Practical Magic 2 (c) Warner Bros Pictures
Film: Practical Magic 2
In Cinemas
I don’t remember the original 1998 Practical Magic that well, but don’t worry, the sequel will do its best to remind you with many callbacks meant to make fans coo: “Coconut” by Harry Nilsson and songs by witchy icon Stevie Nicks are on the soundtrack, people blow candles on and an unlucky bloke gets hit by a car. And just like that, we are back with the Owens sisters. Sally (Sandra Bullock) is just trying to live a simple life as a librarian, who, like Luke Skywalker in The Last Jedi, has turned off the witchy force inside her, and while Gillian (Nicole Kidman) is still doing some practical magic, she has promised not to tell Sally’s daughters, Kylie (Joey King) and Antonia (Maisie Williams), that not only are they from a family of witches, they are also cursed to have anyone they fall in love with die. That last tidbit really should have been revealed as Kylie has fallen in love with her classmate (Xolo Maridueña), and when something bad happens, she feels betrayed and takes matters into her own hands as a novice witch with an evil spells book, straight out of Marvel's WandaVision. If there’s a reason for this film to exist, it is to see the two lead actresses (as well as Dianne Wiest and Stockard Channing as their aunts) giving great women-supporting-women vibe. But, nothing else really works, including a lot of corny dialogue that falls flat or people doing silly things for the plot to work, including Kylie just announcing she has a cursed book in her possession. The humor is also awkward, such as a running joke with Gillian and Sally having big suitcases to lug around. Would they even pack if they’re rushing to save Kylie from danger? Yet, this is still a comforting warm sweater of a film, directed by Susanne Bier, reuniting with her Bird Box star, and when the plot isn’t butting in, it’s just nice to see everyone in that house again. The best addition to the cast is Lee Pace as a British professor with an interest in witches, but even he has some of the silliest things to say, including one bit about molecules that is painful. Also, please watch this film at AMC Theaters so you can watch the promo where Kidman talks about cinema being a place for magic before she performs some of her own.
Hope (c) MUBI
Film: Hope
In Cinemas
Director Na Hong-jin has made his name in the popular horror movie genre, while also being respected enough to be invited to Cannes Film Festival, including for his latest film, Hope. Coincidentally, the head of the Cannes jury for 2026 was fellow Korean director Park Chan-wook, whose films like The Handmaiden and Old Boy are also genre-based, and although it didn’t receive any prizes, Hope created plenty of buzz by just being in the line-up because it’s a monster movie. In the sleepy, South Korean town of Hope Harbor, on the border of the Demilitarized Zone with the North, the day starts with a dead bull in the middle of the road between the town and the forest. Thinking they have a wild tiger on the loose, the police chief, Bum-seok (Hwang Jung-min) goes back into town to warn the mostly elderly residents, while his cousin Sung-ki (Zo In-sung) and his hunting buddies trek to the forest. Spoiler alert: It’s not a tiger, as Bum-seok sees a different kind of destruction, with bodies spewed in the path of a beast. The best part of Hope is the first hour of the film as the increasingly nervous cop gets closer to the monster without actually seeing it. Na Hong-jin and his cinematographer Hong Kyung-pyo keep the audience in a state of tenseness up to the moment Bum-seok comes face to face with the destructive agent. There is a bit of a let-down in the middle section, which is played as comedy as the town tries to make sense of what happened. (The most effectively funny moment is when an eyewitness tells the story of his encounter with the monsters —yes, plural —while going through a digestive episode.) The third act picks up the pace in the forest, where Sung-ki and his friends discover what these creatures are before encountering their wrath. This is all a lot of fun and scary, but the film ends in a different genre—adding Western actors like Michael Fassbender and Alicia Vikander into the mix is more setting up a sequel than wrapping up a story satisfactily. Hope runs two-hours-and-forty-five minutes, and while Na Hong-jin tinkered with the film after Cannes, it’s still a bloated masterpiece until it falls off the cliff.
The Uprising (c) Focus Features
Film: The Uprising
In Cinemas
Director Paul Greengrass takes a risk with his latest film, The Uprising, in that he starts the film with a quick text setting up where and when we are (1381 in England, after a plague has wiped out the majority of its inhabitants), and then follows how one little town rebelling against a new round of crushing tax from King Richard II ultimately leads to the Peasants' Revolt. The de facto leader of this town is an unnamed ploughman (Andrew Garfield), whose attack on the tax collector starts the film, and while he is mostly fictional, he does join forces with actual agitators of the uprising: leader and former military Wat Tyler (Cosmo Jarvis) and clergyman John Ball (Jamie Bell). These three believe the young king is being advised by greedy men who are taking advantage of his age to fill their pockets (any comparison to what’s going on in present day Washington D.C. is completely on purpose). The film continuously cuts between scenes of the growing crowd and their anger with scenes of the king’s council (populated by actors like Stephen Dillane and Tom Hollander) and how they deal with the spineless king and his mother (Katherine Waterston). What happens when the two factions finally confronts each other is the exciting heartbeat of the film, and Greengrass utilizes his signature action skill nicely, seemingly only using natural lighting for the majority of the film, while focusing on multiple characters and how they react to the titular uprising, including my favorite minor character, the king’s scribe, played by Sky Yang, whose loyalty is tested. Even without knowing the outcome of the Peasants' Revolt (well, the monarchy is still in charge, so I knew it wouldn’t be a happy ending), the script really overplays its hand, like when what seems like good news is announced, the ploughman is always shown scowling, as if Garfield is playing the same touched-by-divinity character he played in Hacksaw Ridge. There is, however, a sort of happy ending because the epilogue jumps a year after the uprising and there is a very controversial decision (like Hope) to recontextualize the whole film and its theme into a different film altogether. I laughed. Not sure that was the reaction Greengrass wanted me to have.
If you want to comment on these reviews, please do so on my Instagram account. All reviews have their own post. And please follow to know when new reviews are released.
