Deep down, you could see it coming: Practical Magic wasn’t, despite its cult status, good. Charming, entertaining and iconic, of course, but it’s a long way from being a great work deserving of a sequel 30 years later. That’s why Practical Magic 2, which is on track to smash the box office (and dethrone Spider-Man: Brand New Day), hasn’t bewitched audiences the way people thought it would. And if the early reactions are already bad, things are only going to get worse.
Practically nothing
Marc Zammitt, an influencer on Twitter, has said without hesitation that “I love Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman but I have to say this movie is terrible. There are literally five different stories happening at once. There’s practically no magic! It felt like a bunch of things mixed together in a blender”. Oof. It’s not as if Simon Thompson rated it any better: “A disappointingly cold sequel that fails to cast any spell, including the magic of the original. A missed opportunity”.
It’s not that the critics are going to matter too much for a movie like this, but for these to be the first reactions is especially harsh. There are some that defend the movie, though, like one from critic Courtney Howard: “Bullock and Kidman’s chemistry carries the movie, but it runs 30 minutes too long and makes you work overtime to discover any good thematic resonance”. Tom Chatalbash is a bit more positive: “A delightfully pleasant and adorable sequel with a lot of heart that fans of the beloved original movie are going to like. Bullock and Kidman still have the magic”.
Most of the reviews, in fact, stress that although it has good moments, most of the movie feels hollow, it has too many characters, the third act makes no sense, and it’s half an hour too long. It’s not, of course, what Disney intended. Has it lost its spell?
