REVIEW: The Devil Wears Prada promotion We've always known Meryl Streep had range — that she could master any accent, feel at home in any period, absorb the rhythms of any story. But there's one thing she can't do, and that is convey genuine cruelty. Saddled with the kindest pair of eyes in the business and an eerily gentle mouth, Streep has never been particularly adept at playing sadists. Which suggests that those eager to see The Devil Wears Prada as a searing expose of the vicious Vogue editor Anna Wintour might be somewhat disappointed: for all her obligatory meanness, Streep's portrayal of Miranda Priestly, fictional editor of the thinly-veiled Vogue stand-in Runway, turns out to have a bit more heart than expected. This lack of edge isn't really a problem: Streep's energetic performance as this bitch-priestess of haute couture is one of Devil's main pleasures. But it'd be less noticeable if the film had any edge to call its own.     The real problem is that David Frankel's film, based on Lauren Weisberger's novel about an idealistic and style-deprived young woman (Anne Hathaway) who becomes the head diva's assistant, is such a soulless exercise in by-the-book filmmaking that it might've been written and directed by two 1983 vintage Commodore 64s. From Frankel's montage-happy direction to Aline Brosh McKenna's exposition-heavy script, which is full of transparently stock supporting characters (neglected boyfriend, cold workplace nemesis, etc, etc.) and clunkily predictable third-act resolutions, Devil is a movie that has little interest in itself. The broad-strokes filmmaking here suggests an eagerness to get to the finish line, taking the easy way out of every plot dilemma, unable really to deliver anything resembling taste, discretion, or style. Miranda Priestly would not be impressed. — Bilge Ebiri REVIEW: Superman Returns The best thing about Superman Returns is the opening credit sequence. That feels like a dis, but it's not meant to be, not really. Bryan Singer's new film, originally billed as a franchise reinvention, turns out to be more of an homage to the earlier Christopher Reeve series than expected. And the opening credits, which replicate the fonts, music, and goofy starfield of the originals, are a nostalgic (albeit CGI-jacked) dive back into the corny fun of the Reeve films. It's a perfect kickoff to a movie that quickly reveals itself to be a lot more square than the Superman-as-you've-never-seen-him-before hype might suggest.      The plot isn't unique. Superman (Brandon Routh) has been gone for a few years, and he returns to a world that needs him now more than ever. (This is one of several subtle allusions to Christian imagery, although, thankfully, Singer doesn't overdo it.) Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) is engaged, has a son, and has won a Pulitzer for an article called "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman." Anyone want to place a bet on the title of the article she writes at the end of the film? Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) has been released from prison, and, excited by the prospect of revenge, he tracks down Superman's Fortress of Solitude, getting his hand on the powerful crystals the superhero's father (Marlon Brando, seen here in footage shot for the original film) gave him eons ago. Thus is Luthor's diabolical plan finally set into... zzz.      It's an undistinguished plot, but for the first hour or so, Singer's film moves along nicely, playing astutely on our complex emotions about the first of the great superheroes: in his red-white-and-blue splendor, he's a vision of what we like to imagine we once were. (The sense of a changed world that dominates the film feels like a nod to 9/11.) The problem is that the filmmakers themselves get too caught up in the melodrama of the situation, drawing this epic out to a length the thin storyline cannot support. This flaw is perhaps not fatal, but it's a bit of a letdown. Somewhere inside Superman Returns is a truly monumental two-hour action flick screaming to get out. But, as though stabbed with a kryptonite shiv, it's powerless in the hands of its creators' overreach. — Bilge Ebiri REVIEW: Who Killed the Electric Car? Who Killed the Electric Car? begins with a funeral that establishes the film's conceit: the demise of the environmentally-friendly GM EV-1 electric vehicle as murder mystery. But what director Chris Paine delivers in this gripping documentary isn't really a hardboiled noir, it's a love story. The hallmarks of a bad breakup are in every EV-1 owner's eyes: anguish, confusion and resentment that the villains — GM, the White House and others — not only kiboshed mass-marketed clean transport but wiped away any trace of its existence. The freshfaced members of the EV-1 Club, including Paine himself, might look paranoid if the latter fact weren't shockingly literal: faceless suits repossessed the cars and took them to a remote facility to be, yes, whacked — smashed, stacked and buried. Even a museum's EV-1 was rendered inoperable, as if the very turn of its key would signal the collapse of Big Industry as we know it. As it falls out, the baddies may get what's coming to them, given the continuing success of the hybrid. It fits then, that the lingering stars of the film aren't executives or politicians. They're the smiling activist Chelsea Sexton and the alternative-energy inventor Stan Ovshinsky, gentle voices in a furious, well-researched and fascinating exposé. — Sherry Kuroda DATE DVD: Cache The French art-house film is a time-tested dating aid. It was partly responsible for the friskiness of the '60s and the arrival of softcore porn in the States. Today, it's been eclipsed as porn, and as art-house cinema, it has its risks. Pick something too joyless (an off-film by Claude Chabrol, recent Godard) and your date may brand you a drip. Pick something too obvious (the latest Gerard Depardieu) and you won't impress at all. And if you pick something too obviously horny (Baise-Moi, or, horror-of-horrors, Emmanuelle), your date may turn a nose up at you in disgust. The trick is to find that subtle French drama that has a bit of everything — something like Michael Haneke's Cache, a cerebral art-house film that plays as a thriller (which will soften the blow if your date's a philistine). It's about a man (Daniel Auteuil) and woman (Juliette Binoche) who begin receiving strange videotapes of their comings-and-goings. The arrival of the tapes triggers a burst of classic French tropes — art-world celebrity, repressed memory, marital discord, urban ennui, sexuality — and a flurry of political references, from Algerian oppression to the Iraq war and Middle-Eastern terrorism. The film is severe and painfully still at times, but all that quiet dread just heightens the wire-taut tension. You'll be so tense by the end, you and your date will be begging for release. — Logan Hill

Previous Film Review