Movie Review: The Devil Wears Prada 2

Adele P.
3 days ago
7 min read

Updated: 2 days ago

Review By Adele P.

The Devil Wears Prada 2

Directed By David Frankel

Written By Aline Brosh McKenna

Rating: 3.5/5

Wowowow! After reading critical reviews to get some insight into how others viewed this movie, I wanted to get into the discourse while bringing my own ideas about the film into the mix. Below are some links to a few reviews I'll be bringing in for discussion. I'm going to start off by saying that despite (valid) critiques of this long-awaited film, I'm awarding it about one whole star alone purely because of the blatant disdain for tech-bro and finance-bro archetypes; I believe this sentiment deserves that entire biased star unto itself. The other stars are more objectively earned.

With that being said, I wanted to try and tackle the floral symbolism in this movie first. It was impossible not to notice all the orangey-pink hues in the backgrounds! The beautiful painting of what appears to be a nasturtium in Miranda's office is one floral article I'd love to steal for my own walls. There was also a nice little Easter egg at the beginning of the film when we see a shot of an event banner labeled "spring florals" as part of the opening montage full of references to the original film.

I'm no florist, but a few selections caught my eye that stood out more than once: white orchids, snapdragons, nasturtiums, poppies, dahlias, and hibiscus. It's difficult to find much information about the choice of florals involved in the production, thanks to the famous "groundbreaking" scene; however, I did find one interview with director David Frankel and writer Aline Brosh McKenna that revealed Anna Wintour had actually influenced the decision to stage the Dior store set with white-only arrangements. Although this was a decision meant to respect her opinion and instill a sense of realism in the set, the presence of white roses, snapdragons, and orchids in both the Dior store and Runway office are hard to miss.

Amidst the vibrancy of the warmer flowers, which inspire thoughts of friendliness, cheer, creativity, joyfulness, and passion, the white stems reel our audience back to reality. We can read white roses as symbols of purity in the world of fashion. The industry of print media has changed, but the exclusionary, elitist attitudes towards outsiders like Andy in The Devil Wears Prada (TDWP1) remain. Moments like Emily's shock at seeing Andy back in her world and Amari's befuddlement at Andy's nonchalance toward designer accessories remind us of a core value from TDWP1: social status.

“Everybody wants this. Everybody wants to be us.”

Andy’s foil from TDWP1, Emily, is doing well in upholding the elite status of fashion giant Dior. We later find out this is thanks to Miranda, who believed she would fare better in this management role compared to her own editorial position. Compared to Miranda, who is willing to take risks (although forced to in a state of rising desperation), like hiring Andy to rebuild Runway's reputation, Emily's character is firmly tied to her ideas about the way things ought to be run, and who gets to have access to the world of these wonderful material things. I argue that this film correctly identifies her as a workplace purist who cannot separate the notion of "deserved" rewards from ownership.

Although materialism is not a theme that resonates as strongly in The Devil Wears Prada 2 (TDWP2), it still carries over from TDWP1. Emily’s attitudes towards her wardrobe mirror her attitude towards her job. She believes what she owns is equivalent to what she deserves. Ownership includes her claim to a position of authority, as Miranda is also able to claim. However, she is unsatisfied. Sadly for her, Miranda affirms at the end of TDWP2 that Emily does "not have what it takes" to do her job—she does not want to take risks and doesn’t have the creative vision it would take to succeed as head of Runway. She is too attached to the idea of

being untouchable and would rather scheme in surety that she will be able to reap what she considers her just reward. Unlike Andy, who will improvise on the spot an idea for an interview that could cost her her job if it goes wrong, Emily would never do anything to jeopardize the purity of her image as a successful, ruthless elite. She states that Dior is a must-have brand that anyone with money recognizes as such. With the sleek, narrow color palette in tune with the brand’s iconic history of elegant design, her appearance surely fits the ideal of elitist purity conveyed by the white flowers placed in the set.

Symbolism aside, the overall production of this movie was not my cup of tea. Acting-wise, Stanley Tucci was wonderful to watch as always, but I was let down a bit by the writing. Comedian Caleb Hearon was barely given any humorous lines in his role as an assistant. The script just seemed to lack something special that TDWP1 had. Nigel had his little quips (saying hello to "6," referring to Andy by her size, a callback to the first film), and this was all good and well, but everything seemed to go...too quickly? As it relates to acting, it seemed to me that the cast did the best they could with what they had.

Anne Hathaway's performance was alright for what she had to work with and seemed to improve over the course of the project. My love for her goes back to Ella Enchanted and The Princess Diaries, where she is well-suited to the excitable, clumsy young adult roles she took on. However, although she gets right into character by bringing some of that energy back into the big '26, I felt some of her scenes were overdone. I agree with film reviewer Claudió Alves, who, like many others, feels that Meryl Streep's acting is the one that stands strongest. He argues that "how the actress plays [Miranda], hinting at the ghost of erstwhile imperiousness while foregrounding the cold panic of someone unmoored" is what really sells the film as a "legacy sequel about how legacy means nothing nowadays."

The scenes in TDWP2 where she sits at the notorious head of the editors' table are some of the best to touch on because they contrast directly with the meetings that occur in TDWP1. In her fiercest years, Miranda delivers some of her most biting remarks (once again, I’m reminded of “Florals? For spring? Groundbreaking.”), and we see the tables completely reversed this time around. Streep laughs without real humor every time she must curb her words, lest HR give her a call, yet we can feel the real dread of sinking hope, annoyance at being forced to comply, and the tense desperation Miranda is experiencing.

Despite her outstanding performance, though, Meryl Streep cannot save this movie from being a product of its time. The color grading fails to fully enhance its subjects' vividness and makes the project come off as cheaply made. The fact is, the visual simplicity of TDWP2 just doesn’t differ from most contemporary drama films these days. Fans have been comparing it to its brighter original counterpart to a fair degree. This makes it a poor reflection of the tenet it tries to uphold about creative quality over revenue. Justin Chang of The New Yorker says it well:

"To some extent, the cool commercial logic of the fashion industry—which transforms beautiful, original works into cheaply reproducible goods, season after season—echoes that of Hollywood, which regularly cannibalizes and, yes, franchises its greatest successes."

Is it worth making a sequel to an era-defining film if the final product fails to uphold the very standards its predecessor set? We could ask this question of plenty of movie sequels, but it strikes a little deeper when the franchise is about the production of style itself. TDWP2, as previously mentioned, strayed from its focus on fashion specifically and is more about the falling value of creativity, which is one of the reasons I believe it fails to deliver the same powerful impact.

Creativity and risk go hand in hand. The movie successfully delivered this message, but dipped more into Miranda's perspective than Andy's; I enjoyed this as a fan, but I think it was a poor storytelling technique because your audience can only focus on so many aspects of our protagonists' lives. That being said—let's talk about Miranda in the digital age.

In her review, "'The Devil Wears Prada 2' struts back without substance," Candice McMillan argues that Miranda's fall from grace is a sorry change from the first film, which is not rectified. McMillan says, "Andy's desperation to impress propelled the original film, and Miranda's growing expectations created its pressure cooker denouement," and stands that the sequel fails to consider what its predecessor emphasized: "Miranda isn't making decisions about fabric or style," or simply, she is not making any decisions, period. At least, she's not able to make decisions with the weight that grounds her as an imposing authoritative figure.

Video essayist James Woodall explains how TDWP1 is notably different from the novel because it effectively portrays Miranda as a workaholic constantly setting up the editorial process for success. She is a picture of commitment to fulfilling yet never-ending work. Her life is the pinnacle of the American dream: sell your soul to industry, and reap the rich rewards. The sequel does not shy away from this message, and Miranda admits to losing out on things like, say, meaningful time with her children, in order to achieve the mighty reputation her career has brought her. Take that reputation away, and the sequel finds itself flailing for narrative support.

The entire plot of TDWP2 rests on setting Miranda up for rescue from social failure. However, diminishing her power almost entirely makes it difficult to successfully tell a story about the state of crisis creatives find themselves in today, adapting to a new online economy, and what active resistance to change can look like as a force for good. There's too much to digest. One particular example that wasn't to my taste was the sloppy romantic aside written for Andy. I suppose we've moved on from the horror that was her relationship with Nate, but Hollywood would still rather a woman be in a situationship than alone and happy...!

I just don't know that this project successfully achieves its attempted balancing act. They saved Runway from the hands of two billionaires today, but what about two days later? Two months later? The future is uncertain, and the movie was not satisfyingly reassuring. I think it would have been better served if the focus had been on saving a significant institution of fashion, allowing audiences to draw their own conclusions about the broader themes of creativity at large. Nevertheless, there were parts I truly enjoyed and made the film worth the ticket: a performance from Lady Gaga, flashy shots of fashion week in Milan, Miranda's contemplative moment alone by the designer storefronts at night, validation of anti-AI sentiment, support for journalism, Simone Ashley, and yes, all the florals...for spring.