Practical Magic 2 (2026)

 

I had hoped to do a Lamcast with my two daughters where we discussed this movie. I had chosen it as the subject of one of our weekly discussions because it was my memory that “Practical Magic” had an almost cult-like following among people of that generation, and I had hoped then my fellow Lambs who grew up in the 90s would have rushed to join in on the conversation. They did not.

As it is, it is just as well, because although the movie is doing very well at the box office, from a critical point of view it's sort of a mess. In the story they basically trashed the conclusion of the original film, and deny that a curse has been lifted, the main reason for this is to make it possible to make the two children of Sandra Bullock's character, have to endure the same situation that both Bullock and Nicole Kidman faced in the first film. Much like the ffatal flaw of “Alien 3”, where everything that had been accomplished in the second movie is erased in the first 5 minutes, completely undermining our desire to see the story followed through on, “Practical Magic 2” destroys the Goodwill that was left over from the first film.  28 years later in attempting to create a legacy sequel, the film hopes that we forgot everything that happened in the original movie.

It's not too big a surprise to recognize that this film is going to skew heavily toward female audiences of the Gen X and millennial categories. I'm glad that they are all coming out to the movies still, even if it is to see something as mediocre as “Practical Magic 2”. The movie repeats certain beats almost exactly as they were created in the first film. Apparently dancing with Margaritas in your hand and the Stevie Nicks song on the soundtrack is sufficient to get your Nostalgia feels up, and let you accept what's going on on the screen.

I did appreciate that Diane Wiest and Stockard Channing have parts in the movie, and they do a pretty good job maintaining the original characters' tone. It's pretty obvious but the emotions of the audience are being manipulated at the start of the movie and at the end of the movie with the arcs of their two characters. I guess however when your movie consists of nostalgic memories being forced into a contemporary story, you take what you can get.

Sandra Bullock is 62 years old and as far as I'm concerned she still looks great, the work that she's had done has not destroyed her face but it is somewhat apparent. Nicole Kidman is also of a certain age and she looks good too but it's a little bit more obvious that she's had work done and in contrast to the two older actresses and their willingness to appear on screen in realistic age appropriate characters, this is perhaps another thing that undermines any sense that this is a movie that cares about making sense.

Actor Lee Pace shows up about halfway through, and I thought he was very well cast and looks great on the screen . To be honest I'm only familiar with him through a couple of the Marvel movies and the remake of “The Running Man”. The idea that he might be a romantic lead had never occurred to me, but that it actually works pretty well. I haven't checked his age but he looked appropriately matched with Sandra Bullock.

The two younger actresses who play Sally's children, who have now grown up into adulthood, are both accomplished performers, who are largely wasted in the film. Maisie Williams, especially, gets left aside for the vast majority of the second and third Acts. There were probably other ways that they could have gone with this film story and then been successful at keeping the audience that they had but also expanding it. As it is, this movie will probably stall out after a couple of weeks because all those millennials have gotten used to seeing their movie fixes on streaming, and this movie really feels like a film that was made for streaming. Relatively low cost, well photographed, and full of nostalgia bits that will satisfy the original audience.

Moulin Rouge (2001) Revisit Paramount Summer Classic Film Series

 

I've actually seen the musical theater presentation of Moulin Rouge more frequently in the last couple of years than I have the film.  So it was a real treat to get a screening as part of the Paramount summer classic film festival. This was our first return to the Paramount Theater for the summer season, and of course it will be a brief return because the theater is closing down for 11 months for renovation. Screenings will continue next door at the State Theater, which will be pursuing renovations after the Paramount is done.

There is a cacophony of sounds in Moulin Rouge, times can be overwhelming. There are however other moments of quiet Melody that said a tone of romance very effectively. The juxtaposition of these two styles can be jarring at times, which probably accounts for the fact that not everybody cares much for this film. I on the other hand appreciate the effort to do something authentically different well at the same time appealing to an audience with familiar songs and music.

The tone of the film is occasionally comic, but usually it is overwhelmingly sincere in spite of its simplistic supposedly bohemian themes. Nicole Kidman was at the Apex of her beauty when this film was made. Not that she doesn't continue to be a lovely presence on screen, but this was a moment in time when her appearance could almost be described as created by artificial intelligence. Stunningly, she also has a very nice voice and conveys power and emotion with the songs that she sings. The Old Chestnut that Marilyn Monroe made famous, Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend, is used continuously throughout the film to reflect the amoral attitudes of the gold diggers who populate the chorus in the film. We are however supposed to sympathize with them because after all they are exploited by others who are well off. To me the pretentious themes of the Bohemians feels like a long-term joke, that is playing out again a century after the events depicted in this film.

Ewan McGregor also has a naturally developed singing voice that carries a lot of the narrative of this jukebox Musical. He also is a handsome spectacle that would be enticing to that part of the audience drawn to a vibrant young man. For me the most fun in the movie is trying to discern which song is having its chorus or verse edited into The Continuous stream of exposition in the form of music. Those of you who know me will understand how I was delighted when a kiss song appears in the film.  Director Baz Luhrmann has consistently found innovative ways to make movies look different. There is some criticism of his style because although his movies look different from other people's films, they sometimes seem reminiscent of his own. Since he isn't producing films on a yearly basis I don't find that problematic.

In addition to the music the visuals of the film combine practical stage sets with miniatures and traditional optic effects to make the movie look spectacular( spectacular). Sometimes there's sepia-toned filters, occasionally soft focus camera work, and frequently there is dynamic use of light to make the screen come alive. All of it is accentuated by bright colors, particularly Reds, which hold our attention and stimulate our emotions.  

Is salt on our auditory senses can be overwhelming, which might make the movie Something of a chore for some moviegoers. Accounts for the reason I've not seen the film much since it opened 25 years ago. We first acquired the DVD of the film the year it was in theaters and my kids watched it frequently for the next couple of years, but they moved on to other movies and by 05, we were done with this for the most part. In the last couple of years however, my youngest daughter has become a theater kid, and on one of our trips to New York City, we saw Moulin Rouge with the original leads of the stage Musical reprising their roles. Just last year Broadway Austin presented the touring version of the musical here at the Bass Concert Hall, and we attended that as well.

The nostalgia that comes from watching a movie that was so distinctive 25 years ago and to which my children were devoted for a period of time was one of the main reasons I enjoyed are screening this last month. The movie is still a technical Marvel in an artistic gamble that I think pays off, but I will admit that it will not be something I rush out to see again. I need to catch my breath.

Babygirl (2024)

 

This film irritated me as much as any movie I saw in 2024. It is basically "50 Shades of Grey" inverted so that the role relationship is gender altered, and then there is a family dynamic layered on top like gravy, trying to cover for a poor dish with some extra sauce. Unfortunately, the patina of dramatic heft is wasted because the demeaning sexual relationship depicted in the film is the only thing that is interesting, and you will feel dirty for being interested in it. 

Nicole Kidman is convincing as a middle aged woman seeking sexual satisfaction outside of her marriage, but it is an incomplete story. She apparently cannot achieve orgasm with her husband, and this is after they have been married for nearly twenty years. The sex play she suggests to him at one point, hints at her needs, but she is not capable of expressing her frustration about their sex life and resorts to masturbating to on-line porn immediately after a clinch with him. What she needs is a real man to tell her how to feel and what to do during sex. Does that sound like feminist empowerment to you? It felt demeaning to me and even if she is a submissive, the manner in which she tries to exert some agency is very destructive.

Her intern at work, for whom she is supposed to be a mentor, seems to have the gift of reading her needs. It is not exactly clear why, but Harris Dickinson as her lover is appropriately creepy. The near Rasputin like influence that he exercises over her, feels unearned, but she seems to accept it as a condition of having her needs fulfilled. For the first part of the movie, those are mostly petty humiliations that seem to arouse her and that he choses capriciously. In the second half of the film, they become more explicit and although the nudity is slightly muted, the sexuality is not.  The prurient interest that writer/director Halina Reijn is attempting works, but so would ten minutes on a porn site. 

There is no story of redemption, or emotional breakthrough here. The power dynamic is offensive on both lead characters, and the distasteful reduction of Kidman's character will be embarrassing for everyone.  I saw this on Christmas Day, and the story takes place originally at Christmas Time, but this may have been nearly as bad a choice for a film to see on the holiday as "Babylon" was two years ago. I'm not sure why Hollywood is interested in crapping all over the audiences for the holiday, but I wish I had found a lump of coal in my stocking instead of this turd.

Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom

 

Remember when you were a kid and you got a new box of crayons with dozens of colors that you hadn't had before and you wanted to use them all, whatever you were drawing next? Well that's the way James Wan has gone about making the Aquaman movies, like “they gave me a whole bunch of money so I'm going to spend it on stuff that I think looks cool”. And for the most part it does look cool, but does it make any sense? No it doesn't. That doesn't mean that you can't have some fun anyway.

This Is the End of the DCEU as we know It. None of the actors who have been playing the recurring characters for the last decade are coming back. A new team has taken over the direction of all of the comics in the DC world. And the planned sequels have been canceled. This is the final film in what was the original phase of those movies, and Aquaman was always the silliest of characters and the most outrageous of visuals and the one that seems closest to the spirit of what a comic book should be. Fortunately they cast Jason Momoa as the titular figure who we also know as Arthur Curry. His physique, his long hair and his general demeanor have been key elements to making the silliest of characters one of the most fun things in the DCEU.

This film continues a few plot lines from the previous movie and doesn't contain any guest appearances by the superheroes of the Justice League. We do get a return by Nicole Kidman as Arthur's mother, and Patrick Wilson also returns as his half brother. Yeah I don't know if people will remember why Dolph Lundgren is a king but not married to Nicole. It doesn't matter because it doesn't make sense anyway. The villain returns and has been given greater powers and is even more malevolent than before. His main motivation is now simply revenge for the death of his father, and if it takes destroying the whole world to accomplish that he doesn't care. Randall Park is also back as Dr Shin, a character that I have no memory of from the original film but again it doesn't matter. And if you can't tell what his story arc is within the first minute and a half of the movie you've never seen a movie before.

Again the world is filled with fantastical creatures, colorful vistas and technology that is far beyond that which is known currently. That's another one of those comic book inventions, where ancient civilizations were so far ahead of our modern times that we look antiquated by comparison even though they were centuries before us. I think you'll have a hard time trying to figure out why all of this technology has stood up to being at the bottom of the ocean for nearly two Millennia, but if you're spending time trying to come up with an explanation for that you're missing the point of this movie. And the point of this movie is to have some fun, pretend that the things that are happening are real, and enjoy the oversized personalities that the main characters represent.

Except for the visual images there is nothing new or innovative about the story. In fact when in doubt, the screenwriters simply steal from other films, books and myths to make up the events that are taking place. You can have a lot of fun looking for the Easter eggs that represent other films, for example the black trident might as well be the One Ring. There is literally a character that is a direct rip off of Jabba the Hutt, and he's voiced by Martin Short. Heck they even throw in a reference to the MCU, when Aquaman makes a disparaging comment about his brother and refers to him as Loki. About the one original thing that this movie produced is that at the screening we saw at an AMC theater Nicole Kidman's promo for AMC was missing. Maybe there's something about a conflict of interest in having that play in front of a film that she is starring in, but that still doesn't make any sense. It's also noticeable that Amber Heard has had her role substantially reduced, she has maybe 10 lines in the movie. Her main value is to show up with her supersonic powers just in time to help out Arthur when he is stuck.

There are battles galore, and animals that are right out of the Jurassic Park series, and a long sequence that involves running through the jungles on an island trying to escape those creatures. If it wasn't for Peter Jackson, Steven Spielberg, and a whole bunch of other creative people who came before him, director Wan may have nothing to work with. They even crib from Willow by having a child who is endangered by the villain's plot . Still it looks great, the colors are a lot of fun and there are some silly jokes that most of us could probably enjoy. This is not a film that anybody's going to remember 10 minutes after seeing, but you will enjoy it for the 2 hours that you're watching it. I just don't know if you'd recommend it to anybody after having done so.

Look if you like the first Aquaman you're probably going to like this one, it's cut from the same cloth. It's full of colorful visuals, outlandish characters, familiar plot points and the leads are attractive and humorous people. For my money Patrick Wilson steals the movie on a regular basis. His dry delivery with some snarky overtones is a nice compliment to Momoa's casual bravado. It's like a gumbo that has to come together just right in order for the flavors not to undermine each other. Still I think you're going to have to add some sauce to make this palatable to most people's tastes. In other words if you like this you're probably already all wet.

The Beguiled (2017)

What looks like is going to be a Gothic horror set in the Civil War period, turns out to be a psycho-sexual drama with a slightly demented finish. I was not fooled by the trailer or other marketing, because I'd seen the original version of the story from 1971. There are a few changes in the film which were supposed to alter the perspective from the soldiers point of view to that of the women in the story. I guess that would be the justification for remaking a film that was not particularly compelling the first time out. Let's just say for the moment that they may have altered the perspective some but they have not overcome the issue of the film lacking a need to exist in the first place.

Sophia Coppola is a director that many admire but I have found most of the films by her, that I have seen, to be cold and disengaging. They are beautifully shot and "The Beguiled" is certainly beautiful. Set in Virginia during the last year of the War between the States, the story concerns a wounded Union soldier taken in by a girls academy. The school is run by matron southerner Nicole Kidman. She is assisted by a younger woman played by Kirsten Dunst and they are in charge of five young women and girls who are being educated in a traditional form for young ladies. As they learn French and penmanship and sewing skills, their life is disrupted by the war around them. The introduction of Corporal McBurney (a solid Colin Farrell) into their island  of antebellum etiquette throws things into a tizzy. Since it is a Sophia Coppola film however, it is done at a languishing pace with each frame posed as if it were a still life being painted for the wall of another plantation.

The pacing of the story is so agonizingly slow, but still interesting, because of the mores and cultural rules the people of that time operate in. Even when he is being chastised by Kidman,  the dialogue between the two consists of polite and well thought out vocabulary. The inflections and tones contain the reprimands more than any word does. McBurney slowly courts the Dunst character and again it is done in a manner reflecting the times. In the original film, Clint Eastwood is much more clearly manipulative and he is wooing multiple women simultaneously. Farrell's version of the character seems sincere in his approach to Edwina, but Kidman's Miss Martha is also drawn to him and Elle fanning as the recalcitrant Alicia is the most brazen of the girls who have sexualized the Corporal in their heads. The little girls are fascinated by him as well but it is his Irish Charm and status as a Union soldier that holds their interest. As the story gets closer to the dramatic elements, it feels like it wakes up in a burst of energy and tries to accomplish everything the movie set up in the first ninety minutes in a two minute segment. There is a betrayal on a couple of levels, but those come rapidly and are followed by a resolution that seems to have been arrived at capriciously. The film feels like it is missing the second act.

Farrell and Dunst are the two standout performances. They are tentative and then passionate and frustrated and anguished in very effective moments. Kidman seems a little miscast. She is older but certainly desirable rather than repressed and desperate. Her delicate bathing of Farrell when he first arrives was the strongest part of her performance but in the manner she shows herself during the rest of the film, she feels a little stiff. The biggest unpleasant surprise from the actors comes from Elle fanning, an actress that i thought was special in  Super 8, but here she looks like she is play acting and although she is an aggressive flirt, she does not give off the impression of lustfulness that would justify the Corporal's behavior.

The only way I see this film as being a more feminist version of the original is that only one of the women completely falls under the sexual power of the man, and he is the one who is manipulated by two of the other women. That's about it. This is a good film but not a great one. It retells the original story but without much justification for doing so. It also makes the languid pace of the original seem frenetic by comparison.  The only music in the film occurs on screen when the girls are singing or performing, with the exception of an occasional synthesizer note held for a long period as a prelude to a couple of moments near the end. That may be another reason the fil feels longer than it should, without a melody it feels plodding. This is a film for Coppola Completists  or someone who has missed the original and has already seen everything else playing. I am largely indifferent on it.  

Lion

This is a tale of two tales. The first half of this movie is compelling and emotionally engaging. It has a fantastic child performance and it says so many things about what is wrong with some aspects of the world that you will want to act after seeing some of it. The second half is anti-climactic for the most part. The extended story of our hero does not play out completely and it raises different issues that seem to be only tangentially related to what we started with. There is another solid performance as well, but it is overshadowed by the legacy of the younger version of our lead character. 

Young Sunny Pawar plays the hero of the story, a kid named Saroo, who gets separated from his family in one of the biggest and most populated countries in the world. The circumstances of his "disappearance" are accidental, but much of the trauma that follows is deliberate and frightening. He is a child of maybe five, several hundred miles from home, in which direction he has no idea, and the only name he knows his Mother by is Mum. The family was scratching out a living doing manual labor and pilfering small amounts of commodities that are unwatched. He ends up in Calcutta, a city teeming with people, many of whom are looking to exploit a child.

We want authority figures and government agencies to be reliable, but as they appear here, it seems they are as much a part of the problem as some of the criminal element. There are some competent people who do finally end up helping Saroo connect with a different family in a country even further away. When Sunny Pawar is playing the character of Saroo, everything seems real and the stakes are so high as to keep us enthralled. When a twenty year period goes by with a single title card, and Saroo is played by Dev Patel, the stakes seem so much lower and the emotions feel like they are straining for significance. Saroo's identity crisis might have been a solid film if the movie had worked backwards. Instead it plays out like some psychological drama that would make an interesting hour on TV.

The complicated relationship the adult Saroo has with his adopted family is told in the most bare bones way possible. There are cryptic references to his adopted brother's drug use and emotional damage. Nicole Kidman as his adopted mother spends a lot of her time weeping for the problems of Mantosh, her second adopted child but Saroo never reaches out to either his mother or father for help in his crisis. They are the two most supportive parents you can imagine, and he is so wound up about his memories of his real brother and mother, that he can't bother to ask for help. This section of the movie is so frustrating because we can't figure out why he feels that way. Even when he has a supportive girlfriend to exchange exposition with.

I know this is based on a true story. When the film ends and we get some clips and a scroll of the truth, it is very compelling. If the film had been a documentary, or the story structure were different, I think I'd have been really more impressed. As it is, I liked the movie a lot, but it depended on the resolution of the search to redeem a dull passage that takes up a big chunk of the film. I've heard award talk about Patel and Kidman, but if anyone in this movie deserves to be honored for their performance, it is a little boy from India who made us care in the first place.