Critics Aren’t Subscribing to The Devil Wears Prada 2’s Magazine Fantasy

by

The movie The Devil Wears Prada 2 seems to be trying to say two different things: that traditional journalism is dying because of powerful tech companies, and that fashion is fabulous. However, critics are confused because these ideas don’t quite fit together. As David Rooney from The Hollywood Reporter put it, it’s hard to tell whether the movie is criticizing excessive wealth or celebrating it, and the film feels conflicted.

The new film features Anne Hathaway as Andy Sachs, who unexpectedly finds herself back at Runway magazine right after losing her job and winning an award for serious journalism. Runway is facing criticism for promoting fast fashion, and Andy is brought in to try and improve its image. She reconnects with her former boss, Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep), her supportive mentor Nigel Kipling (Stanley Tucci), and her complicated colleague Emily Charlton (Emily Blunt). The film features the usual chaos of Fashion Week, but critics find it merely okay – not great. According to Rolling Stone‘s David Fear, the film relies too heavily on familiar tropes. He notes a longing for the “golden age” of magazines clashes with concerns about the current state of the media and the world that made the original Devil Wears Prada seem like a fantasy. The sequel attempts to address multiple issues but ultimately struggles to satisfy, wanting to both acknowledge problems and offer escapism.

Bilge Ebiri of Vulture points out that the original Devil Wears Prada was made by Twentieth Century Fox, which is now owned by Disney. He suggests this might explain why the new film feels even more fantastical than the first, as it presents billionaires as both the source of and the answer to all problems – a plot reminiscent of The Simpsons. Ebiri predicts the movie will be a huge financial success, likely earning over a billion dollars.

Notably, a sparkling view of the Manhattan skyline—now marred by modern, slender skyscrapers—seems to have been digitally altered to maintain a romanticized feel. The most obvious change is the removal of 262 Fifth Avenue, a Russian-owned building that many New Yorkers dislike because it partially blocks the view of the Empire State Building. The film acknowledges reality but ultimately prioritizes selling a nostalgic fantasy—which is exactly what its intended audience wants.

Director David Frankel believes that while people often get tired of the same old thing, sequels – especially those fans have been waiting for – actually do well by offering more of what audiences already enjoy. Even though we might dislike the wealthy and privileged, there’s still a strong interest in seeing glimpses of their luxurious lifestyles, like fancy parties and events such as Milan Fashion Week.

The sequel is enjoyable, but suffers from a strangely lifeless romance between Andy and a bland Australian property developer, played by Patrick Brammall (known from the TV show Colin from Accounts). Miranda’s newest, meek boyfriend is portrayed by Kenneth Branagh, surprisingly as the lead violinist in a string quartet. The film features numerous celebrity cameos, which often signals trouble, but they’re handled well here. However, the film didn’t land the big cameo everyone expected – Anna Wintour, the Vogue editor who inspired the character of Priestly.

Kate Erbland of IndieWire notes that while a twenty-year gap between movies is unusual in Hollywood, it’s actually built excitement for this sequel. However, she compares the film to fast fashion like Shein or H&M – it has the basic structure, but the execution is unfortunately very poor.

Read More

2026-04-30 04:54