Anonymous wrote:I thought we already discussed this? If you liked the first one, this one will be fine because there are a lot of easter eggs and earned good will. But if this is your first go-round, it's a disappointing stand alone movie.

And Meryl Streep literally was hobbling during some scenes. And her hair was so thin. Stanley Tucci looked so wrung out too. Emily Blunt had her new face. Anne Hathaway too, and she had to make up for it by acting like the same insecure Andy with zero growth in 20 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I enjoyed it. Saw it today in the movie theater. I think it was better than the first one.

Did you actually see the original? Were you wearing a mask and ear plugs at the time? The first movie was shot beautifully and delivered at every level. This temu version of the first movie failed in casting, dialogue, cinematography and worst of all, fashions. The iconic fashion on display and wit from the first movie are completely absent here and the script is abysmal. Entire plot points are introduced, abandoned and suddenly reappear at the end like a bad Seinfeld episode.

PP. The bar for movies in the last 20 years is so low I found it pretty good.

I only watched the original once. Liked it but since I was never a very insecure young working woman, I laughed and moved on with my life. Did you memorize it?

In interviews with the cast in 2026, Meryl Streep said they had trouble getting fashion for the original movie because people were afraid Anna Wintour wouldn't like it. A movie critic said that the new movie had the same type of marketable, conventional "fashion" looks as the last one. So I guess you liked the first stylist better?

The first movie was fun but very much about Andy's personal insecurity. This movie was more about industry trends. I liked that better.

Failed in casting?? It's the same people!! A little worse for wear but at least still the same people. It wouldn't have worked with a recast.

P.S. Anna Wintour owns sweatpants.

https://graziamagazine.com/articles/anna-wintour-in-sweatpants-now-this-is-groundbreaking/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I enjoyed it. Saw it today in the movie theater. I think it was better than the first one.

Did you actually see the original? Were you wearing a mask and ear plugs at the time? The first movie was shot beautifully and delivered at every level. This temu version of the first movie failed in casting, dialogue, cinematography and worst of all, fashions. The iconic fashion on display and wit from the first movie are completely absent here and the script is abysmal. Entire plot points are introduced, abandoned and suddenly reappear at the end like a bad Seinfeld episode.

Anonymous wrote:I enjoyed it. Saw it today in the movie theater. I think it was better than the first one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought we already discussed this? If you liked the first one, this one will be fine because there are a lot of easter eggs and earned good will. But if this is your first go-round, it's a disappointing stand alone movie.

And Meryl Streep literally was hobbling during some scenes. And her hair was so thin. Stanley Tucci looked so wrung out too. Emily Blunt had her new face. Anne Hathaway too, and she had to make up for it by acting like the same insecure Andy with zero growth in 20 years.

So which is it? Are we allowed to age, or no?

Plus, it makes perfect sense that the Emily character would have a new face in that industry.

Except her industry is journalism for the past 15 years + even at the fashion magazine.

But I thought she looked great.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought we already discussed this? If you liked the first one, this one will be fine because there are a lot of easter eggs and earned good will. But if this is your first go-round, it's a disappointing stand alone movie.

And Meryl Streep literally was hobbling during some scenes. And her hair was so thin. Stanley Tucci looked so wrung out too. Emily Blunt had her new face. Anne Hathaway too, and she had to make up for it by acting like the same insecure Andy with zero growth in 20 years.

So which is it? Are we allowed to age, or no?

Plus, it makes perfect sense that the Emily character would have a new face in that industry.

Except her industry is journalism for the past 15 years + even at the fashion magazine.

But I thought she looked great.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I enjoyed it for a part 2. Most sequels are horrible. The one thing that was really dumb was Andy would never meet Emily after she lied to her and threw her under the bus (both as to reputation and her own job security).

Some characters added almost nothing: Ashley (the new assistant) and Charlie (heavy set male secretary) are examples.

Didn’t realize til I looked up the cast that Kenneth Branagh was in it (Meryl’s new husband). I did enjoy all the cameos.

I had no idea that was Branagh until the credits. I thought maybe it was actually some famous violinist they hired for a bit acting part. Didn't recognize Justin Theroux either. (My formative mental image of Theroux is skinny little dude from his Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire days.)

I overall liked the movie and the exploration of enshittification of creative industries by tech bros (and general decline of print media in the world of internet and social media).

To me the most unbelievable thing in the movie is that Amanda would fly coach. Surely she could have used points to upgrade or pay out of pocket. But I get the plot beat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought we already discussed this? If you liked the first one, this one will be fine because there are a lot of easter eggs and earned good will. But if this is your first go-round, it's a disappointing stand alone movie.

And Meryl Streep literally was hobbling during some scenes. And her hair was so thin. Stanley Tucci looked so wrung out too. Emily Blunt had her new face. Anne Hathaway too, and she had to make up for it by acting like the same insecure Andy with zero growth in 20 years.

So which is it? Are we allowed to age, or no?

Anonymous wrote:Spoilers ahead.

I thought it was terrible and I can’t believe the reviews are as good as they are. The performances were really weak, especially Meryl Streep and Stanley Tucci. I mean, great that Ticci doesnt look a day older than he did in the first, but too bad he can’t move his face and show any emotion. I hated the way they played Miranda as less confident. The Justin Theroux character was awful and zero believability that he and Emily would ever be together. The Australian guy was so random, as if Andy couldn’t go a whole 2 months of her life without a love interest.

Fwiw, I loved the first and don’t think I’m that picky about movies. But this was dull and completely cringe. My theory is that critics like it because it’s sympathetic to the struggles in journalism the past 20 years plus the Bezos take down.

Anonymous wrote:I enjoyed it for a part 2. Most sequels are horrible. The one thing that was really dumb was Andy would never meet Emily after she lied to her and threw her under the bus (both as to reputation and her own job security).

Some characters added almost nothing: Ashley (the new assistant) and Charlie (heavy set male secretary) are examples.

Didn’t realize til I looked up the cast that Kenneth Branagh was in it (Meryl’s new husband). I did enjoy all the cameos.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought we already discussed this? If you liked the first one, this one will be fine because there are a lot of easter eggs and earned good will. But if this is your first go-round, it's a disappointing stand alone movie.

And Meryl Streep literally was hobbling during some scenes. And her hair was so thin. Stanley Tucci looked so wrung out too. Emily Blunt had her new face. Anne Hathaway too, and she had to make up for it by acting like the same insecure Andy with zero growth in 20 years.

So which is it? Are we allowed to age, or no?

Plus, it makes perfect sense that the Emily character would have a new face in that industry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought we already discussed this? If you liked the first one, this one will be fine because there are a lot of easter eggs and earned good will. But if this is your first go-round, it's a disappointing stand alone movie.

And Meryl Streep literally was hobbling during some scenes. And her hair was so thin. Stanley Tucci looked so wrung out too. Emily Blunt had her new face. Anne Hathaway too, and she had to make up for it by acting like the same insecure Andy with zero growth in 20 years.

So which is it? Are we allowed to age, or no?

Anonymous wrote:I thought we already discussed this? If you liked the first one, this one will be fine because there are a lot of easter eggs and earned good will. But if this is your first go-round, it's a disappointing stand alone movie.

And Meryl Streep literally was hobbling during some scenes. And her hair was so thin. Stanley Tucci looked so wrung out too. Emily Blunt had her new face. Anne Hathaway too, and she had to make up for it by acting like the same insecure Andy with zero growth in 20 years.