The Devil Still Wears Prada

Is the sequel good?

Since The Devil Wears Prada 2 has been announced, I had a level of concern. By the time the first looks came around, I was not convinced I’d have a positive experience with it, to say the least. It’s not as though I thought it’d be impossible for this film to be good, though. If you know me, you should know - or at least predict - that the first film is one of my favorites of all time, I was hoping to be proven wrong about its sequel. There was always plenty of material for expansion, both grounded in reality or leaning into the fictionalization to tell a story just using its setting and characters. There was nothing inherently limiting the property… yet I was skeptical.

While I wouldn’t call the film perfect, I can say The Devil Wears Prada 2 is better than I thought it would be. My worst fear was it’d just be a two-hour Super Bowl commercial, and while this certainly indulged in pandering and nostalgia bait from the opening credits alone, it managed to be a solid body of work in and of itself, with a story that holds its own weight.

I will probably be spoiling things. I will warn you now and never again. Normally, I would recap the original film for further context before discussing its sequel, but if you don’t know a thing or two about The Devil Wears Prada… what are you doing following me?!? Like, just watch the movie. Any spoiler of it will just be to provide further context.

This film follows Andy Sachs who, despite finding great success and acclaim as a journalist over the past two decades, is laid off her job at the very moment she is awarded. She gives a passionate speech about how journalism still fucking matters, which seems to go viral. Simultaneously, Runway comes under fire for accidentally publishing praise for a brand that uses sweatshop labor. Due to her speech, Irv goes behind Miranda’s back to hire Andy as the features editor, in hopes she can navigate this PR crisis. This kicks off the plot, though there is much more to it than that, no doubt. I’d say this is almost a false start plot for what becomes a separate thing all together. Andy struggles to garner engagement at first but eventually (with the help of a Queen Mother Lucy Liu cameo) steers Runway out of the controversy and re-establishes their following…. then Irv fucking dies and Miranda’s new boss is B.J Novak, who doesn’t care about fashion whatsoever. Under the threat of mass layoffs, Andy turns to Emily to get her rich husband to buy Runway in an attempt to regain control, but surprise! They’re evil. Emily wants to be the new Miranda because of the context surrounding her departure from Runway, and rich husband wants to AIify Runway and take away all sense of humanity from the magazine. Oh, also, I say “magazine”, but it’s become largely digitized over the decades, which is kind of tragic. In the end, though, Lucy Liu saves the day, and Miranda can remain in control for as long as she may want, and everyone keeps their jobs or ends up in an even better situation than they previously were. I will be getting more in depth about specific details, but this is the flyover view of the film.

I have to discuss the acting and character work a little bit, as a huge part of the success and fanfare surrounding the original is the four major film stars playing such beloved characters. I rewatched the original before and after seeing the sequel, and the part I have the most to say about is Anne Hathaway’s reprisal of Andy Sachs. And I feel negatively!

For starters, do you notice how I went through that entire plot description without bringing up her Australian boyfriend even once? He could’ve gotten chopped entirely and literally nothing would be different. Women are allowed to be career driven without a romantic angle being applied to their story. Miranda has a man that compliments her character arc from movie one to movie two, Emily temporarily has That situation going on… we could’ve gotten three different approaches to the concept of career women who are undoubtedly independent but also do have social lives. I will say, I love the little scene where Tracie Thoms scouts him out for approval, but that’s the only time I was charmed by the romantic, quote unquote, “subplot” whatsoever. I feel as though this movie, structurally takes after the original entirely too much, and famously…. the original has a Nate problem. But at least the Nate problem has a theoretical purpose. It was meant to represent Andy’s “before” and “after” Runway. It is the aspect of the film I think could’ve been written in a less… ‘let’s shame a woman for doing her best’ way, but it is 2006, so I mean… it is inherently culturally dated. This storyline feels dated for 2026, not because he’s misogynistic, but because every scene with him feels like… why would a man be here?

When I first saw this, I didn’t see many people bring this up, and now it feels as though… it’s A Thing… but I also find Andy’s personality to be jarring in this iteration of her character. I don’t understand where this 2013 quirkified gee willikers aura came from, but especially after rewatching the original, it definitely isn’t a natural fit for where she left off to where she’s starting here. I can’t help but feel as though this is a trend with rebooting 2000s classics, though. It’s almost like recapturing an ingenue aura. Instead of the flawed, complex, multi-dimensional character you got before, you have to be more ironed out, optimistic, upbeat… #hopecore, in a sense. I don’t know why, but it is a thing that is. Perhaps, it’s easier for an audience to stand in for that role in a 2026 context. Admittedly, base-A Andy had a not-like-other-girls complex, but surely, we could have evolved that characterization into a 2026 setting without making her feel as though she was lobotomized.

I do also question whether I find her arc productive. Did she even get what she wanted? Once she got fired, she wanted to use Runway to get back on her feet, in a sense, but she craved wanting to be a part of telling important stories, which Runway wasn’t fulfilling. She considers selling an exposé on Miranda throughout the film, but doesn’t feel as though that would be satisfying, either, both because it’d be trashy but also because she doesn’t view Miranda as a one-dimensional monster that undoubtedly the book would end up being sold as… she does have multiple changes of heart throughout the runtime, but I wonder if the arc was satisfied in the end. Is she doing anything of importance by the last scene? Couldn’t tell you. I can tell you, even if she was, I still wouldn’t be happy with her arc conclusion because she’s still with that fuck-ass Australian.

Moving on from Andy, I was actually nervous about how Miranda Priestly would be portrayed in this film. Anna Wintour has become progressively more involved in the press for this film and generally in on “the joke” of the film, I truly worried how that might influence her portrayal. I never needed Miranda Priestly to be a supervillain, I had never seen her as such, but there’s a bite to her that I worried would become sanitized due to Anna Wintour leaning into her legacy. Do I think this iteration of Miranda is more toothless? Perhaps, but I actually think this movie did a great job at blending fiction and reality. Not marrying itself to the true lore behind Anna Wintour’s life, rather creating an original plot that resonates to a 2026 journalistic reality using the foundation set up in 2006. She was in the peak position of her power in 2006, whereas now she’s trying to stay afloat in a time where her power is being intercepted. She starts the film cold but in a distinctly different way from the original. She’s rattled, which informs her behavior for the rest of the film. She’s never recaptures what she was doing in the original, but it’s a different context.

I see some people aren’t a fan of 2026 Miranda’s characterization, and I can wrap my head around why one might find her “out of character” of sorts… She becomes a co-protagonist in this iteration, rather than the undeniably antagonistic force she was in the original. As I said, I never considered her some type of super-villain, but she is the titular devil. She is meant to misbehave and use her power to antagonize our protagonist. She’s complex, yes, and you’re meant to understand - in the end - she isn’t all that bad. But she’s meant to have a lot of bite to her, as well. She casually misuses her position of power and treats those around her as sub-human to keep said position of power. Whereas this time, moments such as her hanging up her own coat for the first time, and flying with The Normies are moments that I’ve seen people cite as her losing the poise and demeanor that makes her an iconic character, and have been cited as out of character… as I mentioned earlier, I feared this movie would take away her bite, so I can see where people are coming from… I disagree, though. As for the plane scene, I’m more understanding of the complaint. If I remember correctly, the in-universe excuse was the budget cuts, but Miranda surely has pocket change to upgrade her flight. Still, though, I can understand movie logic… the scene was simply very funny. The hanging the coat scene was a direct joke on the original film, where HR violations finally caught up to her. It also showcases how rattled her situation has gotten her. Her power is being threatened. It’s a direct tell of how times have changed... I guess in both instances, it also depends on whether the joke lands for the audience, and I thought both were funny because Meryl Streep is a great comedic actress.

I wanted to discuss the scene where Miranda encourages Andy to write The Book, because it was one of my favorites and the framing parallels the “don’t be ridiculous, Andrea, everybody wants this… everybody wants to be us,” scene in the original… but I don’t have anything substantial to say about it. I could see an argument made against it, because it’s not true to Reality, but as I said… I consider this film to be leaning into the fictionalization of reality. The first movie isn’t technically a biopic, but it is a direct commentary on Anna Wintour, whereas I find this film to be very obviously a continuation of the fictional characters that were originally meant to stand-in for the real people. We’re no longer in any type of biographical territory now, and I think that was probably one of the least exploitative paths they could’ve taken? I’m sure there’s a better narrative path they could’ve gone with, but this wasn’t the worst angle, either.

Emily is the character whose arc makes the most sense in my mind. Emily has always been my favorite character, so it just feels right that both the writers and Emily Blunt had a complete understanding of her journey in a way that I can see arguments made against the others. The “you’re a vendor, not a visionary” line is actually one of the moments where 2006 Miranda pops back out, and it just fits that it was directed at Emily, who becomes the ultimate Miranda-trier of this film after getting discarded years prior. I don’t see many people making cases against her, so I won’t go too in depth, rather I’ll just say… everything worked in terms of portrayal. 2006 Emily and 2026 Emily feel like the same character through and through, and Emily Blunt has many of my favorite lines and deliveries. That scene at Irv’s funeral was 2006 Emily to her core, and then “may the bridges I burn light my way” apparently improvised bit killed. I also feel as though, to a degree, despite being in the film the least, she sort-of filled in the titular devil role during certain points of this narrative. The film closely follows the structure of the original, and it feels poetic that Emily is the divorced mother of two in this narrative. Justin Theroux … a disconcerting presence in this one. He was certainly doing The Most, but his character made total sense. Emily would absolutely grow to become someone that would social climb using his platform.

Stanley Tucci as Nigel is always a delightful presence. I actually think the “softening” of Miranda’s presence actually enlightened their relationship more. Could it feel fan fiction-y when she finally gives him his dues after all these years? Arguably, but it was also emotionally effective, as the fan. The reveal that Nigel was the mastermind that got Andy rehired… I sobbed both times I saw this. I don’t just love how Nigel remains Andy’s mentor, I think the evolution of Andy becoming just as instrumental to Nigel getting the appreciation he’s been waiting for from Miranda makes this feel full circle, in a sense. At first, admittedly, I was like… Nigel, girl… it has been 20 years since we last saw you… have you just been a stagnant door mat all this time? At 65 years of age? But upon rewatching the first movie, it’s, like… okay, yeah, he probably has and he probably would. Even when he was given his flowers, he’s so hesitant to accept them. One of his first scenes in this sequel was him roasting Andy for wanting validation and it’s like… you’re sooo right, but the way it becomes recontextualized because he clearly wants that validation, too, but has had the desire humbled out of him sooo many times… still, he stayed. Seeing it finally pay off in this narrative is such an exhale moment.

As for the new cast, Simone Ashley’s Amari …

What an instant star of the show. In the fashion movie, to be the diva who stands out and stuns the most speaking in the entire production? An accomplishment. I also take note that she just thrives at her job throughout the runtime in a way Emily wishes she could in the original. When she gets promoted at the end, it’s, like… yeah! As she deserves. She ran Runway like the navy! She ran Miranda’s shit like it was easy!! I do wish Amari got more to do in this, considering she is carrying on thee assistant legacy. The narrative scope of this film was very centered on the core four, but Simone serving looks in every shot of the Vogue montage? That alone is enough to heal the country.

The Lucy Liu cameo was greatly appreciated, though it also made me wish she was in the film throughout, rather than just two scenes. The returning character of “Irv” and his son played by B.J Novak? Hit or miss. Kenneth Branagh as Miranda’s new man was actually an appreciated edition, and more reason why I find Andy’s Australian completely unnecessary. Miranda has the romantic subplot on lock! Although Tracie Thoms as Lily is arguably more present in this one… she did disappear in the middle, and you could never really have enough Tracie Thoms. She could’ve been in every frame of the film and I’d be happy. The rest of Andy’s writer friends are fine, as well. I hope they got more job opportunities.

Rewatching the original made me realize how much the sequel attempts to replicate its structure, almost to a fault. There are scenes that feel as though they were shot for shot callbacks to the original, though less narratively effective due to the nachos being so directly reheated. At times it feels like the same movie just with a twist. though there were some very subtle and minor parallels that I actually felt enhanced the story, as well. I find this plot to be quite worthwhile and timely, even if the writing and direction becomes heavy-handed. I think in the age of TikTok driven media illiteracy, heavy-handedness is arguably… necessary? At times… for wider audiences, at least. The Devil Wears Prada 2 is definitively more than the Super Bowl commercial I had feared it’d be. Would I call the film… good? Hm. But… in a media landscape where reboots and sequels seem to be getting less and less earnest in their efforts, I do think there is artistic merit here. Is that a low bar? Perhaps… but it’s something. Go see it! If you want to. Consider this to be my glowing recommendation.