Watch Prêt-à-Porter For Free

Wonderful Movie

Thanks for the memories!

Absolutely brilliant

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

I feel bad for brilliant directors. They make one movie that isn't as great as their many other masterpieces and BAM! — it's thrown into the trash heap, classified as a miserable pile of dookie. Some (critics) like to designate a less successful film as an interesting mess; what they really mean, though, is that they can't decide if they liked the film or not — but one thing is for sure: it wasn't as good as (insert Oscar adored movie from a multiple-award winning director here). It's unavoidable — everyone wants an Orson Welles to have a career full of Citizen Kanes, nothing experimental, nothing tricky. Sigh. People are human, you know. It's hard to make a masterpiece! As an admirer of Robert Altman's work (Nashville, Short Cuts), even the slightest of a failure remains watchable to me. Is it the overlapping dialogue? The devastatingly star-studded casts? The magnificent giganticness of the plot, the characters, the script? Not all of Altman's films are equally chatty — he is capable of going gloomy and dry (Thieves Like Us, The Long Goodbye) — but when he wants to go all out he goes all out. The Player, a Hollywood satire, featured nearly sixty celebrities making random cameos for the sake of making a cameo. Nashville had twenty-four main characters, all of them somehow as well-characterized as the last. Ready to Wear, a fashion week parody, comes directly after The Player and Short Cuts — Altman's biggest successes of the 1990s — and it continues the trend of a large cast and cheerfully rambling dialogue. But arriving in the shadow of these terror twins can only be described as a sort of curse. Three is hardly a magic number, and Ready to Wear learned that all too soon, considering the critical destruction it faced upon its release. Altman died in 2006, his legacy coming in the form of the films I mentioned earlier; Ready to Wear, in the meantime, got filed away in the reject folder.I've spoiled myself these last few years. I have only sat through Altman movies Ebert promised I would like — and I have yet to see one that I haven't admired in some way or another. Ready to Wear is my first wild card (it currently holds a 26% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, panned for "not being mean enough", "not being focused enough", etc). 133 minutes later, I can confidently say that I don't understand the lack of love for Ready to Wear.Fine, the humor isn't as sharp as it could be (this is supposed to be a satire, after all). Okay, Altman and his co-screenwriter, Barbara Shulgasser, aren't decisive enough to really make consistent characters out of the massive ensemble. But I like Ready to Wear, along with its hiccups. Things to like include the setting, Paris, of all places; how extensive this fictional fashion week is, loaded with brilliantly timed cameos and dynamic catwalk sequences (soundtracked with Salt-N-Peppa, Björk, more); and, most significantly, the cast, which is possibly too ravishing to resist, including Sophia Loren, Marcello Mastroianni, Lauren Bacall, (a scene-stealing) Kim Basinger, Julia Roberts, Tim Robbins, Forest Whitaker, Tracey Ullman, Sally Kellerman, Lili Taylor, Teri Garr and Lyle Lovett. Some portray insiders, some out, all compelling.Problematic and sprawling as it is, Ready to Wear keeps us busy and keeps things charming — finding ourselves entertained is accidental. There's so much going on, so much to enjoy. So stop, please stop, thinking and comparing and underrating Ready to Wear because of Nashville and Short Cuts and M*A*S*H and The Player. You'll have a better time that way. There's much to savor. Altman pays homage to 1963's Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow by recreating its striptease scene with its now senior stars, Loren and Mastroianni, and the final sequence, featuring a scad of gorgeous (and nude) models, cements the film's carefree approach to do whatever the hell it wants. Sure, you should watch one of the Altman greats first (I won't name them again), but Ready to Wear acts as a smart pastime. You can't get all this from the September issue anyway.Read more reviews at petersonreviews.com

When you think of a Robert Altman film, what *should* come to mind are elements like bitingly sharp satire, clever takes on human interaction and a brilliant portrayal of the subject matter; in other words, a mirror is held up to the topic examined and reflected back to the audience with maybe a tweak, a twist or a knowing wink.That's not the case with "Prêt-à-Porter" or "Ready To Wear," as it was released in its US theatrical run.The problem with this film is a complete lack of focus and understanding about what happens during Market week in the fashion industry, what is important about it, and for this film, most crucially, what's interesting about it! The result shows that this time, the Auteur didn't do his homework.The plot of the film is multi-layered, like all of Altman's work, so there's a lot going on, but each layer is more preposterous than the previous. Perhaps had only one of the threads been so off track, it could have still worked. However, with every element being a farcical storyline, it is simply too much to stomach.Even with the all-star cast gathered on location in the City of Light, dealing with theft, love, murder, manipulation, a bald tattoo, a lot of champagne and a cliché about the sidewalks of that European capital, and... oh yeah! the world of fashion... you can confidently skip this chapter of the Altman story and know you didn't miss anything.

This is an interesting homage to the filmmakers who have gone before Altman and to the careers of many who dress up his celluloid clips. The writing misses, not that it doesn't create interesting sequences or moments, but it seems to go no where. But no one does this type of film better than Altman and even when Altman is bad there is always a lot to look at.The film moves quickly but it always leaves you wanting more. The characters of Kellerman, Ullman and Hunt had they been developed could have been a film within a film and been an interesting comedic farce. Unfortunately that possibility is never realized. Stephen Rea's character is just plain annoying, there's no exaggeration and no depth and it appears he has one expression. Forest Whitaker is always a pleasure to watch because of the depth of his persona. Ruppert Everett does nothing more than come off as a spoiled little boy playing in an adult world. One bright note is Chiara Mastrioanni.But then you move to the pro's. Loren and Mastroianni are delicious to watch. You can't help but watch the Diva Loren walk and talk. Mastroianni's puppy dog routine is endearing because it harks back to the film history they have created together. The homage to Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow is particularly of note, not just because one is amazed at how well Loren still looks but because Altman takes the scene and puts a rather timely note to it. Lauren Bacall seems totally wasted as she wanders in and out of the goings on with no purpose. Jean Rochefort and Anouk Aimee probably get the acting laurels because they both manage to underplay while everyone else is over blown. Julia Roberts and Tim Robbins although set in an interesting situation become tiresome and their characters rather void of any color. Kim Bassinger is perfect as the announcer because she completely conveys her inability to comprehend the fashion world and still be in awe of those who inhabit that world. Danny Aiello's turn is probably the best realized character for laughs in the film while Teri Garr is totally wasted.But that's the point of the movie. The fashion world is over blown and Altman has chronicled that in this film and yet at the same time managed to pay homage to some incredible film careers, films, and legends.

I've seen it a couple of times. I understand Altman was maybe trying to create a disjointed, farcial almost surreal type atmosphere, but I found the lack of cohesiveness and clear cut thread annoying and it caused me to not care about the film or its characters. Being just a regular jane and not blessed with 15 or so credits in Film-making at NYU, the subtly of the art was lost on me. I desperately wanted just a little exposition to grab onto, and all the film's inside jokes and vague, obscure references to Italian films I found to be self indulgent. I'm not saying this film was bad - just bad for me. I think he could have pulled off the same feel and frenzied little European farce with a TOUCH more connective tissue in the plot. Not a lot, just a little for the audience to care about the story, the characters and whatnot. The thing I found in the film that I even cared more than a fig about was the Simone storyline.