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

The Devil Wears Prada 2 is ostensibly about two things: the death of journalism under techno-oligarchy, and pretty pretty dressies. Critics haven’t been able to reconcile the film’s disparate goals. “Remind me, are we critiquing conspicuous displays of wealth or endorsing them?” writes The Hollywood Reporter’s David Rooney. “You could get whiplash trying to figure out where this movie stands on ostentatious luxury.”

The film stars Anne Hatthaway as irrepresible Andy Sachs, who returns to Runway after being laid off at the same time she was accepting a prestigious award for serious journalism. Runway is under fire after shilling for fast fashion, and Andy is there to credibility-wash the mag. She reconnects with/bumps up against old boss Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep), magical gay mentor Nigel Kipling (Stanley Tucci), and former frenemy Emily Charlton (Emily Blunt). Fashion Week wackiness ensues, but critics can’t get too enthused for it. It’s fine! But nothing more than fine. “The chicest outfits still complement the most outrageous of clichés,” writes Rolling Stone’s David Fear. “Nostalgia for the days of standards and bullet-stopping September issues mixes with handwringing over the state of magazines, media outlets, and the overall environment that sold the original Devil Wears Prada as a fairy tale.” DWP2 tries to have its cake and let them eat it too, Marie Antoinette style.

“Let’s not forget that the first Devil Wears Prada was produced by Twentieth Century Fox, a studio that effectively no longer exists, having been consumed some years ago by the Walt Disney Company. Maybe that’s why this new movie — in which billionaires, to paraphrase fellow Fox property Homer Simpson, are the cause of and solution to most of life’s problems — winds up feeling like even more of a fairy tale than the original. It’s probably going to make a billion dollars.” —Bilge Ebiri, Vulture

“Tellingly, a twinkly shot of the Manhattan skyline, in real life now blighted by pencil-shaped high-rises, appears to have been digitally scrubbed to preserve the nostalgic glow. What’s most noticeable is the absence of 262 Fifth Avenue, the Russian-owned and -designed skyscraper that has rankled many New Yorkers by blocking the South view of the Empire State Building. The movie gestures toward the real world but is unequivocally selling the fantasy. Which, again, will be just what the target audience ordered.” —David Rooney, THR

“Director David Frankel understands that familiarity may breed contempt in other areas of life, but sequels, especially long-awaited ones to fan favorites, thrive on a light rinse and repeat. We may now hate the rich and the entitled, yet there’s still a market for peeking in on lobster lunches in the Hamptons, gala birthday parties for moguls, and spending seven minutes in heaven, a.k.a. Fashion Week in Milan.” —David Fear, Rolling Stone

“This follow-up is fun, though let down by Andy’s bafflingly dreary and chemistry-free romance with a dull Australian real estate magnate (a tepid role for Patrick Brammall from TV’s Colin from Accounts). Miranda’s latest submissive prince-consort boyfriend is played by Kenneth Branagh, bizarrely the lead violinist in a string quartet. The film also gives us a lot of star-fan cameos — this is usually a bad sign, but managed well enough here. Not the big cameo though, not the one they were surely chasing, the white whale of cameos: Anna Wintour, the Vogue editor on whom Priestly is modelled.” —Peter Bradshaw, the Guardian

“And while twenty years is a long time to wait for a sequel in franchise-mad Hollywood, the relative break between films has mostly served to drum up anticipation above all else. Mostly, this follow-up is the cinematic equivalent of Shein or H&M: the shape is there, but the details are dreadful.” —Kate Erbland, IndieWire