The Devil Wears Prada 2 opened May 1 to $77M domestic and $233.6M worldwide — nearly 3x the original 2006 film's debut, and the highest opening weekend ever for both Meryl Streep (beating Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again) and Emily Blunt internationally (beating Oppenheimer). Critics gave it 86% on Rotten Tomatoes; audiences gave it 88% and an A- CinemaScore. Director David Frankel and screenwriter Aline Brosh McKenna both returned, alongside the original cast plus a Lady Gaga cameo as a villain. The plot: Andy Sachs, now an investigative journalist whose newsroom got laid off by text, is recruited back to Runway to help Miranda Priestly fend off a Bezos-like tech billionaire who wants to acquire the magazine and outsource it to AI. Here's the trailer:

1. $233M Says Who Cares What "Critics" Think (audiences, the box office, the industry)

The film is a financial monster, audiences love it, and the people who paid for tickets are the only critics that matter.

The numbers are not crystal clear. $77M domestic and $233.6M worldwide on opening weekend, about 3x what the original did out of the gate, and the biggest opening of Meryl Streep's career on every measure — domestic, international, global. For Emily Blunt, the international and global figures beat Oppenheimer, which is a sentence most people would not have predicted in 2006.

Audience scores are stronger than critical ones. RT audience: 88% (vs. 76% for the original). CinemaScore: A-. PostTrak: 4.5 out of 5. The first film's lasting cultural footprint — the Diet Coke, the cerulean monologue, the airport scene — was built on audience love, not critic love. The sequel is delivering the same thing on a bigger scale.

The formula is the Top Gun: Maverick legacy-sequel formula, executed with the original's actual creative team. Same director, same screenwriter, same four leads, plus a Lady Gaga turn that gave the marketing a clean second peg. The Daily Wire's framing — "the rare Hollywood sequel that actually respects its audience" — captures why audiences are showing up in volume. From this view, debating whether the social commentary is sharp enough is missing the assignment.

2. It's Millennial Bait, And Effective Bait Too (New Republic, skeptical critics)

A 20-year-old IP brought back exactly when its original audience hit nostalgia-spending age, with a story tailor-made for that audience's professional anxieties. That's marketing, not filmmaking.

The original was tight; the sequel is loose, and the looseness is on purpose. The New Republic, in a piece headlined "The Try-Hard Sequel Millennials Deserve," called the new film "the cinematic equivalent of a cargo pant" and argued it "just tries to do too much in its two-hour running time" — compared to the original, which was "as tight as an on-trend bandage dress, every scene working in service of a modest tale about ambition." The diagnosis is that the sequel is built for a demographic, not a story.

The plot is the millennial professional-anxiety bingo card. Award-winning journalist gets laid off by text. Goes viral defending real journalism. Gets recruited by her old toxic boss. Faces a tech billionaire trying to replace human work with AI. Every beat hits a recognizable late-2020s media-industry trauma. The New Republic's read on the protagonist: "The millennial try-hard can't quit a toxic boomer boss. Maybe she's born with it; maybe it's mommy issues."

The harsher reviews share a single complaint: the film is calibrated, not felt. National Review's headline was "An Abysmal Sequel Only the Media Class Can Enjoy." Roger Ebert's site put it more gently: the film "wears its nostalgia well, but the outfit is frayed." Globe & Mail's Jehanna Schneller wrote that the movie "has zero idea what it's about," with social commentary that's soft and inconsistent. Seattle Times' Moira MacDonald: "flat Champagne: maybe worth drinking in a pinch, but unsatisfying."

3. It Earned Its Place (Time, Hollywood Reporter, the substantive defense)

The media-disruption story is real, the AI-billionaire villain is real, and a sequel that takes its own industry's collapse seriously is doing something most legacy sequels don't bother to do.

The sequel is darker, and the darkness is the point. Time's review headline: "The Devil Wears Prada 2 Is Darker Than Its Predecessor. And That Makes It Better." The argument is that where the 2006 film was a comedy of personal ambition, the 2026 film is a story about the collapse of the institution's ambition, which is a more honest film for the moment.

The plot is real. Hollywood Reporter's framing was direct: "The Devil Wears Prada 2 Knows the Media Is Melting Down." Newsrooms laid off by text, a billionaire trying to acquire a venerable title and run it through AI, a sweatshop scandal Runway has to answer for — the structure tracks 2026 media-industry reality without being preachy about it. NPR's review captured the shift in its headline alone: "This time, the devil's cutting jobs."

This really was a coincidence. Aline Brosh McKenna told Variety the Bezos angle wasn't direct inspiration: "We already had a script and were making the movie when the rumors [of Bezos considering an acquisition of Conde Nast] started happening. It wasn't inspired by anything. But, we did say, 'Whoa,' when it happened." The film is following an industry trajectory the writer recognized before it became news — which is the opposite of opportunism.

Where This Lands

$233M says a lot of people wanted exactly this movie, and the audience scores say they got what they paid for. The millennial-bait critique can also be true: a 20-year-old IP returning with a plot built around its core audience's professional fears is, by definition, calibrated marketing as much as filmmaking. The substantive defense — Time, Hollywood Reporter, Reason asking whether it's "the great millennial journalism movie" — argues the film is doing more than that, taking the actual collapse of the media industry seriously through a comedy audiences will actually watch.

Sources