Compare The Mortuary Assistant vs Wicked: For Good

The limited physical action drew a sharp complaint for awkward staging and editing when characters are thrown around or fight supernatural forces.

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 clinical mortuary work benefits from tactile sets and convincing practical detail, making embalming and corpse preparation feel unusually immediate. A few effects break the illusion, but the procedural material is a major grounding force.

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.

The score divides reviewers: some found it enveloping or appropriately eerie, while others thought the cues were intrusive, generic, or forgettable and sometimes spoiled otherwise tense moments.

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

As horror, the movie is divisive and leans negative: practical gore and creepy mortuary imagery satisfy some genre fans, while many others say it simply is not scary or tense enough.

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.

For viewers seeking graphic horror, the violence is a feature rather than a flaw: mutilation, bloodletting, corpse work, and gore are described as nasty, visceral, and enthusiastically effective.

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.

Humor is mostly accidental rather than intentional. Reviewers who laughed did so at stiff performances or awkward horror beats, not because the script successfully plays as comedy.

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.

Character chemistry is inconsistent. Some reviewers liked the uneasy interplay around Rebecca and Raymond, while others felt the cast lacked connection and that this weakened the film’s emotional pull.

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.

CGI impressions are mixed-to-positive: some reviewers found the digital work solid or unobtrusive, while another thought noticeable CGI use undercut creature scenes that would have benefited from more practical 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.

Scare effectiveness is the central disappointment for many reviewers. Creepy background figures, the Mimic, body horror, and occasional fake-outs work, but repetitive jump scares and weak buildup often keep the film from feeling truly frightening.

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 can generate dread through isolation, shadows, and clinical routine, especially early on. Many reviewers say that tension repeatedly collapses under exposition, predictable jump scares, or overexposed monsters.

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

Body and creature makeup is usually praised, especially the grisly mortuary work. The main monster is more divisive, with some calling it memorable and others saying visible low-budget seams make it look costume-like.

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

The finale is one of the weakest consensus areas, often described as rushed, underwhelming, confusing, or not worth the buildup. A minority liked how it folded multiple game endings together and left room for more.

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.

The film recreates the game’s location, rituals, creatures, and recognizable beats with considerable fidelity. Reviewers disagree on whether that loyalty is a strength or the reason game mechanics and lore feel clumsy on screen.

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.

Several reviewers felt the movie stays flat or shifts awkwardly between trauma drama, game-like tasks, and supernatural horror. Its grim mood is consistent visually, but dramatic escalation often feels uneven.

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.

The addiction-and-trauma material can hit hard when Rebecca’s guilt and recovery are foregrounded, and one reviewer found it deeply resonant. Others felt weak chemistry or clumsy integration blunted that impact.

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.

One reviewer felt Holland could make dramatic moments land even when the script had not fully earned them, highlighting how much the emotional material depends on her performance.

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 mortuary is often photographed with immersive close-ups, shadows, tracking shots, and claustrophobic framing. A smaller group found the lighting muddy, washed out, or visually bland.

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.

Practical mortuary effects are the film’s most consistent triumph. Embalming, autopsy, gore, wounds, corpses, and prosthetic work are repeatedly called convincing, visceral, gross, and memorable.

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

Jeremiah Kipp earns credit for atmosphere, clinical detail, and isolated creepy images, but opinions split on his handling of pacing, action, and narrative coherence. The craft is often stronger than the movie’s overall flow.

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.

A handful of reviewers liked the unusual mortuary-and-demon concept and reality-bending setup, giving the core premise stronger marks than the execution around it.

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.

Editing is a recurring problem: several reviewers describe scenes as disconnected, oddly ordered, or abruptly cut between scares and exposition. A few found the construction serviceable, but the overall pattern is negative.

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 core premise has potential, but the movie’s story is usually judged too cluttered, repetitive, or lore-heavy to fully work. A smaller group likes how it reshapes multiple game threads into one night and gives Rebecca more personal context.

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.

Effects work is overwhelmingly praised, especially the visceral corpse preparation, gore, prosthetics, and body-horror imagery. Even reviewers who dislike the movie often single out the effects as worth seeing.

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

The screenplay is the film’s most consistently criticized creative component. Dense lore, repetitive explanations, awkward structure, and game-like task progression often crowd out a clean cinematic narrative.

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

At roughly an hour and a half, the film is objectively compact, yet many reviewers say it feels much longer because of repetition and exposition. A few thought the concise length worked in its favor.

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.

Addiction, grief, guilt, self-harm, and the idea of a lifelong struggle against inner demons give the film thematic ambition. Reviewers split sharply on whether those ideas feel poignant or overly familiar and explicit.

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.

Rebecca’s recovery, grief, and growing confidence give the film an emotional spine for some viewers. Others found her backstory thin, clichéd, or awkwardly connected to the demonic plot.

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 mythology and cause-and-effect are frequently hard to follow, especially for newcomers. A few reviewers found the reveals clear enough, but many describe unanswered questions, confusing rules, and scenes that fail to connect.

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.

The addiction-and-possession parallel works for reviewers who connect with Rebecca’s lifelong struggle against guilt and relapse. Others find the metaphor obvious, overexplained, or too loosely attached to the plot.

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.

Pacing is one of the strongest recurring complaints. Many reviewers found the 90-ish-minute film slow, uneven, repetitive, or burdened by exposition, although a few liked its concise slow-burn rhythm.

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.

Dialogue is a consistent weakness, with repeated complaints about unnatural exchanges, robotic delivery, exposition-heavy conversations, and lines that feel carried over from game logic rather than film dialogue.

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 cast is one of the film’s most disputed elements. Willa Holland is frequently praised for grounding Rebecca, while several reviewers found other performances stiff, robotic, or uneven.

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.

Supporting performances are much more divisive than the lead. Paul Sparks is praised by some as perfectly eerie and detached, while others call him robotic, one-note, or unintentionally funny; smaller supporting turns fare better.

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.

Music reactions lean negative overall: some liked the creepy game-derived theme, but others found the broader music distracting, overbearing, or too eager to manufacture scares.

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.

Willa Holland is the clearest acting strength and is repeatedly credited with carrying the film through weak exposition and uneven scares. Even mixed reviews usually describe her as committed, grounded, or effective.

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.

Value depends heavily on the viewer: game fans and body-horror devotees can find the faithful details worth the ticket or rental, while one severe detractor regretted even a tiny booking fee.

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

Rewatch interest is split but generally positive among supporters: some expect repeat viewings to reveal missed details or reward devoted fans, while confusion made at least one reviewer’s repeat attempts feel like work.

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.

Overall enjoyment skews negative despite pockets of enthusiasm. Viewers who respond to the gore, mortuary setting, and game callbacks can have fun, but many found the movie boring, tedious, or forgettable.

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.

Game fans are the clearest target, with several reviewers saying familiarity adds recognition and context. Newcomer appeal is much less certain because the lore can be hard to follow, though a few reviewers found it accessible without playing.

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.

One reviewer treated the film as plausible high-school sleepover horror, while another informally pegged its gore, profanity, and embalming imagery around a PG-13 level. The material is still deliberately grisly.

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.

The demonic rules and mortuary mythology are a major fault line. Fans sometimes enjoy the expanded lore and game callbacks, but many reviewers find the explanations simultaneously dense, incomplete, and difficult to translate into movie logic.

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.

River Fields Mortuary is widely praised as a claustrophobic, detailed central location that often resembles the game closely. Even negative reviews commonly acknowledge the set work and low-budget production effort.

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.

Sound design is a major technical strength, from clinical embalming noises to oppressive institutional clangs and subtle mortuary ambience. Even mixed reviews credit it with doing heavy atmospheric work.

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

The film has striking pockets of grim lighting, clinical close-ups, game-faithful compositions, and creepy creature imagery. Other reviewers find the palette drab or the lighting too dark, so the visual style is more admired in moments than universally.

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.

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.

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.

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.

One horror-focused review treats the foul-mouthed possession material as part of the film’s enjoyable extreme-horror texture rather than a distracting excess.

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 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.