It’s not all that often when a post-Labor Day theatrical release carries as much potential impact as does PRACTICAL MAGIC 2, which makes its debut today to take advantage of those still sweltering from near-record heat (hand raised, limply) as well as to try and offset the expected Sunday decline that the first NFL weekend bodes. It’s even rarer when a movie that would arguably be better suited for a Halloween arc winds up being deployed on the second weekend of September. But then again I take a look at the display in my place of business–already starting to become downsized at some of our sister stores to make room for Christmas inventory–and I’m reminded that everything is being accelerated sooner in the calendar than it used to be.
And that, unfortunately, would also seem to be about the eventual verdict of the folks who commissioned and scheduled it in the first place. INDIE WIRE’s Brian Welk and Brent Lang set the stage succinctly yesterday:
The long-awaited sequel to the witchy rom-com starring Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman from 1998 isn’t some beloved classic the way “The Devil Wears Prada” is, but people like it — and it was on heavy rotation on cable for decades. Miss Congeniality and the AMC lady drink “Midnight Margaritas.” It’s fun. Trust us.
Suddenly, though, that sequel carries a lot more importance than its breezy subject matter would suggest, as Warner Bros. is depending on this movie to be a fortune-changing hit after a year at the box office that’s been less than magical. It took a second to realize just how big a hole the studio was in, given that it was riding the coattails of an astonishing 2025, when it delivered a string of surprise successes by betting on original stories from auteurs.
These big swings included “Sinners” and “Weapons,” which made bank, and “One Battle After Another,” which lost nearly $100 million but won the Oscar for Best Picture, so all is forgiven. There was also “Minecraft,” which launched another franchise by capitalizing on the mania for all things video games, and popular sequels to “Final Destination” and “The Conjuring.”
The hit streak made film chiefs Mike De Luca and Pam Abdy the toasts of the town, and it came after there had been incessant speculation that Warner Bros. Discovery chief David Zaslav had grown tired of the duo and was contemplating axing them. Instead, they were celebrated in one glowing profile after another as cinema’s saviors, and thanked profusely at the Oscars after not only “One Battle,” but also “Weapons” and “Sinners” captured major prizes.
Then things changed — dramatically. There was Maggie Gyllenhaal’s “The Bride!,” New Line’s action horror film “They Will Kill You,” “Lee Cronin’s The Mummy,” “Evil Dead Burn,” the Anne Hathaway dinosaur movie “The End of Oak Street,” and of course “Supergirl” (though DC chiefs James Gunn and Peter Safran shoulder the blame for that bomb). Almost every single one of those films, save “The Mummy,” is a money loser, and some are massive bombs. “The Bride!,” for instance, had a $90 million budget and only made $24 million, which means it lost nearly $100 million when marketing costs are taken into account (theaters keep roughly half of ticket sales).
So yeah, DeLuca and Abdy could use a win bigly. Especially since while Yosemite Zas is all but out of the picture and they are now being judged by a nepobaby-in-chief who fancies himself as an auteur in his own right having successfully resurrected TOP GUN while merely operating Skydance. And with a ticking time bomb about to go off to the tune of $7 million per day come October 1st, frankly David Ellison needs a win from them even more bigly.
But so far even the more optimistic and objective observers, such as VARIETY’s Rebecca Rubin, are at best lukewarm about that:
Nostalgia should propel the follow-up film to $30 million to $40 million from 4,000 North American theaters in its debut, enough to claim No. 1 and topple the six-weekend reign of “Spider-Man: Brand New Day.” “Practical Magic 2” is aiming for another $18 million to $25 million at the international box office from 77 territories, which would put initial global sales anywhere from $48 million to $65 million. Warner Bros. produced the movie for $75 million.
But considering that this is the latest into a calendar year that Warner Brothers has failed to release a nine-figure title in a quarter-century, near break-even just might not be good enough. Yes, the original film outperformed a downright lousy box office run with strong and enduring multi-generational appeal on cable and streaming platforms, a lifecycle history that translated favorably to such recent franchise resurrections as THE DEVIL WEARS PRADS and BEETLEJUICE. Those titles were boosted by very strong critical reviews and a rash of nostalgia-related publicity that drove their respective anticipations immensely. So far, PRACTICAL MAGIC 2 hasn’t exactly stirred that cauldron all that well.
FORBES’ Paul Rossi weighed in with this troubling high-level data:
(G)ood news and bad news. Practical Magic 2 reviewed better on Rotten Tomatoes than Practical Magic 1. The bad news is that both films are 35% or under. Practical Magic 2, after its rating fluctuated a bit, is firmly in the rotten category with a 35% Rotten Tomatoes score. And though the original film may be considered classic enough to spawn this sequel, back in 1998, Practical Magic scored a 30% with well over 100 reviews in.
Specific reviewers who were predisposed to wanting to like it have clearly struggled with any sort of ringing endorsement. Witness how the NEW YORK TIMES’ Alissa Winkinson weighed in this morning:
The best thing about “Practical Magic 2,” to put it bluntly, is that it is precisely what I expected it to be. No more, no less. The 1998 movie…is not good, properly speaking: tonally floppy, rhythmically janky and somehow, though it’s remembered as a female empowerment movie, weirdly fixated on men. (The men are pretty mediocre, too.)… But I love it, like a lot of women my age, and whenever an autumnal chill creeps into the air I want to make a midnight margarita and watch it again.
Given how much the first movie coasted on Bullock and Kidman’s chemistry together, it’s a bizarre decision to make them spend most of this sour sequel angry at each other. The normally effervescent Bullock is sullen and downcast throughout, snapping at Kidman’s ditzy flirt, who spends most scenes either getting drunk or announcing her plans to do so. There’s something deeply strange going on with the way people speak to each other in “Practical Magic 2.” The actresses repeat themselves incessantly, often in the cadence of a joke, except what they’re saying is flatly informational. After a while it becomes slightly surreal, sounding more like a David Mamet play or a Sanford Meisner acting exercise than dialogue in a Hollywood comedy.