For some reason everyone in the blogosphere has seen this movie (Crescat, Marginal Revolution, Brad DeLong, and I’m sure more). I get the feeling they were all dragged by a wife or girlfriend to go see it. If only I was so lucky, my “lady friend” as George put it a couple of weeks ago, decided to go off to Yosemite for a week without me, prompting me to seek the cruelest of revenge: seeing a chick flick she wanted to see with a couple of my manliest friends. It was a grand time.Anyways, as everyone has already said, Glenn Close [Edit: It was actually Meryl Streep] was very good. But other than that, the movie was kind of weird…SPOILERS BELOW:…here is how the movie ran for me: Nice, sweet college grad–Andy–who wants to go into journalism stumbles into a job with the editor of a fashion magazine. The editor is coniving, demanding, and takes no prisoners. Slowly Andy starts morphing into everything her boss is. Then, when she realizes this, she quits. But, her work for the fashion magazine still ends up being rewarding. It is the reference that gets her a job at a New York newspaper–her dream job. There is no resolution with her boyfriend, who she cheated on while “taking a break” from the relationship (Tyler Cowen claims that they don’t get back together, I was left with the feeling though, that the boyfriend had forgiven her, and that despite his move to Boston they would be together). But their temporary break up isn’t a result of her cheating or her long hours at her job, rather it was the fact that she had changed, and become one of the fashion people, that pushed them apart (and then we she rejected the fashion world by quitting her job, he is happy to “make her late night grilled cheeses,” yet again).The only take away message I see here is that it is OK to be endlessly ambitious, but that you should only have a take no prisoners mentality for jobs you love (a rejection of the Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young song that goes “If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with”). I don’t know about you, but that is a pretty lame moral (and extremely complex by Hollywood standards). While Tyler Cowen claims his interpretation is “Straussian,” I think this was just a case of bad screen writers unsure of how to end the movie. Oh well, judging from its amazon.com reviews, the book seems to suffers from the problem–it is nothing but a vehicle for the outrageous demands and expectations of the editor a big fashion magazine.Update: See my addenda in the comments section.Edit: Clarity