The Devil Wears Prada 2

Before becoming the surprise box office hit of 2006, The Devil Wears Prada was a novel by Lauren Weisberger, talking about her experience working at Vogue and exposing the ruthless and frequently abusive world of fashion and journalism, but mainly taking aim at Anna Wintour, the famous Vogue editor (who resigned last year, although continues to be involved in the magazine, as well as the Met Gala). The film adaptation moderated the character, making her more sympathetic, probably as a result of a mix between the filmmakers trying to make the film more digestible and because of Meryl Streep's inevitable charisma.

The Devil Wears Prada 2, releasing twenty years later, doesn't take inspiration from the two sequel novels by Weisberger. Screenwritter Aline Brosh McKenna and director David Frankel, all returning from the first movie, make a completely new story that feels refreshingly similar to the original, retaining all of its qualities and wisely implementing more than a few nods to current affairs, although, once again, softening the sharp edges and refusing to dig deeper in pursuit of a kinder and serviceable movie.

The best thing about having let 20 years pass between the two movies is that there are now new vices and evils in the fashion and journalism industries to critique. For example, massive layoffs and cuts from conglomerates who seek the maximim profit at the minimum cost are a key part of the story, which will immediately bring back memories of cases like The Washington Post laying off hundreds of people after being bought by Jeff Bezos). The film also depicts, to a lesser extent, the death of print media, the decline of proper journalism in the age of fast-food content, the dangers that AI present to journalism and fashion (and everything), all mixed in the age of social media and memes.

The context has changed a lot and that makes The Devil Wears Prada 2 feel relevant and up to date, even if the core of the story doesn't change much, good news for fans of the first film, who will feel right at home. All main four characters return: Meryl Streep as Miranda Priestly, director of Vogue-esque Runway magazine; Anne Hathaway as her former assistant turned prestige journalist Andy; Emily Blunt as her other former assistant now turned executive at Dior; and Stanley Tucci as Miranda's loyal right hand who continues to be by her side despite what she did to him in the previous movie...

Very few new characters are introduced, and none have significant role beyond being accesories to the main four characters: thankfully, this isn't another "passing the torch" sequel, and much of the enjoyment of the film comes from seeing how some things, despite the pass of time, never really change, something that is sometimes traumatic but it's depicted here in a funny and strangely reassuring way. Nevertheless, some of the funniest moments come from the realisation that some things do change with time, and certain exploitative actions by Miranda can no longer be accepted...

It would have been great if the film devoted a little more time to characters like Simone Ashley and Helen J. Shen, the two new "Emilies" (and much needed racial diversity), but the film is already very well paced and it shows that the script has been meticulously balanced to be as entertaining as possible and doing everyone's justice without taking too many risks or excesses.

In the end, most of the movie still revolves around two things: the abusive relationship between Andy and her former boss Miranda which tests the former's patience at every turn; and the dysfunctional attempt of a friendship between Andy and her former co-worker Emily. That plotline is also a nice reminder that 20 years sound like a lot but in reality it's not that long: you never know who you're gonna meet again in the future, so kindness goes a long way...

The conflicts and plot points that follow and how they develop are very similar to those in the first film, and just like in 2006, the sharp critique of the fashion and journalism industries and the dehumanization of capitalism quickly fades away for a much more one-sided and sweetened story. The lack of a character like Adrian Grenier, Andy's boyfriend in the first film, who tried to push her away from that toxic world (a character that was almost universally hated for being toxic himself and unsupportive, not that I necessarily agree), is a ratification that the film intends to launder some behaviours and values that maybe should be more harshly criticised instead of being... dressed in Prada.

Is that a bad thing for the film? While I may be morally conflicted about it, the reality is that The Devil Wears Prada 2 is even less interested than the first movie in being a critique of anything, and "plainly" means to be an entertaining story between charismatic characters filled witty dialogues, parodic jokes and unexpected plot twists. And I'm more than okay with that, because it works outstandingly well, the film is always entertaining, funny and charming and Streep, Hathaway, Blunt and Tucci are as magnificent as you would expect.

In fact, The Devil Wears Prada 2 reminded me of the style of sincere, {feel-good} movies that Hollywood doesn't do anymore because they feel they always need to be edgy, postmodern and smarter than the audience. There is a belief that modern audiences won't fall into the naivety of American comedies from the 90s and 2000s, maybe because they were problematic in terms of representation and diversity, or because they used too many clichés and tired ideas. And usually both things were true, but with that in mind, their main drive was always an honest desire to make us feel good.

The Devil Wears Prada 2 will make you think about the declining and ugly capitalist world, and make you wonder how much you really want to support and be a part of it. But will also make you feel very good.