Practical Magic 2 arrived in theaters across several countries on September 10, 2026, followed by a wide release in the United States on September 11. Nearly 28 years after the original film debuted, Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman have reprised their iconic roles as the Owens witches.
To be perfectly candid, we did not enjoy the film.
Despite our reservations, audience scores remain above a six out of ten. On Rotten Tomatoes, the public has embraced the sequel quite warmly, with approximately 92 percent of viewers leaving positive reviews. Critics, however, have been far less impressed, awarding the film only 39 percent. In this instance, we find ourselves aligning more closely with the critical consensus.
The primary issue is that Practical Magic 2 barely feels like a movie about magic at all.
While the film features witches, a family curse, various incantations, and the expected aesthetic trappings, both the sequel and the original 1998 production function primarily as melodramas with a light dusting of fantasy. We were hoping for the opposite approach.
For a project titled Practical Magic, one would expect a significantly higher concentration of actual sorcery.
This is especially true given the wealth of superior magical storytelling currently available to modern audiences.
If you are craving a truly immersive magical world, you would be better served by revisiting Stardust, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, or The Chronicles of Narnia. Television series such as Once Upon a Time, Motherland: Fort Salem, and Witches of Eastwick offer far more compelling supernatural narratives.
We will not even begin to compare it to the likes of Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings.
Against such giants, the magical elements of Practical Magic 2 appear remarkably modest and underwhelming.
Furthermore, the plot is quite pedestrian and moves at a glacial pace. The narrative drags so significantly that during our screening, several audience members chose to leave the theater roughly thirty minutes before the credits rolled.
For a theatrical release, that serves as a rather eloquent review without the need for words.
Nevertheless, the film does possess a few undeniable strengths.
First and foremost, it is perfectly suitable for younger viewers. This is not a dark, gritty fantasy or a horror film, but rather a gentle piece of family cinema with a light magical atmosphere. With its PG-13 rating, it is certainly more accessible for family viewing than many contemporary fantasy offerings.
The second major advantage is, of course, the presence of Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman.
It is simply a pleasure to see them share the screen again.
Nearly three decades have passed, yet the chemistry between the two actresses remains intact. Even critics who disparage the script and the overall production frequently highlight their performances as a standout element. For example, the Associated Press awarded the film only two out of four stars, yet still offered praise for the acting ensemble.
Ultimately, the result is a curious paradox.
Audiences clearly enjoy the film far more than professional reviewers, as evidenced by the 92 percent audience score on Rotten Tomatoes compared to the 39 percent critical rating. Many fans of the original are simply delighted by the return of the Owens sisters and the nostalgic atmosphere of the first installment.
We, however, were expecting something more substantial.
We wanted more wonder, more kinetic energy, and a stronger sense that we were witnessing a genuine world of witchcraft rather than a standard melodrama where characters occasionally remember to cast a spell.
Our final rating for the film is 6.9 out of 10.
It is worth a watch, particularly for dedicated fans of the original movie and those who adore Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman. However, if you are truly seeking the wonder of the arcane, you might be better off opening the door to Narnia or rewatching Stardust instead.
