I’ve been enjoying this recent trend of sequels getting released decades after the original. Obviously, it’s a way for a studio to cash in on existing IP by reminding fans of something they love, exploiting that nostalgia and then wringing it out for every dollar they can find. Still, I find a certain comfort in the predictability of Hollywood and its transparent machinations. They’re not fooling anybody.
Yet, if we look back at recent examples, the varying degrees of success make the trend somewhat impossible to predict. The new “Scary Movie,” released 25 years after the Wayans Brothers left the franchise, was about as funny as watching an old man yell at clouds, but still managed to pull in almost a quarter of a billion dollars. “Top Gun: Maverick” landed a whopping 36 years after the first, made a billion and a half and, for my money, was a much better film than the original.
Since most of these legacy sequels make an obscene amount of cash, it’s a trend that will long outlive you and me. Just in the next few years, we’re looking at sequels to (among so many others) “Meet the Parents,” “Priscilla, Queen of the Desert,” “The Simpsons Movie,” “The Passion of the Christ,” “Romy and Michele,” “Spaceballs,” “Shrek,” “Air Bud,” “The Mummy,” and “The Princess Diaries.” There’s now even a streaming prequel series to “Legally Blonde.”
Because I was genuinely surprised by how much I enjoyed “The Devil Wears Prada 2,” I found myself cautiously optimistic about “Practical Magic 2” — a much-belated sequel to the cozy, New England sisterly witch flick from nearly 30 years ago. I know this is slightly sacrilegious to the mega-fandom, but as enjoyable as “Practical Magic” is as a ‘90s showcase for the wonderful on-screen chemistry between Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman, I don’t love the movie as much as I wish I did. It drives me nuts that the entire plot hinges on the Owens Sisters resurrecting Jimmy Angelov, a guy who was obviously a psychopath. It makes the sisters look remarkably less intelligent than they are when, right after they bring him back to life, he instantly tries to kill them…again. I don’t think the filmmakers intended the audience to scream at the TV, “Well, what did you think was going to happen!?!?!”
If you’re looking for something more from your lega-sequels, it’s hard to find “Practical Magic 2” to be anything other than impractically disappointing.
While “Practical Magic 2” does a fine job adding more layers to Sally and Gillian Owens, neither character feels much like they did back in the day. The Owens curse — which says any man who falls in love with an Owens woman dies — has hardened Sally, who has lost another husband, rejected magic (again) and snarkily judges her aunties for their witchy lifestyle. Gillian is still a bit of a free spirit but she seems more reticent and subdued than the unpredictable wild child we grew to love in the original. While these are realistic ways for people to change over time, it saps a lot of the fun out of seeing these characters again.
In fact, the only people who still bring that same level of playfulness that made the original a cult classic are Dianne Wiest and Stockard Channing as the eccentric Aunts Jet and Frances. These always-wonderful actresses bring a joyous energy to the film that actively combats the dour seriousness of Kidman and Bullock.
The one thing this sequel absolutely did not need was a pivot into lore-heavy info dumps about the Book of Raven and the Rauðskinna Grimoire, when what people really want from their “Practical Magic” is midnight margaritas and ride-or-die sisterhood.
Large sections of the film are handed over to the next generation of Owens sisters, Sally’s daughters, played by Joey King and Maisie Williams. This is where the sequel, while still fitfully entertaining, becomes fundamentally broken. One of the joys of the original was watching Sally’s daughters as children, enjoying the pure excitement of being little witches. In the opening minutes of “Practical Magic 2,” Sally and a reluctant Gillian have erased the girls’ memories that magic even exists. Consequently, the entire arc of this new film is Sally and her daughters rediscovering the joy of magic. We’ve seen that exact plotline before in the last movie. Why would we want to see it again? This is as lazy as legacy sequel storytelling gets.
The lush Pacific Northwest photography of the original (beautifully standing in for Massachusetts) is replaced with overly lit, Netflix-coded cinematography. The New England vibes quickly fade for a second and third act set in a somehow less cozy English countryside. It almost seems like director Susanne Bier and her team wanted to replace everything people loved and found nostalgic about the original with a flat lifelessness that no one will remember the moment they leave the theater.
Here’s the caveat: if all you really want to see is Nicole Kidman and Sandy Bullock inhabit the Owens Sisters again, having a ridiculous adventure that relies on their movie-star charisma to do almost all the heavy lifting, you’ll probably be happy. When they are acting across from each other, the movie finds a sense of purpose, but if you’re looking for something more from your lega-sequels, it’s hard to find “Practical Magic 2” to be anything other than impractically disappointing. It’s not so terrible that it ruins the original in retrospect, but it’s immensely frustrating that the studio and filmmakers did the bare minimum to exploit us for our nostalgia dollars.
“Practical Magic 2”
Dir. Susanne Bier
Grade: D+
Regal Old Mill, McMenamins Old St. Francis, Sisters Movie House, Redmond Cinema, Madraas Cinema 5
This article appears in the Source September 17, 2026.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
