Recensioni degli utenti

I hate using labels like "chick flick", but one look at the IMDb voting demographics shows that this is literally a chick flick. As of the time I'm writing this, females rate it nearly 2 points higher than males, and in the under 18 group it's even more exaggerated.

Well I'm a guy, and I dug it. If you're flexible enough to appreciate the macho man cheesiness of "Commando" (like Arnold Schwarzenegger riding on the landing gear of a Boeing 747) as well as the chick flick cheesiness of "Pretty Woman" (like Richard Gere riding on the sunroof of a white limo) ...both of which are equal in amounts of cheese but from different perspectives... then I think you can have a fun time watching "Practical Magic". Why? Because it seems to hit us with both extremes.

On the surface, the story seems to be brewing a sinister dark comedy: the Owens women just can't seem to keep men long before they kick the bucket. Tons of potential for a slightly demented "Beetlejuice" kinda story, or even "Heathers". But instead of going in that direction (i.e. treating death as crazy joke), "Practical Magic" takes it quite seriously and is not afraid to get pretty sentimental on the subject. In other words, it takes a very morbid "guy flick" story but treats it with "chick flick" sensitivity.

And that's just the beginning. We haven't gotten to the other dark themes of wife beating, alcohol abuse, sexual promiscuity, murder and re-murder. So, you ask, if it has all these disturbing themes and refuses to make light of them, how the heck can this be a comedy? The answer is that the leading ladies, not just Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman but also their crazy aunts played by Stockard Channing and Diane Wiest, act their roles with playful humor and endearing wit. It reminded me a little of "Sex and the City", the way the stories can be downright upsetting, but the humor comes in the way the characters behave despite it all. "Practical Magic" doesn't rely on a silly story for its laughs but instead lets the acting pave the way for levity.

Roger Ebert gave this movie a mostly negative review, saying "the movie doesn't seem sure what tone to adopt, veering uncertainly from horror to laughs to romance." But I think Ebert failed to see that the film's charm is the fact that the characters can indulge in laughs and romance *despite* the horror.

Ebert also criticized: "'Practical Magic' is too scary for children and too childish for adults. Who was it made for?" The answer is it's made for adults who can indulge in childishness. Basically if you get the gist of my review, it's the idea that this film is an unexpected blend of opposites. I have to admit it caught me off guard for a while, but I eventually figured out the rhythm and had a fun ride.

Do NOT expect a sinister, dark comedy. Do NOT expect a totally light-hearted silly romp either. The best way I can describe it would be to compare it to some of the 80s horror-comedies like "Fright Night", "Vamp" or even "Gremlins" but with a dash of "Thelma & Louise". Throw em all together in a giant cauldron and have some fun.

It appears that director Griffith Dunne tried to keep this film from being as powerful as it could have been. The movie fails to fully develop the town's overt fear of witches (missing only slightly), the full foreboding of "something wicked this way comes" with Jimmy (although the script lets them get away with it), and the magical love bond between Sally and Gary. A few small changes, such as more supportive background music, would have made these points support and counterpoint the lighter parts of the flick.

Bullock and Kidman are very good as the central characters, very believable as different-but-bonded sisters. Kidman is a little too flaky at times to be a fully credible witch, but this characterization runs well enough in context. Channing (whom I rarely enjoy) and Wiest are excellent in major supporting roles, outdone only by Webb and Wood (Sally's daughters) who show their abilities by *not* overacting their potentially cutesy roles. Instead, they do a great job in stating variations on their mother and Aunt Gilly.

Overall, I think most aspects of direction and production could have used one more iteration of quality improvement. Still, the movie is quite enjoyable, and worth watching again some time.

I have read through more than half of the reviews that have been posted for this film and have been amazed that no one seems to have caught on as to what it's really *about*.

It's NOT about the Magic. It's NOT about the witchcraft. It's NOT about the romance. It's about the power of numbers. In particular, it's about how women grouped together have power to fight the physical abuse of womankind, when a lone victim, with or without one or two relatives or friends, does not. On a lesser level, it's about how women who are not prone to being victimized can help rescue those who are. Everything else is just for flavor. Is a pumpkin pie about the spice? Is a dish served flambe about the alcohol?

This movie contains much food for thought. Comments about whether it does or does not accurately portray the practice of Wicca are so far off the point as to be meaningless.

Superficially, yes, it's fluff, and meant to be fun, and not meant to be taken seriously or as a work of art. But dig a little bit deeper, for goodness sake, and see what's underneath that puffy exterior. There's a lot there!

I noticed that most of the angriest user reviews on this movie come from people who were unable to identify the genre of this flick. So they went on and on about how this movie doesn't know what it wants to be ecc.

Is it horror? Is it comedy? Is it a Hocus Pocus wannabe? The answer is no to all but who cares anyway. We're in 2022 and what genre would you say "The power of the dog" is? Next time why not try to appreciate a film for what it is, instead of spending all your time looking for a specific genre that's most likely linked to a bunch of preconceived ideas?

Now that's out of the way, we can discuss this movie which tells the story of these two modern witchy sisters and their romantic adventures -that are nothing but unfortunate-. Still, no matter how bad the situation is, these stick together through thick and thin. One embraces her natural talents, the other desperately seeks a normal life, shunning all the stigma that comes with being born a witch. Orphaned at an early age, the two move in with their aunts in a large Victorian house in New Salem, Massachusetts.

It's quite genuine in that they present us a more tender and vulnerable side to witches. In movies, we were used to seeing a cartoon version of witches, the Wizard of Oz comes to my mind, but these sisters couldn't be more humane if they tried to. It's equipped with good performances, including the excellent interpretations of Stockard Channing and Dianne Wiest, and beautiful picturesque scenery all around. The befitting soundtrack includes music by Joni Mitchell and Stevie Nicks. Don't expect some kind of intellectual masterpiece. I hardly think that's what they were going for! My advise, just enjoy it for what it is, it's a wonderful film.

A kookie chick-flick with a plot that resembles a supernatural remake of 'What a Way to Go!' with a bit of 'The Monkey's Paw' (and an appropriately twee score by Alan Silvestri) thrown in.

With Nicole Kidman and Sandra Bullock as the sisters and Stockard Channing and Diane Wiest as their 'bohemian' aunts it can't fail to provide a diverting couple of hours.

This is one of the most bizarre mish-mashes of a film that I have ever seen. It wanders from being a girl-bonding film to a romance to witchcraft with each segment popping up like one is reading a magazine with one part following another with no real cohesion between them. The basic idea is that Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman play witches, and Sandra can't have a normal romance with a human because she is a witch.

We learn this early on and from this point on the film ambles through plot lines and ideas, each with about fifteen minutes till it moves onto the next idea which last for another 15 minutes. Each moment is so disconnected from the rest that you feel no real passion for the characters and no distinctive connection to the story, if you can call it that.

If you're after a good chick flick with magic see "Stardust", if you want a good chick flick in general see "Bring it on", but for pity's sake please avoid this one. It's got Akiva Goldman's name on it and is from the same school as "Batman and Robin". Don't say you've not been warned.

Normally I don't care for chick flicks, but I can't seem to stop watching this one over and over again. I was surprised that so many others didn't care for it. I just loved the sets, the costumes, the women and their relationships, the real magic in the film, the special effects, the child actresses. This was stuff that women could relate to better than men. Aidan Quinn was the only boring part of the movie. I wished they'd chosen an actor who was more into the role. He seemed bored and made his part in the film more boring. (Also, he mumbles. Someone should give him elocution lessons.)

This movie wasn't meant to be heavy. It was meant to be light, fun fluff, and that it is. The characters weren't meant to be deep, but I felt the relationship between the two sisters was deeper and well performed by two skilled actresses. In spite of the fluffiness of it, I enjoyed the two scenes in which we got to sit and relax to the sound of Stevie Nicks' "Crystal." So what if cars weren't crashing and guns weren't shooting. They weren't supposed to be. I felt the camaraderie of the moment as the two sisters and their aunts got drunk on "midnight margaritas" while dancing to Harry Nilsson's "Lime in the Coconut." It was just plain light fun. Also, women can enjoy the vicarious satisfaction of watching these women destroy the evil, bullying man who tries to destroy them.

The end of the film was rather Disney-kiddie-flick-like. Another ending might have worked better, but it was tolerable because it reminded the audience that the film was all in fun, and not to be taken seriously.

I usually prefer deeper films, but I thoroughly enjoyed this piece of fluff. Sure it was silly and campy, but it was fun. A film doesn't have to take itself seriously to be fun. Bullock, Kidman, Channing, and Wiest are beautiful, charming and wonderful to watch in this flick, and I love watching the four of them over and over again.

I watched this movie for the first time years ago, when I was quite younger. I watched it again recently, and I'd like to say that I really liked the way the theme (witchcraft) was presented and used. Mixing modern and traditional elements, natural and supernatural, the film is suspenseful but romantic, including witches and common people, concerning past and present. This variety of characteristics is, I believe, the greatest "plus" of the movie, along with satisfying performances by S. Bullock, N. Kidman, S. Channing, D. Wiest. "Practical Magic" is a must for paranormal-lovers, or for people looking for a drop of everything: fantasy, love, fun, suspense... in this interesting mixture by G. Dunne.

This movie is just a little bit off. Nothing is wrong with it, but nothing is right either. The sound track overpowers the story in some places, and you have the feeling that the producer was planning to make money on it.

I am a straight guy and I love this movie, I don't understand all the hate.. so people are just way to judgmental. Great movie . Screw the haters

Sally (Sandra Bullock) and Gillian Owens (Nicole Kidman) have been told by their aunts (Stockard Channing, Dianne Wiest) early on about the family curse. Their ancestor Maria Owens was hung as a witch, but she survives. She was exiled to what is now their home Maria's Island in Massachusetts with her unborn child. She casts a spell to never fall in love. The curse has endured killing all the men that Owens women love. Gillian is the wild child and she wanders away from home. Sally stayed home. Against all odds, she falls in love with her husband and has two girls. Everything seems fine until the curse strike her husband dead. Then drunken mess Gillian calls one night for help. Gillian's boyfriend Jimmy (Goran Visnjic) takes both sisters hostage. Sally tries to dose Jimmy with belladonna but an overdose kills him. So they bury his body in the yard. Police detective Gary Hallet (Aidan Quinn) comes investigating the missing Jimmy. Only Jimmy's spirit is now haunting the sisters.

This movie is a witches' brew of mismatch genres. It wants so desperately to be a rom-com. But there are some really dark fantasy elements that would probably be better off as a thriller. And then there are real slices of horror. It's a wildly inconsistent mess. For so much of it, director Griffin Dunne is using such a delicate light touch to the tone that all the murder and mayhem seems weirdly fake. Bullock and Kidman are great actors who has good chemistry together as sisters. However, the chemistry between Bullock and Quinn is questionable. The main reason being that the love may be spell induced. I just don't know what to do with this mess.

This movie is one of my favorites - I love watching it.

I have to agree with the remarks by AshIsTheGal and Warlen. Nicole Kidman had never been one of my favorite actress either, but I loved her in this movie (as I did Sandra Bullock). The real standouts though were Stockard Channing and Diane Wiest - watching them perform was almost worth the price of admission itself! They are wonderful.

I don't see this movie as being about magic or witchcraft, the romance between Sally and Gary Hallet or even Jimmy Angelov chasing Gillian (which is a huge catalyst - but not really any more than that). For me, this movie is really about the relationships between sisters and women (the Aunts Franny and Jet, Kylie and Antonia, the Owens' women and the townswomen and of course, between Sally and Gillian - both young and adult).

All of the actresses had a great chemistry, but I couldn't believe how well matched Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman were. I felt that their bond was very believable and I loved watching their relationship to each other (and themselves) grow and mature as they went from being children to adults.

I certainly don't think that this film will appeal to everybody, and I can see why so many people "don't get it", but if you watch it more for the relationships between the women and not so much for the romance angle or the magic I think that you will really enjoy this movie. I thought that the romance and magic were handled very well, I just saw them as being secondary to the real story. Also - it has a wonderful soundtrack.

I read the book after seeing the movie, and while there are many changes between the two, I really enjoyed both. I thought that the changes made to the movie made for a better movie overall.

All in all, a very enjoyable movie. I highly recommend it.

I was very surprised how wrapped up I got into this story. I give credit to Griffin Dunne, the director, and a very appealing cast. The musical score to this film, by Alan Silvestri, is very magical indeed. The story is well told by everyone involved. The special effects are subtle but effective to say the least. This is what Sandra Bullock does best in my opinion. She plays an innocent so well that when things work out for her, you find yourself emotionally involved in her story. The film is a little overlong, otherwise very entertaining.

The real magic of this movie was turning that awful book into such an enjoyable movie.

Someone behind the scenes really understood what women want when watching witches, and it certainly wasn't the claptrap in the novel.

I used to admire this movie for being enjoyable, fun, sexy, beautiful, bewitching... But after reading the source material, I now admire it for things I didn't even notice before.

The relationship between the sisters (all three pairs), mothers and daughters, aunts and nieces, neighbours, enemies, lovers, abusers and the abused. Its a study of how these relationships can save you (even from yourself).

It's also a look into who you are and how you fit in. If everyone thinks you are a witch, do you own it or fight it? Do you care?

Will you allow the curses of your ancestors to wreck havoc on the descendants they never lived to meet?

This movie brings up so many questions about the human spirit and how we work with or against one another. And I could only see that once I saw the original story about selfish people with no connection to other humans.

The script writer was practically magic!

A really solid cast led me to think that just maybe this might be worth a viewing. All of the performances are good. The love story between Quinn & Bullock did have some strong dialogue elements to it, but unfortunately we could see the two of them getting together from the moment that met, far too predictable. Even though the story idea is fun and unique, the execution felt a bit familiar. See it if you're curious, otherwise perhaps not.

I saw this movie the 30th December together with my girlfriend, and I must admit it was unique !! The only movie in 1998 of which I doubted to leave during the break. It is so, so bad ... Can anybody tell me what the hell it is about ? NOTHING ! Don't get me wrong, I like now and then a light entertaining movie ... but this one just insulted my intelligence. I normally even like Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman but now their performances were the same level as the movie. The worst part is probably that I stayed till the end since we wanted to see if it would get any worse ... It did!

Sandra Bullock, Nicole Kidman, Stockard Channing and Dianne Wiest indulge in some "Practical Magic," a 1998 film directed by Griffin Dunne. Bullock and Kidman play sisters, Sally and Gillian, both of whom are witches. One (Kidman) is free-wheeling and out in the world, and Bullock is a widowed mother with children who refuses to have anything to do with magic. One of their ancestors put a curse on any man involved with a woman in her family, and the curse lost the sisters their father and Bullock's husband. Her two aunts, however, Francis and Bridget (Channing and Wiest) still practice their spells. When Gillian takes up with the wrong man (again) (Goran Visjnic), she calls Sally. As a result of Sally's help, they find themselves in a lot of trouble and have to take drastic measures. Things don't work out as planned.

I'm not sure what the problem is - it appears that some people on IMDb expect every film to be Magnolia, and if it isn't, they reject it as junk. This movie is what it is intended to be - light, with some suspense, some scares, some fun, lots of warmth, and great characters. If you read the book, disappointment is more understandable, and I feel your pain.

The acting is excellent, with four top actresses as the stars, and the relationships between them are excellent as well. As others have mentioned, the best part of the film is when they start calling neighbors so they can have a coven.

Highly recommended.

I can't remember the last time I actually spent watching a movie that was complete GARBAGE. Probably The Haunting. It was actually hard for me to decide which was worse. But I am going to give Practical Magic a close runner up. Where to begin: lets start with the cliches: brooms, potions, two old maids living together, dressed in 1800's clothes (WHY WHY WHY???). black cats, COME ON! the storyline: Where is the climax? Where is the plot? These are hard to find because-THERE ARE NONE. and why why why, would the entire town be so afraid of them for 30 plus years, and then "magically" turn best buds when it come's time to do a spell/ exorcism? (did any body else feel that way-at times I thought Kidman was trying to be Linda Blair!). And What on earth is up with the Phone tree????? why would every body have to have a meeting about it? Does that happen in your home town? Are people REALLY that rude and narrow minded? Did that town look suspiciously like the one Sandra was in Hope Floats??? Why did Sandra run towards her future husband and he was running towards her-with out saying one word to each other? What was the point of her owning the store? And why were there like 5 workers doing nothing, and no customers? If you woke up, with some one playing with your face, and found your sister you have not seen in 7+ years, don't you thing you would be the least bid shocked, or happy? I just don't understand.

the characters: what can I say? NO CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT HERE. How can anyone watching this film have any feeling toward a character if they don't bring us one. Sorry, none worth standing in this flick. I did not care if Kidman (forgot her name in movie) stayed or went. I did not care if Bullock feel in love or not. I did not care if their aunt's came back, if they made margaritas or not (oh yeah-what a stupid scene, espically the direction, terrible. Acting-non-convincing). CAN WE SAY PREDICTABLE: everyone knows that Adian Quinn (don't know his name in movie-even used?) is going to have one blue eye, one green, he can flip pancakes, and has a star. WOW. I never saw THAT ONE coming! (oh, and the whole pancake scene, especially when he flips it up in the air-just cheesy. I have not seen such bad direction with a camera since the late 80's). By the way, why could he kill off Kidman's "DEAD" boyfriend with the star!?!?! Was he a vampire? I really don't mean to rip this apart (well, I guess I do, because I am doing it) but I just don't understand why any of the cast made this. How did it get past viewing audiences? Why did Kidman take this? (Sad to say that I expect this from Bullock). This whole mess is COMPLETELY unlogical, predictable, and just laughable (the last scence practically had me on the ground). I can't get over this. 0.5/10 stars.(the .5 because there was a song from BOOGIE NIGHTS in it-the only enjoyable part of the film).

There's an enchanting element to this film that's hard to pinpoint. The production details are phenomenal, so that plays a huge part in it, but there's more... it has that thing that most modern movies have lost. You could it's say magic, but what does that really encompass? However you feel about this movie, it has a look, a feel, a style to it that doesn't exist anymore. And I miss that.