A sequel to The Devil Wears Prada is praised for its smart and timely update, reflecting the current state of the media industry, the decline of print journalism, and the influence of algorithms and advertising. The story revisits characters 20 years later, with a flipped power dynamic and a focus on a PR crisis.
makes its way to HBO Max alongside a pair of movies you may not have heard of.a beloved workplace comedy that earned Meryl Streep an Oscar nomination for her iconic turn as Miranda Priestly, a character based on real-life Vogue editor Anna Wintour, gets a chance to catch up with its characters 20 years later.
The worst legacy sequels play like Super Bowl commercials, in which actors return as characters we love, but in a way that feels unsatisfying and a little desperate, like whenfeels like it could be the model going forward, as it updates its story for a modern era in a way that's unexpectedly smart, clever and sadly, maybe even a littlereal, especially for audience members who happen to work in media. It ends up being a movie about the death of print journalism, the rise of algorithmically driven"content" and how every institution is being gutted to make a few more dollars for the billionaires in charge.
It’s also very funny, despite opening with Anne Hathaway’s Andy Sachs getting laid off from her job as an investigative reporter at a print newspaper. Meanwhile, at Runway, the magazine where Andy was Miranda’s assistant 20 years ago, her former boss is ushering the company through a very 2026 PR crisis that requires someone like Andy to come in and fix it. This leads them to reencounter Emily , who now works at Dior, flipping the power dynamic.
Priestly needs to grovel to get Dior's approval, since the company relies on Dior's ad money. And because it’s 2026, the magazine barely exists, and nobody clicks on its online-only content — except for other culture reporters and writers, Priestly notes at one point, which is such a specific barb at Twitter-addicted journalists that you’d think it was written by one.uses the blueprint of a 20-year-later sequel to provide an earnest update on the industry it famously depicted back in 2006, and that honest approach goes a long way.
The movie makes a meal out of material that sounds broad and groan-worthy on its face — like Miranda Priestly being subjected to more stringent HR oversight — because the writers and the audience both know the characters well enough for it to play as genuine instead of schticky. It’s hard not to laugh at Priestly, wondering if her missing assistant was “human trafficked” and also being aware that she’s not allowed to say things like that anymore.
“She used to throw her coats at people,” one of the new interns says. It also functions as a poignant love letter to the people still putting in the work that used to make up magazines, now found in bite-size pieces on your TikTok feed.
Its ultimate message is that journalism still matters, which is a heartening one in an era rife with misinformation and when trust in the media hits all-time lows, and one you likely didn’t see coming from a movie about the inner workings of a fashion magazine.manages to do all of that while being as charming and fun as the first film, in a well-made movie that cares enough to travel to the locations depicted. What a concept!
Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Stanley Tucci and Emily Blunt all don’t miss a beat slipping back into the roles, and it’s nice that those characters actually had something to say rather than sell us the latest home phone and internet package. It may be even better than the original.however, writes, “I wouldn’t begrudge anyone who just wants to see … these actors together again.
But the movie, well stocked in Prada, could have used a bit more of Streep’s unflappable devil. ”he takes his unique spooky storytelling approach mainstream by casting Adam Scott, a well-known American actor. Frankly, I didn't know how badly I needed a horror film starring the guy fromWhen cynical horror novelist Ohm Bauman retreats to a remote Irish inn to scatter his parents’ ashes, he is consumed by tales of a witch haunting the honeymoon suite.
Disturbing visions and a shocking disappearance force him to confront dark corners of his past. It sounds familiar enough, and yes, it is ultimately a horror movie that could be read as an extended metaphor for personal trauma, but it manages to transcend its traditional trappings by crafting incredibly effective jump-scare set-pieces and lingering on its memorably creepy, upsetting imagery.
It does this while making you laugh out loud throughout, mainly at the awful way Scott's Stephen King-esque author treats all the people he encounters.is an incredibly well-made horror film that continues McCarthy's obsession with making you jump and also think about where horror comes from, using supernatural means to tell stories of human evil. It's one of the most compelling"the scary thing is a manifestation of trauma/guilt" movies because it actually cares about scaring you first and foremost.writes, “I’ve seen too many protagonists skulk down dark hallways, but McCarthy’s version of that shot is so visceral that you feel like he’s really been there.
You can smell the mildew. ”Andy Serkis has been trying to adapt George Orwell's novel since 2011, when he starred inas Ceaser and decided it was time for a"modern retelling.
" What was once an ambitious-sounding motion-capture project is now, after a series of hurdles, including a brief attempt at Netflix, a cheaply animated CGI talking-animal film for children starring Seth Rogen as a pig who farts onscreen at least once.made another shark movie! The premise here is simple: A plane goes down in the Pacific Ocean, and the survivors soon find themselves in a fight for their lives as man-eating sharks start to circle the wreckage.
It’s a great premise — combining a plane-crash disaster movie scenario with a shark flick — but it seems the budget was mostly spent on the terrifying extended plane crash sequence, leaving the shark-infested waters portion looking too cheap to muster much excitement.is easily the best Disney movie in quite some time, reminding you that Pixar's name once meant you were guaranteed a terrific time with big laughs, emotional heft and a clever premise that continues to surprise you. The movie opens with a young animal lover, Mabel, boldly attempting to free all the class animals at her school because she sees how unhappy they are in their cages.
It's a great introduction to the character and the film's big ideas, which are largely about how kids need to go outside and touch grass, and how humans and animals are both better off living in harmony. Maybe highways don't need to replace every stretch of land that's meant for wildlife! Respect the balance of nature! In the film, scientists have discovered how to"hop" human consciousness into lifelike robotic animals, allowing people to communicate with animalsanimals.
Mabel seizes an opportunity to use the technology, uncovering mysteries within the animal world beyond anything she could have imagined. I appreciated how simple-minded Mabel's plan is: She uses the tech to become a fake beaver in hopes of convincing real beavers and other animals to return to the woods so the mayor won't bulldoze the area.
I also appreciated the mayor's arc and how the film stresses that people make mistakes but can be convinced to do the right thing when presented with evidence that could change one's perception. But, most importantly, it's laugh-out-loud funny and perfectly charming throughout, with just the right amount of “humans suck” cynicism balanced with idealistic"Save the Whales!
"-style feel-goodery. There’s a wild moment, followed by laughter. It was then that I knew this was a new kind of Pixar movie, untethered to the specific concerns of previous films that all follow a fairly similar schema. It's silly and frantic in the way that reminds me of the bestis a hilarious and warm charmer, harkening back to Pixar's heyday while successfully ushering the studio into new territory.
Talking animal movies don't get much more clever than this!writes,"It shouldn’t all hang together as well as it does, but the movie’s freewheeling plotting is exhilarating, even more so when a frantic chase accelerates the action.
"is a Diablo Cody-produced dark comedy adaptation of an off-Broadway play about a group of young women who start a coven while working at a Free People-like store in a mall. The movie plays like a mash-up ofIt's got a lot on its mind about female friendships and commercialized femininity, and it's all conveyed through witty dialogue that never feels didactic. It features incredible performances fromis part of the"eat the rich" subgenre, which is so prolific right now.
Luckily, this one channels its"rich people are evil Satanists who want to sacrifice you so they can keep living the high life" in such specific and fun ways that it actually works better than a lot of other recent attempts. It's basically a live-action cartoon that draws as much fromas from Sam Raimi's horror oeuvre. It's a one-woman, army-style badass action movie, an occult horror flick and a splatter comedy all at once, not to mention a class-based social commentary.
The plot: A woman answers a help-wanted ad to be a housekeeper in a mysterious high-rise in New York City, not realizing she is entering a community that has seen a number of disappearances over the years and may be under the grip of a Satanic cult. She's there to find her sister, whom she abandoned years ago.
That set-up is merely fodder for Beetz to kill people in various violent ways, and the movie provides that in spades, from its lengthy blood spurts to its decapitations and reanimations. The cast is also unexpectedly stacked: Tom Felton, who you likely know as Draco Malfoy from theis an unexpectedly good"one of these," which is to say, another movie in which a final girl must violently kill her way out of a Satanic situation.
,"Beetz deserves a better, sturdier showcase, as do us fans of exploitation movies that lace their violent, giddy, gory choreography with more than just cheap dopamine dumps.
" Addsdinged the film for its lack of complexity, but noted that its gory scenes are delivered with enough"gusto to sate even the most bloodthirsty filmgoer. "are ridiculously stylish, but some say they fumble their moral and thematic messaging where it counts, swerving commentary about rape culture and class in favor of shock value and vibes. Here she is now with a massive budget to adapt the beloved book she has a deep personal connection to.
There are high expectations for Fennell, whom many immediately believed would fumble such precious intellectual property. The scare quotes in the official title"as seen in the movie poster, are intended to remind you that this is just one woman’s take on the story.
But that’s what you risk whenYou will have to drop some things and pick some up . Here's the plot, in case you don’t remember high school English class: As a child, Catherine’s family takes in Heathcliff, a mistreated boy, and forces him to work with them.
Catherine and Heathcliff are best friends, though they are divided by class and status. As she grows up, Catherine realizes, with an air of mean-spiritedness, that she’ll need to marry rich to get out of here. She does so, betraying Heathcliff, who runs off and unexpectedly also becomes rich. When he returns, they continue their toxic situationship, torturing each other by flirting with their wealthy neighbors, the Linton siblings.
They both suck — they’re cruel and sadistic to everyone around them — but they have an otherworldly draw to one another, fueled by a series of some of the greatest lines in literary history: “You say I killed you? Haunt me then! ” Come on.
“He's more myself than I am. Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same. ” Because this adaptation has to have a reasonable runtime, it zeroes in on that one relationship and drops the second generation of torture Heathcliff and Catherine inflict on one another, in life and beyond. Without that layer of nuance, what’s left is basically fan fiction.
It simplifies their trauma and class struggles andthat scholars are still debating. But I’d argue that it has to. It’s just one adaptation, with walls made of flesh and comically large strawberries. We haveThe choice to focus on toxicity and tension makes sense in the broader context of the novel too.
When Brontë’s novel was published, critics decried its “. ” That same reviewer wrote, “How a human being could have attempted such a book as the present without committing suicide before he had finished a dozen chapters, is a mystery. ” In 1848! Good grief!
, original music from party girl poetess Charli xcx and near-incessant horniness between its two leads, it is never boring. After all, Fennell is the woman who gave usis good in all the ways I wanted it to be — I craved a deeper exploration of its themes.
But, to paraphrase the source material, I know this adaptation will be with me always and drive me mad.writes that it’s “Fennell’s dumbest movie, and I say that with all admiration, because it also happens to be her best to date” because it focuses on the “smooth-brained sensuality” of its two messy main characters. Thesays it’s “oddly shallow and blunt: garish and stylized fan fiction with the scope and budget of an old-school Hollywood epic.
” No one can say it isn’t gorgeous, though. This creepy, minimalist, single-location psychological horror film didn’t get a proper theatrical release in the U.S. — it played exclusively in a double feature with another film at AMCs across the country — but it’s absolutely worth seeking out now that it’s readily available. It’s about a couple, played by Rosamund Pike and Matthew Rhys, driving to help their daughter after she calls to report a hit-and-run accident.
There’s a horror element twist that’s best left unspoiled, but the easiest way to sell it is by calling it a parent’s worst nightmare. This remake of the 1984 cult-classic horror film about a guy who kills people while dressed as Santa stars Rohan Campbell and does a lot to update the text for modern times.
The end result of this new, bold reimagining is that it plays as if the original has been fused with something likeYour mileage may vary, but I found all the changes to be obnoxious and ruinous. Can't a slasher just be a slasher anymore? I didn't need the ... let's say"supernatural" element that comes into play, and the romance subplot didn't add much for me either. That said, Ruby Modine, daughter of Matthew Modine, shines in a supporting role.
Please follow us on Google to support usThe Devil Wears Prada Sequel Media Industry Print Journalism HBO Max
Singapore Latest News, Singapore Headlines
Similar News: You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
The Devil Wears Prada 2: A Fashion Industry in Crisis and the Fight for SurvivalThe long-awaited sequel to *The Devil Wears Prada* arrives in a changed fashion media landscape, where print magazines struggle to stay relevant amid the rise of social media and corporate cost-cutting. Meryl Streep returns as Miranda Priestly, now facing scandal, while Anne Hathaway’s Andy Sachs steps into a leadership role at *Runway*. The film reflects the industry’s decline while celebrating the enduring power of creativity and personal style.
Read more »
Meryl Streep was 'ready to retire' before signing up for The Devil Wears PradaMeryl Streep was 'ready to retire' before she signed up for The Devil Wears Prada.The 76-year-old actress almost missed out on playing Miranda Priestly, the formidable Runway Magazine editor, in the 2006 comedy-drama film, but decided to 'double' her salary ask.
Read more »
'The Devil Wears Prada 2' costars Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci receive stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame: 'It has been an honor'Blunt and Stanley became the 2,841st and 2,842nd celebrities to receive such a distinction.
Read more »