Good story, Not enough for a whole film

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

While not ostensibly about the place of women in contemporary society, the images of Unzipped represent the tension and dichotomy of two extreme conceptions of women: the hyper-feminine sex object, and the successful, masculine career-women. The film unfolds through the male gaze, violates the space between public and private, legitimates female subjugation, and upholds stereotypes of both extreme conceptions of "women." The camera's view of attractive females makes them sex objects by its leering, sexual viewpoint. The opening clip depicts a woman pulling a dress over her pantied buttocks. The camera focuses on the blond smiling reporter when she questions Isaac about the theme of his show, instead of his reply. It objectifies the female body by explicitly focusing on body parts such as navel, feet, and breasts, rather than the human face. This lack of respect displays the core value of females in a patriarchal society to be sexual in nature. The title alludes to a scene of Isaac unzipping a woman's outfit all the way under her crotch. The unconscious thrust of the film is the male control over female sexual depictions.Males have a public business role and an unarticulated private one, whereas the film consistently shows the models' familial or social lives intruding on their professional lives. In Naomi Campbell's first fitting, Isaac teases her about her engagement. During the second fitting, she receives a social phone call. A model complains in an interview about her husband waiting for her at home, and behind the scenes at the show, the camera focuses on Cindy Crawford talking with partner Richard Gere. The most blatant violation of public and private spheres is the scrim the models change behind at the show, sexualizing their work. The audience sees the chaos, quick changes and naked bodies that are not typically intended for the public. Even while Isaac is asking the women if they would mind being seen in a bra and underwear for the show, the camera captures them in exactly these garments for the film. Ostensibly for artistic effect, the scrim and the chosen clips for the film add to the unstable nature of women in the work force.The film legitimates the subjugation of women in several ways. Isaac wonders how much it costs to book the "girls." Later, he says he's not suggesting that they be seen changing; he doesn't "give a sh*t if they want to do it, because they are gonna have to." The fact that his wishes prevail displays the male power to force women to conform to social or economic pressure. By not crediting the models as they appear on screen, the producers objectify and dehumanize them. When the viewer sees two people ripping a woman on the floor between them to remove her high-heeled boots, it's symbolic of her social struggle for equality, torn between two male conceptions of her.Male stereotypes of women tend towards the two extremes of sex kitten or professional woman. Eartha Kitt tells a story of how Orson Welles bit her neck and pushed her aside "like a little mouse." Making cat sounds, she emphasizes the animalistic, sexual nature of her undulating body. Naomi's nipples show through her tee-shirt while she wears the jacket of a beast; she's eroticized while looking like an animal. The sex kitten, embodied by the models, is also concerned about appearances. Backstage, the camera captures hair being curled, makeup being applied, and the pain of eyebrow-tweezing. When an interviewer asks a model about the difficulties of being glamorous, her work is framed in terms of appearance... while the camera focuses on Isaac working under her skirt, reminding the viewer she is a sexual object. The models themselves are vocal about their concerns. Cindy Crawford says, "you're a little close. My pores are not that small." Linda Evangelista screeches, "I must be out of my f*cking mind undressing next to the two best bodies in the business." Here we see concern about body image and appearances, and a reference to other women as bodies, a clear example of the subjugation of the female to a patriarchal order. The navels and bare breasts reveal more about the women's bodies, and public depictions of them, than the clothes Isaac has fashioned to cover them.On the other extreme, emasculated, professional women may be seen as the positive standard of the new woman to which all media should aspire. Whereas the models have no cited names, the professionals have a title when they appear on-screen. Supposedly, they earn respect from the camera that views each of them as a person not a body; however, these successful women are denied independence, as they are always in the frame with Isaac. The professionals are also stripped of all femininity. Polly Mellon, Candy Pratt and Sandra Bernhard all have gruff sounding voices and wear man-tailored shirts and suit jackets. They co-opt the male power system to gain respect and take away the threat of women in the work force. They are denied a gendered identity, even while they are still denied complete equality with men. They are seen on the phone, eating or talking, never behind a desk like Isaac. Successful women gain respect, but not to the extent that they are feminine.This is no longer a film about fashion, or even a look behind the scenes of a show, but rather a portrayal of women. Nina asks Isaac why he distracts the audience with a scrim, because the clothes look so good. Its real purpose is to access the models' bodies, having nothing to do with fashion design. Women are either viewed as sexual objects, or men in women's bodies, both of these depictions narrow and incomplete. The sign systems for fashion and female identity become entangled and inseparable. Through the camera's male gaze, the violation of public and private, and the advocacy of stereotypes, women continue to be devalued and unjustly portrayed.

I have seen few movies as ridiculously shallow and pretentious as this movie with the exception of maybe Jawbreaker or Titanic. Mizrahi is mistaken to think that his personality is enough to carry an entire film. We are subjected to bad singing and bizarre dance moves. He shows off his primadona authority by courageously demanding that a skrim be placed at one of his shows to reveal the models change clothes. This somehow makes him a pioneering innovator. The concept of a documentary about a fashion designer working on a collection is a great idea, but Mizrahi wants to show off his character and his connections. At times he shows us the various sources of his inspiration, but that doesn't seem to be the primary focus of the film. That primary focus is the rantings and ravings of a self-centered fool.

First of all, I just want to say that I think that Isaac is one of the best fashion designers of all time, and he's a very smart man! He is talented and he has a unique taste when it comes to fashion. He looks back at all those old movies (most fashion is influenced by trends from the past not only in the 20th century, but different time periods that date back even before movies existed), and that's what adds the spice to his fashion! Fashion is like a painting, and Isaac's fashions are very modern with a dab of a past trend, whether it's the 1950's or 60's. That's what I liked about this movie, is seeing Isaac's fashions and seeing the influence in his fashion!Yet this movie was very disappointing, and it should've been a regular special on television rather than a movie.I truly wasn't pleased with this film. If you like fashion, though, and are interested in fashion design, production, journalism (just to name a few careers in the world of fashion - believe me there are MILLIONS of careers), then this is a movie to watch, yet I'm warning you...it's pretty boring! Yet that's my opinion! Maybe you'll be pleased unlike I was.

This is a documentary about Isaac Mizrahi at work; it's a celebration of him and the fashion world, and far more engaging than you would expect because Isaac is so engaging he almost convinces you that fashion can be interesting. It's a wild ride, and the only real problem is that there's too little Cindy Crawford (she doesn't turn up until about an hour or so into the film) and too much Naomi Campbell. But hey, that's what videos and fast-forward buttons were made for...