers. I might have liked to see the same movie take place in a more courtroom setting, or in politics, or just anywhere that could have been less gender-specific. Secondly, and my biggest peave about the movie was that it really beat up the successful women, and that the lead character, ultimately, needed to be killed. With a mallet. Her boyfriend can go right along with her, too. Through the movie, he is never, once, supportive of her career, or of the fact that though he turns up his nose at the choice of her pursuing her writing career within the niche of fashion-journalism, the job she has (it says repeatedly in the movie) is a super opportunity for her. Repeatedly, the movie says if she can stick it out for a year, she will be able to "write her own ticket" in journalism. Yet, rather than say "It's only for a year, and while the pay and hours suck, we can wait out the suck for a year and come out the other side with your career on track" he constantly rides her through the movie, for every late night, and every time she dresses in high fashion, rather than her usual clothes, and, really, every compromise she makes for her career. What makes this eye-gougingly bad is that she goes right along with his attitude, and never, to the end questions it. She turns down an introduction to the editor at The New Yorker (whom she's said she wants to write for) because she is late for his birthday, and at the end (brace yourself) tells him "You were right about everything" after she has crapped out on her fabulous opportunity with very little time to go on the year. Also, Meryl Streep is beaten up for her success, with two scenes. The first in which her husband is railing against being "Mr (her name)" or something to that effect... being in her shadow. In the second, she is teary because he has left her, and she manages, even, to get into this scene how her success has hurt her daughters (through the divorces). Other than this, though, Streep is this ruthless, wonderful, powerful, competant figure who knows how much she is worth and is afraid of no one. She is awful, but admired by the end. And a nod is given to the fact that she would not have the troubles she has or be regarded as negatively as she is, if she were a man in the same position. So, all in all, a mixed bag, in which Streep made me happy and I wanted to punch Hathaway in the face (No, not you, Anne, just your character. I still love you, sweety.)

The Descent inspired fewer strong and conflicting emotions in me, and also I liked it more, or at least I managed to like it fairly unreservedly. First off, it's a horror movie with an all female cast. It is in the vein of survival horror with an all female cast, which makes it even better. Second, it's from the same director as Dog Soldiers, so great! Third, it's a good spooker that replaces the gimmick of recent horror movies with genuine suspense, and a characterization that really makes you care if these people get killed or not. Okay... two tiny negative points, and one of them isn't even necessarily a negative. There was a lot of gore. A. Lot. Of. Gore. But, the scariness of the movie is not about the gore. It is scary without the gore. The second is that it intimates, for some of the movie, that there will be a "You slept with MY MAN" confrontation at the climax, but the climax bit... well, I'll just say it doesn't come out as "MY MAN" as it's built up. So, while that made me brace myself, I didn't need to, as I'd feared. All in all, thumbs up!