{"id":9633,"date":"2026-04-30T19:59:04","date_gmt":"2026-05-01T00:59:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/?p=9633"},"modified":"2026-04-30T19:59:04","modified_gmt":"2026-05-01T00:59:04","slug":"the-devil-wears-prada-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/?p=9633","title":{"rendered":"The Devil Wears Prada 2"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Directed By David Frankel<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Starring &#8211; Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Plot &#8211; As Miranda Priestly (Streep) nears retirement, she reunites with Andy Sachs (Hathaway) to face off against her former assistant turned rival: Emily Charlton (Blunt).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Rated PG-13 for strong adult language and some suggestive references.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=e9HXmMnUEdE\">The Devil Wears Prada 2 | Official Trailer<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>POSITIVES<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Despite my initial hesitation with openly embracing a legacy sequel twenty years after its previous installment, The Devil Wears Prada 2 more than legitimizes its exploitative opportunity with a seamlessly synthetic execution that feels cut directly from the same cloth as its predecessor, in turn feeling like the naturalistic next step in the lives of its fabulous foursome. A lot of the reason for this emulative success that will tenderly tickle the tummies of its spirited fandom, ultimately falls on the stoic shoulders of David Frankel&#8217;s meaningful direction, who not only directed the original movie with the very frenzied flare within the world of fashion and publication that can also be found in this sequel, but also the only person capable of conjuring the dry sense of humor stemming from its titular editor-in-chief, with a few decent laughs in between the foray of a globe-trotting adventure involving all of the elegant styles and intoxicating culture that doubles down on the scope and spectacle of what&#8217;s expected. While the film is unable to effectively evade the glaring tangibles of sequelitis, it does further the progression of this magazine&#8217;s brand in ways that certainly tap into the contemporary relevance of the dying media artform that is print publications, but beyond that branches out creatively in ways that allows the film to stand on its own merits, despite channeling the very essence of its predecessor, and considering it does no harm to decrease the value of that previous film, it attains a merit of commendable satisfaction that not all legacy sequels are admittedly privy towards, appraising a safe-but-stimulating ride within this very cutthroat world of power dynamics, the likes of which are just as scintillatingly savory as ever before. Aside from Frankel&#8217;s perfectly commanding touch, the film is of course aided tremendously by make-up and costume designs that sizzle the steak of its signature style, particularly those involved during the second act escapist arc to Italy, which pits us directly in the middle of a fashion show transpiring before our very eyes. Between exotic gowns, confidently commanding three-piece pantsuits, and the pageantry of a full scale exhibit, the film&#8217;s storytelling pauses tastefully temporarily in order to indulge upon the elegantly sheik splendor that adorns its lead characters and cameo models, complete with unique editing transitions and handheld photography to capture music video visuals, in ways that are so artistically expressive from the rest of the film, and considering this franchise has always been one to walk the walk every bit as much as it talks the talk, it proves that no spare cent of the budget went underutilized to brandish costume designer Molly Rogers&#8217; luxuriously high-end visions, enamoring the fashion freaks among the audience, who thrive at the threads of what&#8217;s imaginatively enacted. Beyond meaningful direction and stimulating style, the performances are just as integral at maximizing the movie&#8217;s appeal, with every member of the core four making the most of the opportunity to relish in these characters once more. Aside from each of them stepping back seamlessly into their respective roles, in ways that feels like days have passed, instead of twenty years, they each lend such imposing screen presence to the characteristics of their executive actions, such as Hathaway&#8217;s elaborately broad gestures of body language and facial registries connectively adjoined to audience interpretation, in order to maximize the potential of a grounded protagonist worth investing in. Andy&#8217;s newfound confidence in professionalism is certainly a welcome addition to the consistencies of the character, even if the familiarities of her bumbling clumsiness still persists beneath her stoic shoulders, and considering Andy has essentially always served as the expressive outlet whom the audience lives entirely through, Hathaway&#8217;s kindly sincere sensibilities still charm meaningfully in ways that feel naturally integral to the character, especially once she comes into contact with Streep&#8217;s Miranda, or Blunt&#8217;s Emily. While each of these actresses convey larger than life personalities that are direly limited by the lackadaisical material in the screenplay, they each bring such a resiliency to their commanding screen presence, with Streep&#8217;s elegant nuance for passive aggressive responses matching Blunt&#8217;s dryly unapologetic cantankerousness, in turn rendering sharks in blood soaked waters who constantly go for the kill, saving just enough vulnerability for those hearty moments that test and ultimately contort their characters in ways that underline a lot of heart to their combustible personalities. Speaking of heart, Stanley Tucci might receive the least amount of screentime between the four, but he makes the most of his limitations with the kind of grace and nurturing gentleness that appraised an endearing warmth to the scenes he elevates with his magnetic influence, in turn making me wish that he served more of a meaningful purpose to the film&#8217;s exploits, especially considering two films have now left this character tragically underdeveloped outside of the office.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>NEGATIVES<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On the countering side of the movie&#8217;s productive returns, the film&#8217;s resounding impact is ultimately left feeling a bit stagnant and unfulfilling, as a result of a derivatively shallow screenplay that regretfully commits the ultimate sin of sequelitis, in that it remains confined to the familiar outline of its predecessor, with very little creative deviation to distance itself to the memorability of such an immense shadow. While screenwriter Aline Brosh McKenna does attempt to shake up the scenery and stakes of what&#8217;s transpiring, it&#8217;s ultimately a reheated film that follows the original&#8217;s structure to an exact tee, with every plot motion here obviously replicating those very same beats, nearly at the exact times that they materialized during the original film, and considering the breakneck pacing of these sequences often limits our opportunity to live and revel in these plot movements for any long period of time, relieving them nearly as quickly as they&#8217;re enacted, it never allows the film to grow and stabilize its roots in ways that deviates from a telegraphed consistency, in turn bringing vivid memories of a better film that you could and should be watching, especially considering so very few of the jokes effectively land within this movie&#8217;s material. This is where the inferiority factor of this sequel truly felt prominent, as the biting wit dialogue that was present throughout that original film is nowhere to be seen this time around, instead implementing these awkwardly bumbling lines of artificiality that not only lacked the penetrative nature or personality of the character whom they stemmed from, but also left so many of these scene&#8217;s punchlines lacking the kind of conductive momentum that appraises curiosity from one scene to the next, leaving the surmised laughs at a minimum for what&#8217;s effectively attained, even with the ensemble working overtime to tickle nostalgic nourishment to its passionate fanbase. When the film isn&#8217;t attempting to be humorous, it leans briskly into a newly manufactured romantic angle pertaining to Andy and an Irish beau named Peter (Played by Patrick Brammall), with a complete lack of long-term commitment that fleshes it out in ways that feel integral to the plot&#8217;s progress. It&#8217;s tough enough that Hathaway and Brammall don&#8217;t share any semblance of a palpably registered romantic chemistry to kick start the hearts of an adoring audience, but it&#8217;s even worse when the development of their bond is casually rushed in ways that don&#8217;t feel believably authentic or emotionally endearing to its lasting influence, a fact made all the more evident by a second half that forgets about it entirely, until it&#8217;s forced to confront it at the end of the nearly two hour runtime. To be completely honest, I forgot about it entirely once the film&#8217;s focus shifted entirely to Italy, only to be reminded of its insignificance once the film regretfully chooses to include it, in order to attain closure to its relevancy, and considering it&#8217;s the sacrificial lamb of an arc that feels tediously included to deviate away from the repetition of office-established scenes, it&#8217;s one that could effortlessly be sacrificed on the editing room floor without taking anything away from the finished product, leaving it lifelessly uninvolving the longer that the film attempts to involve it, throughout the opening half, until it&#8217;s ultimately wished luck upon its future endeavors. Finally, even the film&#8217;s technical components can&#8217;t match the intoxicating textures of its predecessor, this time with a coldly damp and colorfully contrived canvas of cinematography that callously reminded me of straight-to-streaming quality, in terms of a bland presentation that evaporated impressionable artistry. While my praise of the aforementioned costume designs certainly garnered evidence of the movie&#8217;s reported 100 million dollar budget, the post-productive elements pertaining to enamoring this world with seductive sizzle, left it feeling cheaply dire and ultimately unsubstantial, especially considering Florian Ballhaus is the very same man who collaborated with Frankel to shoot the original film, yet here schematically feels blandly washed of an inexperienced hand, leaving a movie shot in exotic landscapes baffled by bewildering decisions to counteract so many intoxicating components<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>OVERALL<br>The Devil Wears Prada 2 nearly goes out of style with its desperate incorporations of familiar fan service that have condemned other legacy sequels of the contemporary age, but it&#8217;s ultimately stitched together by entertainingly charismatic performances and David Frankel&#8217;s polished direction holding it together at the seams, even as undercooked additions to the script threaten to stretch the material. While the film doesn&#8217;t exactly break new ground with the material of the opportunity, it does articulate the urgency and vulnerability of print media in an ever-changing media landscape, offering reflective real world insight to a frothily light experience that still goes down smooth after twenty years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>My Grade: 6.5 or C<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Directed By David Frankel Starring &#8211; Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt The Plot &#8211; As Miranda Priestly (Streep) nears retirement, she reunites with Andy Sachs (Hathaway) to face off against her former assistant turned rival: Emily Charlton (Blunt). Rated PG-13 for strong adult language and some suggestive references. The Devil Wears Prada 2 | [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":9634,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[15,21],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9633"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9633"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9633\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9635,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9633\/revisions\/9635"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/9634"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9633"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9633"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9633"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}