--- title: "Practical Magic 2: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/practical-magic-2/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/practical-magic-2" critics_score: 53 critics_reviews: 23 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Practical Magic 2 (2026): what the critics said Critics' score 53 from 23 reviews: 6 positive, 8 mixed, 9 negative. The consensus leans negative, though the reviews repeatedly find pleasure in Bullock and Kidman’s chemistry and the returning cast. Even several detractors credit Bullock’s warmth, while more receptive critics enjoy the sisterly bond, comforting atmosphere and occasional emotional force. The recurring qualification is that these performances carry a sequel whose script gives them too little to work with, relying heavily on affection for the original. Reservations cluster around thin or convoluted plotting, uneven pacing and a running time that tests goodwill. The spread is wide: some critics find a cosy reunion, while others see calculated nostalgia and characters denied meaningful development. There is also a direct disagreement about its treatment of women: Empire finds the sequel disappointingly conventional and male-centred, whereas The New York Times welcomes less fixation on men and a sometimes moving story about accepting family heritage and personal power. ## IndieWire — Alison Foreman Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 8 September 2026. The critic finds Susanne Bier’s sequel a touching and spellbinding follow-up that lets viewers fall in love again with the witchy story. Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman deliver an adorable reunion that breaks hearts in the best way. [Read the review](https://www.indiewire.com/criticism/movies/practical-magic-2-review-sandra-bullock-nicole-kidman-1235215192/) ## The New York Times — Alissa Wilkinson Fi1m's normalised score 78/100 (inferred from the text). 10 September 2026. The critic finds the sequel exactly what was expected: a sweet, sometimes moving film about accepting family heritage and coming into one's own power. It is more tonally congruous than the original, with less stereotyping and fixation on men. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/10/movies/practical-magic-2-review.html) ## Los Angeles Times — Katie Walsh Fi1m's normalised score 77/100 (inferred from the text). 11 September 2026. For fans of the original, the sequel hits familiar notes while expanding the lore and preserves Bullock and Kidman's chemistry. Bullock remains the heart of the story as the uptight Sally who learns to embrace life and her power for her family's sake; it is a bit cheesy but fun. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2026-09-11/practical-magic-2-review-nicole-kidman-sandra-bullock-joey-king-lee-pace) ## The Guardian Fi1m's normalised score 77/100 (inferred from the text). 8 September 2026. The critic finds the sequel an odd but appealing nostalgia-bait return that doubles down on the original's idiosyncratic tone and kookiness. Warm seasonal pleasures and the stars' chemistry provide enough magic despite messy elements. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2026/sep/08/practical-magic-2-movie-review) ## Financial Times Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 10 September 2026. The review sees the sequel as knowing camp that confirms we are stuck in the 1990s, with a canny mix of romantasy elements; judging by conventional standards is pointless and the spell may hold for fans. [Read the review](https://www.ft.com/content/5eaf77a5-5804-489e-987c-d16f7c16b09b) ## The Times Fi1m's normalised score 63/100 (inferred from the text). 8 September 2026. The review highlights the return of Nicole Kidman and Sandra Bullock as the Owens sisters in the sequel to the 1998 film. It notes the presence of additional characters including a well-hung occultist. [Read the review](https://www.thetimes.com/culture/film/article/practical-magic-2-review-cvv282lvw) ## Radio Times Rating 3/5. 8 September 2026. Susanne Bier's direction brings some focus and the leads' chemistry shines in a likeable if uneven sequel that emphasises sisterly solidarity and fun spells over darkness. It is mildly spooky and enjoyable but feels long with some odd casting choices. [Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movies/practical-magic-2-review/) ## Time Out — India Lawrence Rating 3/5. 7 September 2026. The sequel reunites the Owens sisters and aunts in a legacy story that leans on sisterhood and the original's charm but feels overly polished and cloying in places. It delivers a cosy, emotional core with strong performances from the leads despite a cheesy script. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/practical-magic-2-review-2026) ## The Hollywood Reporter — Angie Han Fi1m's normalised score 56/100 (inferred from the text). 8 September 2026. The critic notes the film is harmless but hardly enchanting, praising the chemistry between Bullock and Kidman while criticizing the slapdash script and lack of emotional depth. [Read the review](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/practical-magic-2-review-sandra-bullock-nicole-kidman-1236687473/) ## The Observer — Wendy Ide Fi1m's normalised score 50/100 (inferred from the text). 12 September 2026. The short capsule notes the sequel reunites the key cast for fans of the original but calls it overlong, muddled and sporadically amusing, likely to test even dedicated loyalists' patience. [Read the review](https://observer.co.uk/culture/film/article/wendy-ides-pick-of-the-other-films-pressure-practical-magic-2-oasis-dont-look-back-in-anger-fall-2-deadpoint-better-go-mad-in-the-wild) ## Empire — Leila Latif Fi1m's normalised score 40/100 (inferred from the text). 8 September 2026. The sequel trades the original’s unruly feminist magic for something disappointingly conventional and male-centred. Pleasures remain in the jewel-toned aesthetic, costuming, architecture and the enchanting cast reunions, but the magic is lacking. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/practical-magic-2/) ## Little White Lies — Patrick Sproull Rating 2/2/2. 8 September 2026. The film stretches a thin plot to justify its existence as a legacy sequel but ends up boring with glacial pacing and little actual magic or spellcasting. It lacks any clear point of view and wastes the rare screen time of its stars on uninspired material. [Read the review](https://lwlies.com/reviews/practical-magic-2) ## The AV Club — Anna McKibbin Rating D-. 8 September 2026. The review criticizes the sequel as a nostalgia-bait that fails, with poor pacing, ugly cinematography, and regressive storytelling; praises Bullock's warmth and the aunts' moments but finds it directionless. [Read the review](https://www.avclub.com/practical-magic-2-review) ## Variety — Todd Gilchrist Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 8 September 2026. The sequel rehashes the original's mix of sisterhood, romance, and magic but feels overlong and predictable, failing to improve on the first film's flaws while sidelining some supporting characters. Bullock and Kidman largely repeat their prior performances without much growth, though Joey King stands out and there is strong chemistry with Lee Pace. [Read the review](https://variety.com/2026/film/reviews/practical-magic-2-review-sandra-bullock-nicole-kidman-1236854379/) ## Vulture — Angelica Jade Bastién Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 11 September 2026. The critic finds it a shell of the original, lacking joy and character growth, with calculated nostalgia, poor direction, and only Bullock landing jokes; complains about regression of characters and lack of narrative electricity. [Read the review](https://www.vulture.com/article/review-practical-magic-2-is-a-shell-of-its-former-self.html) ## The Independent Fi1m's normalised score 20/100 (inferred from the text). 8 September 2026. The film is a lazy, pointless cash-grab sequel that circles the same curse plot with diluted backstory and glossy but soulless direction. Kidman has fun as the free-spirited Gillian while Bullock is squandered, and the aunts receive minimal screen time. [Read the review](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/practical-magic-2-review-nicole-kidman-sandra-bullock-b3045944.html) ## The Wrap Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 8 September 2026. Praises the strong chemistry between leads and thoughtful direction especially for the older characters and romance, while noting flaws in special effects and story structure that prevent it from being exceptional. [Read the review](https://www.thewrap.com/creative-content/reviews/practical-magic-2-review/) ## Consequence Rating C+. 8 September 2026. The sequel is muddled by a weak script full of awkward moments and contrivances, though Bullock and Kidman still convey a strong sisterly bond. [Read the review](https://consequence.net/2026/09/practical-magic-2-review-sandra-bullock/) ## NME — Nick Levine Fi1m's normalised score 60/100 (inferred from the text). 8 September 2026. The critic finds the sequel fun but flawed, with strong chemistry between Bullock and Kidman propping up a convoluted plot that overstays its welcome. They praise the nostalgic appeal and touching moments but complain about the exhausting plot and excessive runtime. [Read the review](https://www.nme.com/reviews/film-reviews/practical-magic-2-review-sandra-bullock-nicole-kidman-joey-king-3967612) ## Deadline — Glenn Garner Fi1m's normalised score 50/100 (inferred from the text). 8 September 2026. The critic finds the sequel entertaining but lacking the character-driven flow and magic of the original, criticizing rushed plot and sidelined characters, while noting it sets up potential future entries. [Read the review](https://deadline.com/2026/09/practical-magic-2-review-sequel-lacks-magic-original-1237070994/) ## Digital Spy — Ian Sandwell Fi1m's normalised score 40/100 (inferred from the text). 8 September 2026. The review states that while the first act has strong nostalgic appeal with the original cast, the sequel lacks spark overall, becoming uninspired with undercooked characters and an overly long runtime. It praises the chemistry of Bullock and Kidman but criticizes the lack of magic and bland supporting elements. [Read the review](https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a73639838/practical-magic-2-review/) ## /Film — Witney Seibold Rating 4/10. 8 September 2026. The critic finds the sequel unfunny and sloppily assembled with awkward editing and overlapping chatter instead of humor. Some genuine emotional moments appear in the first half along with praise for the luxury setting and certain romantic scenes. [Read the review](https://www.slashfilm.com/2250623/practical-magic-2-review/) ## Collider — Taylor Gates Fi1m's normalised score 25/100 (inferred from the text). 8 September 2026. The critic finds the sequel a weak, forgettable mess that lacks the charm, whimsy, and heart of the original despite the returning stars' chemistry. The convoluted script, flat dialogue, inconsistent plotting, and failure to capture the cozy New England vibe are singled out as major flaws. [Read the review](https://collider.com/practical-magic-2-review-nicole-kidman-sandra-bullock/) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/practical-magic-2.md