“The Devil Wears Prada 2” - Off the rack.

In the eighteen years I’ve been reviewing movies, I’ve seen plenty of sequels that should not have been made. I’m sure there’s a timeline in the multiverse where Super Troopers 2 was hilarious and Independence Day 2 wasn’t embarrassingly stupid. We are in neither of those timelines. Nor are we in the timeline where someone made a version of The Devil Wears Prada 2 that didn’t make you go “why?”

It’s been twenty years since The Devil Wears Prada was released in theaters. That’s plenty of time for someone to have written an interesting sequel, show it to their friend, and their friend to roll it up, smack that writer upside the head with it, and say “no.” The Devil Wears Prada was a really good movie and a surprise smash at the box office. And it certainly didn’t leave any questions at the end for audiences to wonder about for two decades.

The biggest mistake when making sequels is misunderstanding why audiences loved the originals. The Devil Wears Prada didn’t appeal to audiences because of a fictitious fashion magazine or pretty clothes, it appealed to audiences because of the characters themselves. Both the hero, Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway), and the villain, Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep), were exceptionally well-written and well-developed characters. And the way the movie ends both of their story arcs is perfection. If the original movie had been called The Devil Wears Rawlings, Miranda was the general manager of a Major League baseball team, and Andy was Miranda’s young assistant, the rest of the movie could have unfolded the same way and been just as well-received.

The Devil Wears Prada 2 falls right into the trap of thinking the fashion magazine part matters. Now a seasoned journalist, Andy is hired back to the magazine to run the features section to rehabilitate the magazine. Except this time, Andy has no arc. She learned everything she needed to learn in the first movie. Now, she’s just trying to figure out how to save the magazine because it’s 2026 and nobody reads any more.

Same goes for Miranda. Her arc in the first movie was all about establishing and proving how devilish she was. Yes, she showed a teeny, tiny affection for Andy by the end, but that was out of respect for Andy growing a spine. In the sequel, Miranda is still head of the magazine, but she’s far less mean because the screenwriter thought it would be funny if Miranda was forced to be more politically correct and nicer. Just, gross.

Another sequel trap it falls into is trying to retread parts of the first film. The sequel tries to rekindle the same dynamic between Miranda and Andy, the tyrannical boss and terrified subordinate, but it falls flat for the reasons mentioned above. Not to mention Andy isn't a fresh college grad eating shit as a glorified intern just for a good recommendation for later employment. And, like I said, Miranda is being forced to be nicer, literally by her first assistant Amari (Simone Ashley), which not something any of us want to see. Other retreads that hit in much weaker ways are Nigel (Stanley Tucci) picking outfits for Andy, a sequence where Andy is trying to make the impossible happen (actually, two sequences), and Miranda trying to dismiss Andy's work on multiple occasions.

But the scene that proved how little the filmmakers understood of what made the first movie great was when Andy shows up for her first day of work. She walks into Miranda's office with a huge smile on her face, practically squealing with delight, and she greets Miranda and Nigel as if they are close sorority sisters Andy hasn't seen in years. There was no scenario where Miranda was going to light up with glee at the sight of Andy and Andy would never behave like this because Andy isn't an idiot. It's mindboggling to think that the director (David Frankel) and screenwriter (Aline Brosh McKenna) of this sequel served in those same roles for the original.

And in case you were wondering, Emily (Emily Blunt) returns in this film as well. Now, she's a senior executive at Dior and just as spicy and dry-witted as ever. The film tries to involve her where it can while also trying to establish a budding friendship between her and Andy. But like everything else in this film, there just doesn't seem to be a lot of heart behind it. Some of that has to do with the direction they take her character and how it plays into the larger plot. But it seems more like the filmmakers didn't embrace the possibilities of that direction and just sort of settled for something decidedly meh.

The entire effort of this movie reminded me of when people try to recapture the magic of something that happened spontaneously by trying to force it to happen again. (And it never works.) You know what I'm talking about. A blowout college party happens and some people try to recreate that same party. A night out on the town where you and some friends woke up the next morning on a famous person's yacht. Or even just a family vacation where everything went exactly according to plan, the kids had tons of fun and zero fights, and nobody wanted to push an in-law off a ledge. In other words, I can see that the filmmakers thought they could, but nobody asked if they should.

Rating: Ask for thirteen dollars back, not because you could but because you should.

“Conclave” - Thoughts and prayers.

When I was a kid, my understanding of how the Catholic Church chose a new pope was they lit a fire for each cardinal and the color of the smoke determined if that guy was the next pope. Black meant go to the next name and white meant pope found. Being taught as a kid about the magic of God and Jesus, it made perfect sense that God would color the smoke. As it turns out, that is not how a new pope is chosen. In reality, the cardinals all vote and if one person doesn’t have a majority of votes, they burn all the ballots, throw a canister of black smoke on the fire to let people outside of the Sistine Chapel know there isn’t a new pope yet, then vote again. If someone wins enough votes, white smoke canister. The new film Conclave didn’t teach me these things, but it did present a very believable (yet fictional) depiction in which the cardinals behave just like all other politicians in elections - like humans.

In this story, Cardinal Thomas Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes) is leading and administering the papal conclave. Like a Catholic Mass, the film takes its sweet, sweet time actually getting to the point - in this case, the conclave itself. Much attention is paid to the details, trappings, and rituals gone through just to get to the election itself. It’s neat and beautiful and gives a feel for the gravitas of the event, but that kind of goes without saying. They’re electing the next pope, not the next town HOA treasurer.

Eventually, we are introduced to the cardinals most likely to be elected. First up is Aldo Bellini (Stanley Tucci), a liberal and supported by fellow liberal Lawrence. Next is Goffredo Tedesco (Sergio Castellitto), a traditionalist, archconservative racist who views all other religions with utter contempt. Then there is Joseph Tremblay (John Lithgow), a milder conservative than Tedesco and every bit a sly politician. Finally, we have Joshua Adeyemi (Lucian Msamati), a Nigerian and middle of the road guy on most topics, but socially conservative. Lawrence himself seems like another candidate, but he stresses multiple times that he absolutely does not want to be pope.

As if the competition between the men wasn’t enough, there is a separate mystery thrown into the mix. The deceased pope was up to something but did not let anyone in on what he was doing before he passed away. The only clue they have is the arrival of the recently elevated-to-Cardinal Vincent Benitez (Carlos Diehz). After the conclave starts, nuggets of information regarding the pope’s activities start coming to light and Lawrence starts to dig into them. With a smidgen of help from Sister Agnes (Isabella Rossellini), he uncovers truths that affect the conclave in ways that cause a whole lot more black smoke.

Maybe it’s because I’ve seen so many movies, but I immediately knew how the conclave itself was going to end. But that didn’t prevent me from enjoying the journey, following Lawrence through the investigation. Nor did it prevent that little part of me that doubted what I thought I knew from holding my breath, even if just a tiny bit, every time they announced the voting results. And I most certainly didn’t guess the why part of the pope’s mystery before it was revealed. And what an intriguing reveal it is.

While I did enjoy the film, the drama surrounding the mystery was somewhat muted. The film doesn’t do enough to invest the audience in either the mystery or the outcome of the conclave. For a film heavily relying on dialogue, surprisingly little is devoted to character development. Beyond Lawrence and Bellini, it was hard to remember who was who. The film had to literally show the leading candidates in turn, as their names and vote tallies were read after the first vote, to make sure the audience could positively identify them. With no real backstories for any of the men (or Sister Agnes, for that matter), there was no real urgency or dread evinced to make the audience want to root for or against any of them.

But again, I did enjoy the film. The mystery is at least interesting, the visual details in the various sets are stunning, and Fiennes and Tucci delivered outstanding performances. That’s not to say the rest of the cast wasn’t also good; they simply weren’t given enough to do to really stand out (Rossellini and Lithgow, in particular, seemed woefully underused). Conclave isn’t necessarily a must-see in theaters...unless you are curious how papal conclaves actually work or just really like Ralph Fiennes.

Rating: Pray for two dollars back.