It’s October 2006, and a little-known film called The Devil Wears Prada stuns audiences to become the ultimate sleeper hit, grossing more than 10 times its budget. In doing so, it propels rising stars like Anne Hathaway and Emily Blunt into the spotlight – a place they’ve comfortably occupied ever since.
Meanwhile, Meryl Streep cements her acting prowess with Miranda Priestly, a character that has remained firmly embedded in pop culture. The film also gifted us quote after quote and meme after meme – moments that have since found a second life in the age of TikTok.
A sequel never really felt necessary, even with follow-up books from Lauren Weisberger. Yet, fast forward nearly 20 years, and here we are on the precipice of The Devil Wears Prada 2. The question is: has time been kind to this fashion icon?
A Return to Runway, 20 Years Later
Miranda Priestly (Streep) now finds herself at odds with Emily Charlton (Blunt), her former assistant turned rival executive, as the pair compete for dwindling advertising revenue in an era of declining print media – while Miranda edges closer to retirement.
Director David Frankel returns to helm the sequel, this time with a significantly larger budget – nearly four times that of the original. That returnee means there’s an immediate sense of familiarity as we pick up two decades later, with Andy Sachs (Hathaway) now a successful journalist in New York.
For reasons best left unspoiled, she finds herself back at Runway – only this time, things have changed, as you’d expect after 20 years.
The core cast – Streep, Hathaway, Blunt, and the ever-reliable Stanley Tucci – slip back into their roles with impressive ease. But it’s Blunt who stands out most. She’s effortlessly sharp as Emily, now far removed from her assistant days, and clearly relishing the evolution of the character.
Unfortunately, it’s the script that lets them down. It’s not outright bad, but Aline Brosh McKenna leans too heavily on nostalgia, occasionally warping these characters into slightly unrecognisable versions of themselves. The tone also veers too far into overt comedy. The original film had humour, but it felt organic – here, it often feels forced.
A Softer Miranda, or a Different One Entirely?
Sadly, Streep’s Miranda Priestly suffers the most. While it’s believable she may have softened over time, there are moments where she feels like an entirely different character – despite Streep’s familiar delivery and mannerisms.
New additions, played by Justin Theroux and B. J. Novak, don’t help matters, coming across more like caricatures than fully realised people. Back in 2006, each character felt like a real person, and that was a huge part of that film’s success. Why, oh why we need to create comic relief characters in films that don’t need it is something that continues to puzzle me.
And that’s a shame, because there’s a lot to like beneath the surface. The film touches on the realities of modern journalism, the instability of the industry, and even brushes against themes like the growing AI landscape – but it never digs deep enough to say anything meaningful about it.
Instead, it opts for moments like a bizarre aeroplane sequence that completely jumps the shark as well as a romantic subplot that goes absolutely nowhere, and a third-act twist feels both forced and underdeveloped.
Style Still Reigns Supreme
As expected though, the fashion and soundtrack are spot on, and there’s no shortage of cameos sprinkled throughout.
After 20 years, some softening around the edges is inevitable – and in many ways, that’s fine. But when you’re revisiting characters this iconic, expectations come with the territory. Some elements land well – Tucci’s Nigel, for instance, benefits from more screen time, and it’s a welcome addition. Others, however, miss the mark, with Miranda feeling noticeably out of step with the character we once knew.
Overall, The Devil Wears Prada 2 is a competent sequel that recaptures flashes of the original’s charm. It’s enjoyable enough to revisit these characters and see where life has taken them – but will it be quoted in another 20 years’ time?
Well, I’ve already forgotten most of the dialogue, which probably tells you everything you need to know.
Leave a Reply