By Adam Spunberg
From Prada to Nada attempts to pay homage to one of the great novels in English literature – Jane Austen’s Sense & Sensibility – spicing up the Regency-era premise with a modern-day, California-centric, Latina twist. Unfortunately, it’s just not a very good film. Still, it features a few likable characters and puts its heart in the right place, which makes you almost want to excuse the obvious deficiencies and enjoy its better qualities.
The gold standard for modern Austen adaptations is Amy Heckerling’s Clueless, which manages to give Emma a “makeover” and transform it into an iconic illustration of 90’s valley-girl life. It’s also just a really fun film to watch. Behind each Alicia Silverstone “AS IF!” is something much more profound, allowing for enjoyment on two different levels. And you’ll always remember it was “that Polonius guy” and not Hamlet who said, “to thine own self be true.”
The other delightful Austen redux that comes to mind is Bridget Jones’ Diary, which not only showcased Austen’s entrancing plot but also did its best interpretation of her patented wit. I don’t remember Darcy telling Elizabeth, “I like you very much. Just as you are,” in Pride & Prejudice, but we end up appreciating both works – well – just as they are. Much like Silverstone in Clueless, Renee Zellwegger is utterly lovable as the central character, and that element alone drives those movies into the pantheon of DVDs-you-secretly-own-and-watch-multiple-times-a-year-but-pretend-not-to-have-seen-for-a-while.
Compared to those two films, From Prada to Nada is more like nada — or worse — Prado. The Dominguez sisters are our modern-day Dashwoods, accustomed to a life of luxury before being shockingly turned out upon their father’s death. Nora is the one with sense, and she immediately adjusts, perhaps even prefers, her new surroundings in East L.A.. The transition is much harder for Mary, who can think of nothing but getting out of there.
Camilla Belle, known most notably for looking nice in 10,000 BC, definitely works as the Nora (Elinor in Sense & Sensibility) character, but Alexa Vega’s Mary (Marianne) is a materialistic ditz with no depth. At times, Vega’s acting is cringe-worthy, though the script does her no favors. One of the bigger surprises was an astonishingly composed performance from Wilmer Valderrama (I kept waiting for him to shout, “Compton! East L.A.! Who’s got the best ‘yo’ mama’ jokes???”). He will never be Alan Rickman, but he kept himself in check and turned in a fairly solid rendition. On a personal note, I was thrilled to see Kuno Becker, since I loved him in the Goal! films. He’s dashing enough as the Willoughby reincarnate, exuding just enough douche to make you question his motives.
From Prada to Nada also fails in developing some of its more intriguing subplots. I never felt connected to any of the Mexican characters in their new home, and it seemed like the movie abandoned the posh-to-ghetto element when it had so much potential. All the “emotional” scenes were forced and uncomfortable, and even if we want to allude to the old Austenian ways of courtship, there could have still been some understanding that engagements require more than a drunk kiss. The audience just can’t take things seriously, and it’s not funny enough to succeed as a farce.
If you’re looking to satisfy your Austen fix, make sure to put The King’s Speech way ahead on your list of things to see; Colin Firth alone makes it more Austen-esque. Still, you probably won’t hate From Prada to Nada, as long as you know what to expect.
Adam Spunberg is a senior writer at Picktainment and founder of the Austen Twitter Project. Email him at adam@picktainment.com or tweet @AdamSpunberg.
Comments
12 Responses to “Review: From Prada to Nada is More Like Nada”Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying about this post...-
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Adam Spunberg, Picktainment. Picktainment said: From Prada to Nada is more like nada, says Adam Spunberg. It pales in comparison to modern Austen-adapted films… http://fb.me/RnZNsOby [...]
-
[...] know Adam Spunberg didn’t like the film as much as I did and I do agree with him in some points (mostly that Wilmer Valderrama was [...]
Great review! I definitely agree with everything you’ve said here. I have to say, as much as I wanted to love this film (given its modern Austen adaptation status), it could have been SO much better. The premise was clever, but it was lacking substance. In the immortal words of Cher Horowitz, it’s a “full-on Monet.”
I did really enjoy Camilla Belle as Nora. I felt like her acting had a sweet, subtle quality that really worked. And I actually found Alexa Vega’s Mary kind of endearing, but you’re right…her dialogue in particular was often ridiculous.
Señor Spunberg… loosen up a little. This is a fun little movie. Why do you put down Wilmer Valderama by saying that he won’t be Alan Rickman? He doesn’t have to be. Will you ever be Shakespeare? No, you won’t. You’re an internet beat writer. That’s what you are.
This movie isn’t some art-house piece, it’s a lighthearted comedy. Maybe you’re not connecting with the Latino vibe, but the crowd that I saw it with in Los Angeles… did so. Kuno was good… Camilla was charming… Adriana Barraza… wonderful.
You need to grab a taco and relax. Or… stick to writing about stuff ythat ou are really clued in on… like the NY Jets and NFL football.
Jose, I saw the film, too. Whether or not one “connected” with the Latino vibe has nothing to do with the quality of the film. Yes, it’s a lighthearted comedy, but is that an excuse for being a mediocre film? No.
I saw this same nonsense when In the Heights first opened on Broadway. Any non-Latino who criticized the production in any way was informed (by Latino fans) that they “just didn’t get it.” Worse yet, non-Latinos that LOVED the production were basically told they weren’t allowed to love it, because they “would never understand” what it was like to be a part of that culture. Give me a break.
Yes, From Prada to Nada was a lovely, fun little slice of East L.A./Mexican life. There were some funny moments and some likable characters. But it just didn’t live up to its potential.
From Prada To Nada was a lovely, fun little slice of East L.A. / Mexican life. Enough said. You guys could have left it at that.
Ultra-criticism doesn’t help anyone. No one expected this to be up for the Oscars. That’s like saying Picktainment is really lacking and that we all expected it to be as good The New Yorker or Vanity Fair. I don’t think that would be fair to Picktainment.
From Prada to Nada is… what it is. It’s just a light comedy and when we saw it… it had people clapping with happy smiles on their faces.
Jose, I’m glad you loved the movie, but remember that this website is about film reviews, not all of which can be raves…unfortunately. Spunberg’s review is actually fairly positive, all things considered. Do a quick search online for other From Prada to Nada reviews and you’ll find that most of them absolutely rip the film apart.
I have to admit, I was sad when I found out it was a bad Austen homage instead of a bad Devil Wears Prada homage.
Spung is like a million times better than Shakespeare. Please.
“The gold standard for modern Austen adaptations is Amy Heckerling’s Clueless”
Adam, you’re diamonds.
I’ve just seen this movie on DVD. I agree with almost everything you said, Adam. Only … I didn’t like Clueless that much. Excellent review.
My Family and I loved the movie, I had a great time watching it with my wife and kids. Great comedy for the family to watch. I did not know it was based of Mexican-American movie that based in East Los Angeles I had a great time watching it with my family. I hope you all liked the movie its good to see all types of movies of different cultures. Have a great day..
.