New movies to watch this weekend: See 'Practical Magic 2' in theaters, rent 'One Night Only,' stream 'Supergirl' on HBO Max

Welcome to Trust Me, I Watch Everything , a weekly guide to all the new movies out each Friday.

This week's buzziest release is Practical Magic 2 , the nearly 30-years-later sequel to the '90s cult-classic cable TV staple starring Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman. But it's a busy week in theaters with plenty of other options, including South Korean blockbuster Hope and the Owen Wilson-Alan Ritchson action-comedy Runner.

If you'd rather stay home, you can now rent or buy One Night Only, the rom-com with a bizarre premise , or check out the latest Jason Statham vehicle, Mutiny.

Want to stick to a streaming service you're likely already paying for? Supergirl lands on HBO Max, and Guy Ritchie's In the Grey starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Henry Cavill hits Starz.

Why I didn't like it: Practical Magic was nobody's idea of a success when it hit theaters way back in 1998 — its box office take was modest at best, and critics were not kind to it. Its cozy fall vibes, (some rather mixed) messaging about sisterhood and female empowerment and fun performances from superstars Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman, however, led it to become a seasonal staple on cable television, and it eventually found enough of an audience for a high-profile, nearly-30-years-later sequel to make financial sense in our nostalgia-obsessed world.

I watched the original for the first time ahead of the screening of the new one, and found it to be a tonally confused, badly paced mess, despite committed work from the lead actors, as well as from Dianne Wiest and Stockard Channing as the aunts. The movie is decidedly uninterested in witchcraft, except as a means of advancing its story of love and loss — a potent idea, but one that gets buried beneath various subplots with wildly different tones. Centering this story on two women who are uniquely powerful but must hide it from society lest they be labeled witches is also an interesting concept, though it's muddled by the fact that these women are, canonically, witches.

In Practical Magic 2, based on the fourth book in the popular series by Alice Hoffman , the Owens sisters must confront the dark curse that threatens to unravel their family once and for all. In the original film, the Owens sisters discover a family curse that causes all the men they truly love to die, leading them to adopt two different lifestyles to cope with it. Now, this curse has passed down to Bullock's children, with disastrous consequences.

All the principal actors are back, except for Evan Rachel Wood as one of Bullock's daughters, who was replaced by Joey King , since the characters are meant to be in college. Bullock and Kidman have fantastic chemistry in the movie, and that energy has carried over to the press tour, with viral clips dominating the web in the run-up to the movie's release. Bullock has kept herself so scarce cinematically that seeing her onscreen is always exciting; she feels like one of the few true movie stars we have left who hasn't completely oversaturated the market or overstayed their welcome.

I acknowledge that these movies are not really for me — I want my movies about witches to do more with the dark arts than make margaritas and flicker the lights — and this sequel will likely satisfy fans who are simply eager to spend more time with these characters and their world. I found the movie's use of the legacy-sequel framework uninspiring and was never fully engaged with the story, which I felt hewed too closely to the original, both in content and in the way it's all so loosely connected.

The biggest issue, though, is with the screenplay. The movie is so all over the place that a "villain" is introduced and dealt with within a 10-minute span, then the movie climaxes, ostensibly wrapping everything up, only to go on for another 20 minutes that are absolutely useless and deadly. The plotting on the way there is as perfunctory as it gets, involving a magic book and a trip abroad to find answers dating back to their ancestral home.

Practical Magic 2 is just as dopey as the first movie — arguably more so — but it's certainly going to fare far better than its predecessor at the box office. But hey, I'm all for studios like Warner Bros. mining their back catalogs for unexpectedly viable IP and capitalizing on cult fandom. People who love the first film will likely have a good enough time, and the box office could also use a Sandra Bullock infusion. The best we can hope for is that the next legacy sequel, plucked from onetime obscurity and based on a cable-TV-era cult classic, finds a more compelling reason to exist.

What other critics are saying : Other reviews are similarly brutal. The Telegraph's Tim Robey calls it "the most blatant fan service in years: a blandly watchable but stubbornly inessential sequel to a forgettable 1998 romp." Anna McKibbin at the AV Club writes , "Even if Practical Magic was a beloved part of your childhood, it's hard to see what would excite you about this sequel."

How to watch : Practical Magic 2 is now playing in theaters nationwide .

Why I liked it, with reservations: South Korean director Na Hong-jin is back with his first film since 2016's The Wailing, and it's a propulsive, wacky sci-fi creature feature that delivers blockbuster-sized spectacle in several memorable chase and/or action sequences. It's quite funny too, in ways both big and small.

But Hope is also so deeply weird and strange that much of its crowd-pleasing energy burns off as it goes, culminating in an ending that had the audience I saw it with murmuring "huhs?!" aloud, despite its killer third-act set piece. I also believe that the best sequence happens right up top, when our protagonist keeps almost encountering the monster but only sees the trail of destruction.

The synopsis: In the remote South Korean village of Hope Harbor, a police chief and officer are called to investigate a mysterious creature wreaking havoc on the community. But all is not as it seems, and perceptions can be misleading. What begins as ignorance plants the seed of disaster, which, through human conflict, escalates into a tragedy of cosmic proportions.

The monsters themselves are sure to be a point of controversy, both in their design and in the CGI used to create them. The creatures feel very video-game-y, likely due to the fact that they run faster than any other monster I've ever seen in a movie and are far closer in spirit to unbeatable bosses in a game. There's been lots of talk about how scary it is when Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees walk slowly; we never considered how much more terrifying it would be if they were as fast as jaguars.

Thematically, the movie isn't breaking new ground, as its central idea feels like the flipside of the dynamic explored in Arrival, which concerns miscommunication between different worlds and how that can lead to our destruction. Hope is, ironically, less hopeful ultimately than Arrival, arguing that humans act impulsively without fully understanding the threat they face and are likely doomed as a result.

Hope ekes out a recommendation purely on the strength of its multiple extended set pieces, which are compelling before they start to get a bit repetitive. It may be an unwieldy sight, but it's worth the price of admission.

What other critics are saying : It's getting great marks! Nick Schager at the Daily Beast calls it "an import of larger-than-life imagination and artistry that rarely lets its foot off the gas." The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw writes, "There is some top-quality entertainment value on offer here from a movie which can only intensify the world's K-obsession."

How to watch : Hope is now playing in theaters nationwide .

Why I liked it: A mismatched buddy action-comedy starring Owen Wilson? Welcome back, early 2000s!

In the latest flick from Angel Studios, whose theatrical footprint has really grown this year , a former soldier and his unlikely partner become the targets of a ruthless cartel while racing to complete a critical medical delivery and save the life of a little girl.

To get a bit more specific, Owen Wilson plays a guy transporting an organ on ice with a very specific, fast-approaching expiration date. This makes the organ highly sought after by bad people, as it would fetch a ton of money on the black market … or maybe somebody has another reason for wanting it.

Ritchson plays the extremely reluctant courier hired to transport Wilson, and his dedication to getting the job done at any cost really helps power the movie. The action is exciting and fun, and the banter between Ritchson and Wilson is a hoot and harkens back to a bygone era of Wilson-starring action-comedies. The plot is simply an excuse to showcase chase and action sequences, and the movie capitalizes on every opportunity, using some really clever camerawork.

I found Runner to be about 10,000% better than I expected based solely on its poster and premise. They should teach it in film school to show how even tired, formulaic material can work when it's handled with care and performed well. I was totally in the palm of the movie's hand. It's an unexpectedly crowd-pleasing charmer that I hope finds an audience and becomes a sleeper hit. It's a great time at the movies.

What other critics are saying : They're similarly impressed, relatively speaking. Todd Gilchrist at Variety writes, "This clunky vehicle doesn't transcend its limitations — Wilson and Ritchson's efforts are the duct tape holding it together — but it's much better than anyone could have expected." TheWrap's William Bibbiani calls it "the porridge Goldilocks ate, if Goldilocks loved kicking butt and taking names."

How to watch : Runner is now playing in theaters nationwide .

The Uprising: This perfectly serviceable but rather dull historical action film is overtly political and doesn't have to tie itself in knots to make connections between the 1381 Peasants' Revolt in England and how wealth and power function today. It's not subtle about it; the rebelling commoners are at one point referred to as "deplorables." Andrew Garfield plays the leader of a ferocious rebellion against the tyranny of King Richard II, forming an army of the people to face the king's might in a fight for justice. The most interesting thing about this movie is, unfortunately, extratextual, as the U.S. marketing pivoted late in the game to calling it The Uprising: The Rise of Robin Hood and stressing that the film was "set against the true events of the uprising that helped inspire the legend of Robin Hood," even as the non-U.S. marketing departments insisted that it was not, in fact, about Robin Hood. I can confirm, dear reader, that the movie does, in fact, pivot to a stealth origin story for Robin Hood eventually, much like it unfolded in the press: at the absolute last minute! It's far more compelling as a movie about the Peasants' Revolt than as a Robin Hood picture, and that's without getting into the muddying of timelines for those who care about historical accuracy. Get tickets

The Fix : I'm not sure this war-torn action flick with Zachary Levi and Liam Neeson needed to be two and a half hours, but I'd be lying if I didn't acknowledge that it held my attention throughout. Disillusioned by the end of the war in Afghanistan, a group of disgraced ex-CIA operatives set out for Tehran to take down a life-changing score. Its well-staged battle sequences make the action feel immediate, and the plot's busyness is well handled through taut cross-cutting as it turns into a high-stakes heist flick. It works, and Levi really nails the part. Don't expect to see much Neeson, though — he's barely in it. Get tickets.

Oasis: Don't Look Back in Anger: This hybrid documentary-concert film highlights Oasis's massive 2025 reunion tour, including raw rehearsal footage, backstage access and the first joint interview with Liam and Noel Gallagher in over 15 years. Fans of the band are in for an unexpectedly emotional treat. Get tickets.

Editor's note: My Yahoo colleague Kelsey Weekman reviewed this one.

Why I liked it: One Night Only has one of the most compelling and strange premises I've ever seen in a romantic comedy: What if extramarital sex were outlawed, except for one night a year, during which people completely lose their minds?

Allie (Monica Barbaro) and Owen (Callum Turner) play, respectively, a pharmaceutical jingle singer (a great running bit) and a pizza shop owner, who, for varying reasons, are hunting for a human connection (literally) on the least romantic night of the year. The bizarre rules of the night keep getting in their way, tearing them apart, then bringing them back together.

What I didn't expect was how much I full-body laughed at the gags in the kooky dystopian landscape, which is portrayed as more ridiculous than harrowing. There's a parade of celebrity cameos (King Princess! One of the Haim sisters! Pete Davidson! LeVar Burton!) who shuttle the plot along nicely by weaving in and out of the paths of our protagonists.

In our actual dystopian world, where it's hard to find a funny romance that doesn't feel like streaming algorithm slop, I don't mind a few enemies-to-lovers tropes sprinkled into a genuinely original idea. That said, I recognize a movie with such a banger of a premise is going to fall short of many moviegoers' expectations. Don't go in expecting incisive political commentary, though it's not entirely devoid of that — people speak out against "the mandate," but they give themselves fully to the chaos of the night as well. After all, there are 364 other nights of the year for protest.

Before you go, consider how the fictional ban might be enforced, what the punishment might be, where the loopholes are and why a puritanical society might allow one night of release. Theorizing about the technicalities of the sex Purge might be more fun than the movie itself.

What other critics are saying : I admit I liked it more than most. TheWrap's Matt Goldberg writes that there are "plenty of gags along the way paired with the strong chemistry between leads," adding that it "feels like the kind of movie that shouldn't work, and you're delighted that it does." On the other hand, the New York Times' Natalia Winkelman writes , "With nothing to say about sex or society, the repression plot mostly gets in the way of a movie that would prefer to be a routine romance."

How to watch : One Night Only is now available to rent or buy on Apple TV , Prime Video and other VOD platforms.

Why I found it ... OK: Jason Statham's latest Jason Statham movie delivers exactly what you'd expect from it, and not an ounce more.

After witnessing his billionaire boss's murder and being framed for the crime, Cole Reed (Statham) boards a cargo ship on a one-man crusade to avenge the death, only to discover an international human trafficking conspiracy.

It's about as boilerplate as it gets and plays more like a straight-to-video variant of this type of thing. But it does really come alive in the action scenes, especially the first one, which is highlighted in the trailer above.

Unfortunately, there aren't quite enough of those sequences for this to rank in the top tier of Statham joints. They're selling it as " Die Hard on a boat" as if Steven Seagal didn't already do that way back in 1992.

What other critics are saying : It's an even split! Amy Nicholson at the Los Angeles Times writes, "No one is going to see Mutiny for the plot, some will counter. Fair point. I'll go further and say Mutiny would be improved if it hadn't bothered with a script at all and simply titled the film " Thirty Kills in 95 Minutes ." Ben Lee at the Guardian writes, "The action genre is undoubtedly in need of new tricks, but until they come, films like Mutiny offer a modestly entertaining reminder of what the old dogs can still do."

How to watch : Mutiny is now available to rent or buy on Apple TV , Prime Video and other VOD platforms.

Moana : You'd think a super-expensive "live-action" remake of Moana would nail the basics, like having the titular character sailing on the water. I put "live-action" in quotes because damn near every element onscreen in this latest Disney double-dip cash-grab is still digital and fake, just far uglier and less colorful than it was before . It's a hideously ugly, low-rent production that looks and feels like a cheap theme-park cosplay experience rather than an actual movie. As far as adapting the material goes, it's basically a word-for-word, shot-for-shot copy of the original. When you factor in that it's only been a decade since the original debuted and just a year and a half since the release of its hastily produced animated sequel (really just a few episodes of a planned Disney+ series strung together), it strains credulity even more. Just watch the original animated version on Disney+ instead. Rent or buy.

📺 Movies newly available on streaming services you may already have

Why I didn't like it: As a noted hater of James Gunn's Superman but a big fan of the comic book series that this new movie is based on ( Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow, by writer Tom King and artist Bilquis Evely), I had high hopes for Supergirl. The movie did not meet them.

Milly Alcock of HBO's House of the Dragon stars as Clark Kent's cousin Kara Zor-El, and here's what passes for a plot: When an unexpected and ruthless adversary strikes too close to home, Kara Zor-El, aka Supergirl, reluctantly joins forces with an unlikely companion on an epic, interstellar journey of vengeance and justice.

While the movie technically adapts the comic book's story, it does so in such disastrous ways that they might as well have left the source material alone. In Woman of Tomorrow, you are made to feel how evil marauding space villain Krem is; he comes off quite menacing and scary on the page. In the movie, we know he's bad because he's made up to look like a Mad Max villain, with studs in his face and the like. It's a great look, but that's not characterization, and he has none here. Thus, an A-grade villain becomes a generic, forgettable bad guy.

Even worse, Ruthye, the Supergirl ally who is such a key part in the books, gets sidelined in a way that makes her annoying and useless. Her arc in the comic mirrors Mattie's in Charles Portis's legendary novel True Grit, and even her dialogue throughout the series makes it clear that's what they're going for. The movie abandons all of this to give us … Jason Momoa as Lobo, a fan-favorite bounty hunter character who has no business being in the movie at all, and a fetch-quest plot centered around the poisoning of a CGI dog that was already overutilized in the last movie. The story of Woman of Tomorrow is such a layup, and they give it up for no good reason.

The movie plays like a Star Wars cantina band-scene compilation for a while as Kara and friends traverse the galaxy to track down the antidote to the poison or whatever. It's one Mos Eisley after another! These sequences feature some fun, practical makeup on the monsters and cool-looking sets mixed in with awful-looking digital effects, which only serve to emphasize how muddy and bad the movie looks the rest of the time.

Supergirl, worst of all, shortchanges Kara, who feels like she's second- or third-string in her own movie at times. She doesn't get to do anything "super," really, and is often seen just floating around, which, again, looks terrible because these movies are now all shot in warehouses with backgrounds added in post. It's clear that Momoa's Lobo is shoehorned in because somebody at Warner Bros. was worried that a female-centric superhero movie wouldn't sell enough tickets. You could excise his character from the movie entirely and lose nothing. In fact, it would be better. And I've barely mentioned how incoherent and useless the action sequences are; not a single one makes an impression, unless what they were going for is me squinting to see what the hell is happening.

Supergirl goes in a decidedly different direction from Superman, leaning more into Star Wars territory, which, combined with the reverence the movie shows for its needle drops, makes it feel like another attempt at Guardians of the Galaxy. The Mad Max aesthetic is cool, but those movies work because they have the action and spectacle to back it up. Supergirl does not, nor does it have an actual story to engage with.

The one-two punch of Superman and Supergirl was supposed to usher in an exciting and bold new era at DC, despite industry headwinds suggesting that superhero movies have lost their luster. Instead, all they've done is prove there's not much juice left to squeeze.

What other critics are saying: It was torn apart! Clarisse Loughrey at the Independent writes, "The mandate here appears to be to keep things as distinctly Gunn-esque as possible. In return, Superman's moodier, more cynical relative has been robbed of the chance to speak with her own voice. It's the superhero equivalent of a Vegas impersonator." Robbie Collin at the Telegraph says it's "like watching an endless orangey-gray rehash of scenes from Mad Max and Star Wars . Who is faster than a speeding bullet and can leap tall buildings in a single bound? Supergirl 's novel answer: Who cares?"

How to watch : Supergirl is now streaming on HBO Max .

Why I liked it: The latest caper from Guy Ritchie sports a top-notch cast and a whole bunch of exposition, but if you're a fan of Ritchie's output, it's another well-directed and edited B-picture.

When a ruthless despot steals a billion-dollar fortune, a covert team of elite operatives is sent to take it back, and an impossible heist erupts into a deadly game of strategy, deception and survival.

It's a good, old-fashioned programmer that feels like they made the entire movie out of the pre-heist montage; imagine Ocean's 11 if the entire runtime were devoted to the characters detailing what they're about to do, and then doing it. It's been trimmed of all excess and is a lean, mean, "extended set-up followed by an action set-piece" machine. It's meticulous planning made cinematic through Ritchie's sheer bombast.

I found it a lot of fun, and it's frankly too bad it bombed at the box office, because I would've easily watched one of these every year. Thankfully, Ritchie's output has been staggering lately, and hopefully, this one tanking won't stop him.

What other critics are saying : It's a real mixed bag. Jesse Hassenger at the AV Club dug it, writing, "Anyone who enjoys Ritchie's now-annual adventures can safely surrender to this one." TheWrap's William Bibbiani writes, "It's a one-way ticket to Dullsville. Population: this poor, poor cast."

How to watch : In The Grey is streaming on Starz beginning Saturday, Sept. 12.

Driver's Ed: This throwback charmer, directed by Bobby Farrelly, one-half of the legendary comedic filmmaking duo, plays like an '80s teen comedy à la The Breakfast Club or Ferris Bueller's Day Off, despite a plot straight out of something more early 2000s like Road Trip. (It's decidedly less raunchy, though.) What it lacks in big-swing laughs, it makes up for in earnest observations about a very specific time in life, the transition from high school to college, and the relationships that wind up as unintended casualties of that situation, no matter how strong the bond between the two people involved. The plot involves a group of teens stealing their school's driver's ed car for a road trip to help a high school senior track down his college freshman girlfriend and win her back. The teens learn valuable life lessons along the way, as Molly Shannon, Kumail Nanjiani, and Tim Baltz earn lots of laughs as the adults trying to get them home without involving the authorities. It's nowhere near the level of Farrelly material, but it's warm, honest and funny enough to recommend because it treats its characters like real people rather than archetypes . Now streaming on Paramount+ .

That's all for this week! We'll see you next Friday.

Looking for more recs? Find your next watch on the Yahoo 100 , our daily list of the most popular movies of the year.