Compare Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man vs Wicked: For Good

Tommy’s spiritual and gypsy side is praised as one of the most worthwhile expansions of his character in the film.

One review raises a pointed concern about how the film’s romance and language may reinforce troubling ideas around desirability and skin tone. That criticism is specific rather than broadly echoed.

An apparent CGI hat is called distractingly bad, standing out as a conspicuous weakness in the effects work.

Where discussed broadly, the spectacle and magical effects are praised for helping make Oz feel grand and cinematic.

The cinematography is the clearest consensus strength, praised for striking light, shadow, mud, rubble, wintry landscapes, and a genuinely cinematic sense of scale.

Camera movement and a few musical sequences are praised, but the dim, washed-out, heavily backlit look is a persistent complaint. Reviewers are split between admiring inventive framing and wishing the imagery were easier to see.

Some newcomers report following the story surprisingly easily without heavy recaps, but other reviews point to shaky logic or exposition that does too much work.

The story becomes harder to follow as it intersects with The Wizard of Oz. Reviewers criticize abrupt character turns, missing connective tissue, and an expectation that viewers will fill gaps from prior knowledge.

Tom Harper is frequently praised for confident staging, visual control, suspense, and explosive set pieces. A few reviews fault specific tonal or narrative choices even while admiring the filmmaking.

Jon M. Chu’s direction splits reviewers sharply. Some celebrate the scale, musical staging, and visual ambition, while others criticize conventional blocking, overstuffed frames, or a lack of cinematic spark.

The script earns credit for themes, twists, and some strong dialogue, but criticism is substantial: exposition, clichés, rushed character work, and compressed plotting repeatedly surface.

The screenplay draws substantial criticism for disjointed structure, underexplained turns, repetitive ideas, and additions that do not justify the expanded runtime.

Hazy reverie-style editorial cuts are criticized as visually cheesy and as interruptions to the otherwise painterly presentation.

Editing is one of the clearer weaknesses, with complaints about choppy musical staging, awkward transitions, and material that feels in need of substantial trimming.

The romantic material fares poorly, with Tommy’s sex scene described as cheesy rather than convincing.

The romance is sharply mixed. Some find Elphaba and Fiyero moving or passionate, while others call their physical relationship rushed, hollow, awkward, or disruptive to the stronger friendship story.

The eerie, supernatural-leaning material is praised as some of the eeriest material the franchise has attempted.

The darker transformations and body-horror touches are effective for some reviewers, who find them creepy and memorable. Others note that the intensity may be unsettling for younger viewers.

The film restores the show’s swagger, music, visual language, and callbacks, satisfying many longtime fans. Others see missing characters and major legacy decisions as betrayals of the series’ established arcs.

The film is widely seen as a faithful translation of Act II, which pleases established fans but also preserves many of the stage version’s structural weaknesses. Several reviewers explicitly treat that faithfulness as both strength and limitation.

Dialogue receives mixed marks: some reviewers praise sharp lines and economical exposition, while others call it simplistic, clunky, corny, or overly explanatory.

Dialogue receives limited but negative attention, mainly for repetitive wording and lines that feel clunky or overused. These complaints reinforce broader concerns about the script.

The strongest readings focus on legacy, self-definition, family, and the cost of valuing power over people. One severe critic felt the film squandered the larger sense of purpose built around Tommy.

The political and moral messaging is one of the most debated elements. Some reviewers find the warnings about propaganda, authoritarianism, prejudice, and complicity timely and powerful; others find the treatment shallow or muddled.

Legacy, grief, trauma, memory, family inheritance, and self-definition give the film substantial thematic weight. Critics who resist the movie argue these ideas are compressed, overplayed, or left insufficiently explored.

The sequel’s darker themes can be potent, especially around propaganda, prejudice, power, complicity, and moral compromise. Reviewers disagree on whether the film explores those ideas deeply enough or only gestures toward them.

The core legacy-and-war story is compelling and emotionally satisfying for many reviewers, but others call the movie unnecessary, thin, half-baked, or unable to justify rewriting the series’ prior ending.

The central friendship remains compelling, but the story is widely regarded as weaker than Part One. Critics repeatedly point to Act II’s rushed turns, Wizard of Oz overlap, and strained connective plotting.

An apparent CGI hat is called conspicuously poor, creating a distracting visual blemish in the effects work.

Digital effects are a recurring visual weak spot. Reviewers call out uncanny de-aging, artificial animals, and conspicuous digital environments, though a few felt the effects integrated well enough with the practical sets.

The film’s grief-heavy, introspective drama gives Tommy’s final chapter weight for many viewers, though its persistent misery and brooding occasionally overwhelm the entertainment.

The darker dramatic mode generally lands well when the film focuses on friendship, sacrifice, and political pressure. Reviewers who respond to it describe the sequel as more human, serious, and emotionally potent.

The film’s cold-blooded, stylized violence generally fits the franchise’s appeal and is often balanced with swagger or dark humor, though it can edge into grim excess for some viewers.

The film keeps most violence restrained or implied, which some reviewers appreciate, though darker threats, beatings, and body-horror transformations still give the sequel a more intense edge.

For supporters, the film delivers grief, regret, family conflict, and a powerful farewell with real force. Detractors found key deaths rushed, contrived, or too hollow to land.

The emotional payoff is one of the strongest areas of agreement. The Elphaba-Glinda relationship, especially the title duet and final stretch, is repeatedly described as moving, tear-inducing, and cathartic.

The ending is intensely divisive: many call it fitting, powerful, or even perfect closure for Tommy, while others believe it needlessly overturns the stronger symbolism of Season 6.

The finale is divisive: some reviewers find it bittersweet, moving, and satisfying, while others call it rushed, contrived, anticlimactic, or tonally mismatched with the story’s darker implications.

Several set pieces generate strong tension and claustrophobia, especially the pub and tunnel material. Negative reviews say predictability weakens the climax and removes the sharper twists associated with the series.

A few darker sequences generate real tension, particularly around transformations, political danger, and the build toward Glinda’s wedding and the witch hunt.

The action lands best once Tommy returns to Birmingham, with the pub confrontation, shootouts, explosions, and finale frequently singled out. Critics who wanted more momentum found the action too delayed or the climax predictable.

The action earns positive notices when it arrives, especially broom-flight chases and heavier physical set pieces. Reviewers describe these moments as clever, energetic, and more forceful than expected.

The sexual material draws a negative reaction because Tommy’s sex scene is viewed as cheesy and out of place.

The implied intimacy between Elphaba and Fiyero is mild by adult standards but drew criticism for feeling awkward, prolonged, or potentially uncomfortable for families expecting a straightforward PG musical.

As a gangster-period-drama send-off, the movie retains much of the show’s identity and pulp energy. Several critics still feel it plays more like an extended television episode than a fully realized feature.

As a movie musical, the film works best for viewers already receptive to the form and the source. The leads, spectacle, and musical presentation satisfy genre fans even when the second-act songs are considered weaker.

Pacing is the most consistent weakness: the first half is repeatedly described as slow or drawn out, while the later material can feel rushed as too much story is compressed into feature length.

Pacing is the most persistent complaint. Reviewers repeatedly describe a strange combination of dragging scenes and rushed plot turns, with the two-film split often blamed for making Act II feel both padded and hurried.

At roughly feature length, the movie often feels too compressed for the number of character turns and plot developments it attempts. Several reviewers explicitly wish the story had been a season or miniseries instead.

The shorter runtime is appreciated compared with Part One, but many still consider the film overlong for the amount of story it contains. Several reviewers argue substantial trimming would improve it.

Murphy and Keoghan’s father-son dynamic is often described as raw, magnetic, and powerful. A smaller group felt the pair never generated the expected sparks or emotional bond.

Erivo and Grande’s shared chemistry is repeatedly described as electric and central to the movie’s emotional pull. Romantic chemistry draws more mixed reactions, especially around Elphaba and Fiyero.

Period immersion is weakened for some by modern-looking styling, oversized stakes, and questionable wartime plausibility. The film’s stylized mythmaking of Tommy also draws skepticism.

Some reviewers feel the digital sheen and greenscreen-like environments make the world look artificial. The most positive comments come when physical sets and grounded textures overcome that effect.

Dark comedy—especially the Garrison grenade sequence and father-son mud fight—provides welcome relief from the gloom. A few detractors find some of the comic touches cheesy rather than sharp.

Humor is noticeably reduced from Part One, and some critics miss the comic spark that balanced its sentimentality. Others still find Glinda’s reactions, Jeff Goldblum’s Wizard, and isolated comic beats genuinely funny.

The central comeback structure, Nazi scheme, and legacy conflict are often described as familiar or clichéd, with several critics saying the film rarely finds a genuinely new plot shape.

Reworking familiar Wizard of Oz events can be clever and fun, but some critics see the second half as overly dependent on inherited plot machinery. A few appreciate the creative connections as a fresh spin.

Tommy’s reckoning with grief and Duke’s struggle with his father’s legacy work for many reviewers, but the compressed format leaves several supporting characters—and, for some, Duke himself—feeling thin or underdeveloped.

Glinda’s expanded arc earns substantial praise, while several supporting characters are criticized as rushed or underdeveloped. The result is strong growth at the center but uneven attention around the ensemble.

The score is repeatedly praised for building dread, atmosphere, and intensity, especially as Tommy’s return pushes the film toward its climax.

The orchestral score is praised for giving the darker story weight and for carrying musical themes effectively through the film.

The sombre, gothic, highly stylized mood works for some as a fitting final chapter, but others find the film tonally off, overly miserable, campy, or caught awkwardly between old and new Peaky Blinders.

The more consistently somber tone works better for some reviewers than Part One’s abrupt shifts, but others find the seriousness at odds with Oz’s inherent whimsy or disrupted by misplaced comedy and romance.

Rewatch interest is sharply polarized: one enthusiastic reviewer immediately wanted another viewing, while several detractors say they would not revisit it and even feel it harms the series’ rewatchability.

The most enthusiastic reviewers see the two-film adaptation as something they will revisit for years, especially for the performances, musical moments, and return to Oz.

The big-screen outing is framed as earned and worth paying for, with the theatrical presentation treated as part of the appeal.

The reviewers who discuss the theatrical or home-media value directly find the spectacle, technical presentation, and extras substantial enough to justify the experience.

Reactions range from gripping, highly enjoyable fan service to dull, hollow, or unnecessary viewing. A common middle ground is that the movie becomes much more entertaining after its slow first half.

Overall enjoyment is mixed but generally respectable. Devoted fans and viewers swept up by the performances often have a good time, while others find the long, uneven second act a slog.

The visual presentation is consistently celebrated: smoky interiors, chiaroscuro lighting, slow-motion swagger, period grime, and large-scale wartime imagery make the movie look distinctly cinematic.

Visually, the film is a major point of division. Sets, costumes, scale, and color can look sumptuous, but dim lighting, desaturation, backlighting, and artificial-looking CGI repeatedly blunt the intended wonder.

The soundscape can feel forceful and theatrical, with one review highlighting Dolby Atmos impact and another calling the sound design incredible. A major dissent criticizes an aggressive music-to-dialogue mix.

The home-media audio presentation earns strong praise for crisp vocals, powerful bass, directionality, and an expansive soundstage.

The return of Tommy’s tailored Peaky Blinders look remains a major visual pleasure, with covetable coats and sharp suiting earning praise. One review found Duke’s modern-looking styling immersion-breaking.

Costumes are a standout craft element, repeatedly described as lavish, imaginative, character-rich, and visually striking. Even reviews critical of the movie’s lighting tend to praise the wardrobe itself.

Blitz-era Birmingham, grime, rubble, docks, pubs, and warehouses are generally rendered with impressive tactile detail and scale. One negative review thought parts of the production looked like a soundstage.

Production design is among the strongest consensus positives. Oz is repeatedly described as elaborate, colorful, detailed, sumptuous, and richly built even by critics who dislike the lighting or CGI layered over it.

For supporters, Birmingham and the Peaky underworld feel convincingly restored and expanded into wartime. Critics miss the old ensemble and argue the newer, thinner supporting world makes the film feel smaller than the series.

Oz’s physical design remains rich, but reviewers differ on whether the film makes the society feel truly lived-in. Some praise the detailed environment; others say crowds and digital landscapes keep the world emotionally distant.

Modern-rock needle drops remain a signature strength and are widely praised for driving emotion and atmosphere. A few reviewers find the choices dated, overly loud, or less appealing outside the iconic theme reprise.

The music is one of the most divided areas. The title song and No Good Deed are frequent highlights, but reviewers repeatedly say Act II lacks Part One’s memorable songs and find the new additions forgettable or merely serviceable.

The supporting ensemble is generally considered strong, particularly Keoghan, Roth, Rundle, Graham, and Ferguson. The bigger complaint is often that the movie underuses them or gives their characters too little depth.

The supporting ensemble is generally well regarded, with praise for performers such as Jonathan Bailey, Ethan Slater, Marissa Bode, and Jeff Goldblum. Michelle Yeoh’s singing and several underused roles draw the main reservations.

The cast is one of the film’s safest bets: even many negative reviews praise the performances, with the central actors repeatedly credited for elevating uneven material.

The performances are one of the film’s safest strengths, with the central cast repeatedly praised for carrying material that many reviewers found structurally weaker. Even mixed reviews often single out the acting as a reason the sequel still works.

Cillian Murphy’s return as Tommy is overwhelmingly praised for its weary stillness, menace, grief, and emotional control; even harsh critics routinely identify him as a major strength.

Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande receive overwhelming praise, often described as the reason the film survives its weaker plotting and pacing. Their vocals, dramatic work, and shared scenes are consistently highlighted.

Longtime Peaky Blinders fans are the clearest audience, especially for the callbacks and emotional closure. Reviewers disagree on newcomers: some found the film easy to follow, while others strongly recommend watching the series first.

Fans of the stage musical are widely expected to get more from the film than newcomers or viewers lukewarm on Part One. Several reviews frame it as a satisfying fan experience even when broader appeal feels less certain.

The PG-friendly restraint works for some families, but the darker second half, body-horror transformations, and mature themes made several reviewers question suitability for younger children.

Aggregated critical reaction is broadly favorable but not uniform, with enthusiasm for craft and performances tempered by repeated complaints about pacing, script compression, and sequel necessity.

Families may appreciate the restrained violence and PG approach, but darker themes, frightening transformations, and an implied intimate scene make the sequel less universally comfortable for younger viewers.

The makeup and styling receive strong praise where discussed, contributing to the film’s elaborate Oz aesthetic and character presentation.

The practical craft receives favorable notice, especially when tactile sets and in-camera elements help Oz feel physically realized rather than purely digital.

Reviewers appreciate the use of World War II events and the counterfeit-currency plot as historical grounding. Others question specific period details, plausibility, or the sentimental elevation of Tommy within wartime history.