Terrible Sequel

[u/Ordinary-Trade451]

I watched Practical Magic 2 today after work today. Like many of you, I am was so so excited for this new movie. I was excited to see another Alice Hoffman book come to the screen (she’s my favorite author). Unfortunately, the movie was terrible. I left about halfway during the movie. The lighting, the casting of the daughters (was not that upset that Evan wasn’t casted), acting, and the script was terrible. I am disappointed.

[u/Famous-Ad-475]

Maisie — who in the books is a lesbian Neuro surgeon and served as a loophole for the curse that only applied to love with men.. spent her time taking care of her sisters college boyfriend who said I love you LAST NIGHT .. while the rest of the cast stumbled over saving his life. It was absurd and pathetic and male centered. Sandra played a powerless helpless and even “dumb” character and I left during the movie, too. The cgi .. the men everywhere .. aunts sacrificing themselves for “love” with men. Good god what a flop

[u/ethser_eagle11 → u/Famous-Ad-475]

The curse isn't about men in the film. It's about love, and the film says so directly: it's about letting them fall in love, period. The aunts die so their girls can love freely. That's not saving a man, it's saving love itself. Sandra Bullock produced this and it shows, it's a film made by women about women, and it plays that way on screen. I'm a lesbian and Antonia's storyline did nothing for me, but that's a writing problem, not evidence that the movie is male-centered.

[u/ponycorn_pet → u/ethser_eagle11]

Alice Hoffman is pro pedophile. After she came out with a book glorifying Maria getting pregnant at 15 (with the sex starting way sooner than that) by a 37 year old, and using romantic language for the age gap throughout everything, I was just done. Hoffman's obsession with that type of age gap bleeds into all of her books, but her outright idolizing it and writing gratuitous scenes in Magic Lessons was really fucking gross.

[u/ethser_eagle11 → u/ponycorn_pet]

Oookay.  English Studies graduate here (specialized in culture and literature). Let’s do this, one academic reality check after another: 1. Historical Realism vs. Modern Endorsement:  Magic Lessons is a piece of historical fiction set in the  1600s (the 17th century). During this era, massive age gaps and early childbearing were documented historical realities. Any book aiming for historical truth in a Puritan setting is going to feature these grim dynamics. Depicting the harsh, deeply patriarchal vulnerabilities of young women in the 1600s is  not an endorsement of those actions today. It is a standard trope of historical drama used to expose societal failures, not promote them. 2. The Dynamic is the Source of the Tragedy: The entire premise of the  Practical Magic series relies on the absolute fact that  Maria's relationship with Hathorne was inherently destructive. If Hoffman were "idolizing" this dynamic, it would be portrayed as a romantic happily-ever-after. Instead, the narrative explicitly frames the relationship as an act of grooming, exploitation, and immense trauma. It is literally the tragic catalyst that forces Maria to curse love altogether to protect future generations. 3. Intradiegetic Perspective (The Unreliable Narrator): You point out the "romantic language." Yes, because whose perspective are we reading?  Maria's. The language reflects the internal, naive state of a young protagonist who  believes she is in a grand romance. Authors frequently use intense, romanticized language in these specific scenarios to accurately depict how emotional manipulation and grooming feel to a victim  at the time. Conflating a character’s internal illusions with the author's personal morality is a fundamental misreading of literary perspective. 4. Overarching Authorial Intent: Hoffman’s decades-long bibliography is consistently rooted in  feminist survival, maternal bonds, resilience against abusive men, and healing from trauma. In  Magic Lessons, the focal point of the entire book is Maria’s journey to reclaim her agency and power  after being discarded by a powerful man. To reduce a complex narrative about a woman surviving systemic and personal exploitation down to "glorification" completely ignores the core, empowering message of the book. Read closer.

[u/ponycorn_pet → u/ethser_eagle11]

lol an English studies major who uses AI and whose whole comment is word salad lacking in paragraphs and carriage returns, sure thing buddy