The wardrobe deserved twice the screen time the romance received
Some sequels arrive not to deepen a story, but to extend a world — and The Devil Wears Prada 2 made its priorities clear from the first frame. At its premiere this week, Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt, and Stanley Tucci returned to a film that critics recognized less as a narrative continuation than as a moving exhibition of costume design. In the long conversation between cinema and fashion, this film chose a side — and the clothes won.
- A highly anticipated sequel lands with critics largely agreeing: the wardrobe outshines the plot, and the romance feels like an afterthought dressed in beautiful clothes.
- Vintage Margiela pieces and a now-iconic leopard coat ignite fashion discourse, with writers arguing the costume design deserved far more narrative real estate than the romantic storyline received.
- The red carpet premiere blurred into the film itself, as attendees arrived in looks that mirrored the movie's central thesis — that style, wielded with intention, can be its own form of storytelling.
- Critics remain split: some see a squandered legacy, others accept the film's aesthetic ambition on its own terms, leaving the sequel's cultural verdict genuinely unresolved.
The Devil Wears Prada 2 arrived this week less as a sequel than as a fashion exhibition, and its premiere made that distinction impossible to ignore. Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt, and Stanley Tucci returned to a film that critics swiftly identified as a showcase for costume design — one where the clothes carried more weight than the romantic plot threading through the runtime.
The wardrobe became the story's true backbone. Hathaway's leopard coat emerged as the film's defining image, the kind of statement piece that felt more Miranda Priestly than anything in the script. Fashion writers were pointed in their assessments: Andy Sachs's looks deserved twice the screen time the romance received, and the vintage Margiela pieces gave the film a visual argument for its own existence.
The premiere extended the film's logic outward. Attendees arrived in looks that seemed to understand what was being sold — not emotional stakes or character arcs, but the pleasure of beautiful clothes moving through beautiful spaces. The red carpet became an annex of the film itself.
Critical opinion fractured along a familiar fault line: some saw a film that had traded its predecessor's soul for aesthetics, while others accepted the premise entirely, treating the costume design as sufficient justification for the sequel. What no one disputed was the choice the film had made — fashion first, narrative second, romance a distant third.
The Devil Wears Prada 2 arrived this week not as a story about love or ambition, but as a fashion exhibition—one where the clothes mattered more than the plot, and the premiere itself became a runway for the film's most compelling asset: its wardrobe.
Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt, and Stanley Tucci walked the red carpet into a film that critics immediately recognized as a showcase for costume design over narrative substance. The reviews were consistent on this point: the movie's real star was not the romantic storyline threading through its runtime, but rather the vintage Margiela pieces and carefully curated looks that dressed its characters.
Hathaway's leopard coat—the kind of statement piece that Miranda Priestly herself would have approved—became emblematic of what the film was really about. Fashion writers noted that Andy Sachs's wardrobe deserved twice the screen time the romance plot received. The costume design had become the story's backbone, the element that justified the film's existence as a sequel to a beloved original.
At the premiere, attendees from Spanish public life—including figures like Cristina Cifuentes and Rocío Osorno—arrived in looks that seemed to understand what the film was selling: not character development or emotional stakes, but the pleasure of watching beautiful clothes move through beautiful spaces. The red carpet itself became an extension of the film's central argument: that style is substance enough.
Critics were divided on whether this was a triumph or a failure. Some outlets framed it as a missed opportunity—a film that had squandered the goodwill of its predecessor by prioritizing aesthetics over story. Others seemed to accept the premise entirely, treating the costume design as justification for the sequel's existence. What remained clear was that the film had made its choice: it was a fashion film first, a narrative second, and a romance somewhere far down the list.
Notable Quotes
The costume design deserved more narrative focus than the romantic storyline— Fashion critics
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does a film about fashion and ambition end up being criticized for caring too much about fashion?
Because the original film balanced both—it was about a woman learning the industry while the clothes told that story. This one seems to have decided the clothes are the story.
And critics minded that?
Some did. They felt the romance subplot was thin, that it distracted from what the film actually wanted to do. Others seemed to think: why not just lean into it? Why pretend there's a plot when everyone came for the Margiela?
So the premiere was really just a fashion show?
In a way, yes. The red carpet attendees understood that. They weren't there to discuss character arcs. They were there to see what the film was wearing.
Does that make it a bad film?
That depends on what you wanted from it. If you wanted a sequel to the original, probably. If you wanted two hours of impeccable costume design, it delivered exactly that.
And Streep? Hathaway?
They're excellent, as always. But they're almost secondary to what they're wearing. The film knows this. It seems to have accepted it.