Compare Wicked: For Good vs A Talent for Murder

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

The face-transition effect earns a strong complaint for looking poorly executed at a crucial late moment.

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 montage of shifting faces helps turn changing identities into a distinctly cinematic experience.

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 thinly drawn characters can make it hard to care about their fortunes, leaving the story emotionally distant.

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 limited action does little to lift the pace for one viewer, who wanted more happening between the talk-heavy scenes.

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 insults and verbal volleys can be sharply funny, even top-notch. Other responses find the lines insufficiently cutting, unnaturally assembled, or repetitive by the later scenes.

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.

The sensual moments are enjoyable for one account, while another sees them as a reason to reserve the film for mature viewers. The sexual material is not considered especially explicit by R-rated thriller standards.

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.

Rich color, European scenery, and expressive light and shadow are major strengths. Even less favorable responses often admire the photography, though a few find the Swiss landscape underused.

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.

Premeditated murder, sexual material, and profanity limit the film's appeal as entertainment for families with younger children.

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

The ominous string score is admired for its atmosphere, but its insistence can also promise more thrills than the movie delivers or reveal emotional turns too clearly.

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

The screenplay's clever metafictional premise earns real admiration, but its theatrical dialogue, competing narratives, and uncertain conclusion are frequent obstacles. Opinions differ sharply on whether ambiguity enriches the script or exposes its weaknesses.

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.

The film works best as a cerebral, performance-led thriller. Some enjoy its seductive literary games, while others find too little urgency or surprise to satisfy the genre promise.

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 dramatic games can be clever and engaging, though the combination of literary drama and thriller is less convincing to some.

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

The lined, pasty physical appearance supports a committed, deliberately unglamorous version of Highsmith.

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 overlapping realities can be an intriguing puzzle or a source of persistent confusion. Visual and performance cues help some viewers follow the shifts, but the ending leaves others unsure what they have watched.

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.

Corbijn's strongest work creates tension through controlled staging and carefully chosen images. Detractors find the approach flat or too theatrical, particularly when the film tries to expand beyond the central house.

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.

The central literary challenge is a compelling hook, and the nested story can be inventive and immersive. Less favorable responses find the plotting dull, stale, or unable to connect its competing strands.

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.

A slow opening and momentum lost away from Highsmith's house are recurring complaints. Supporters find the deliberate buildup absorbing or increasingly rewarding, while others experience repetition and boredom.

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.

Identity, concealed impulses, and the connection between an author and a fictional creation give the film substantial interpretive appeal. Not everyone thinks its ambitious questions receive enough depth or payoff.

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.

One favorable account finds the film's Ripley-like figure close to the personality of Highsmith's novels, especially his dissatisfaction with himself and hunger for social advancement.

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

The conversational contest can create electric psychological tension. The invented plot's weaker stakes, predictable turns, and departures from the chamber setting often blunt that suspense.

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 stylized fiction is grounded enough for some viewers. Others struggle with the characters' supposedly dangerous nature, the intellectual connection, or romantic encounters that make little practical sense.

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.

The running time feels cramped to accounts wanting fuller development of the nested thriller. Another response finds the overall experience quick and breezy despite occasional dragging scenes.

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 romance offers fun and heat but often feels secondary to the author-editor contest. Implausible encounters and time spent away from Mirren reduce its value for some.

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.

Dry insults, uncomfortable exchanges, and sly dark comedy provide much of the entertainment. Mirren's caustic delivery is a particularly reliable source of laughs.

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 ending is the biggest dividing point: some enjoy its open questions and gathering momentum, but many find it weak, abrupt, overcomplicated, or less ingenious than promised.

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.

Ehrenreich's character gains layers as confidence and menace emerge, and Mirren reveals vulnerability beneath hostility. Clementine is repeatedly considered underwritten, while one brief supporting character supplies welcome emotional depth.

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.

The story-within-a-story device feels fresh to some, but others see a derivative inheritance scheme and a familiar Ripley imitation. Its inventiveness is more contested than its cast's appeal.

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.

Some find the mixture of lighter real-world scenes and darker invented ones well balanced. Others see a film uncertain of its own identity or lacking conviction.

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.

The brutal murder plotting is enjoyable as thriller entertainment for one account, while another regards even the relatively restrained violence as a mature-content concern.

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.

A few jump scares work effectively because Mirren's presence and the uneasy staging make small jolts count.

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.

Mirren and Ehrenreich's verbal duel is frequently the film's strongest element. Ehrenreich and Cooke also generate convincing romantic heat, though chemistry cannot always overcome doubts about the situations.

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.

Memorability is a weakness: several accounts describe fleeting entertainment, forgettable sequences, or little desire for a second viewing.

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.

Strong performances and attractive craft make this an enjoyable diversion for many. Enjoyment depends on tolerating the slow start and an ambiguous payoff that some find fascinating and others reject outright.

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.

Bloody murder, sexual scenes, and strong language make this a mature thriller rather than an appropriate choice for younger audiences.

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.

This is an acquired taste: patience for a contained, conversational mystery matters more than a general appetite for thrillers.

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.

Brief supporting performances add charm and intrigue, with Brennan especially praised for emotional layers and a comforting presence.

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.

The leading work is usually a major reason to watch, particularly Mirren's intimidating wit and Ehrenreich's transformations. A few responses find parts theatrical or less convincing, but the leads regularly outperform the 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.

The cast is the most dependable attraction, with Mirren's acidic presence and Ehrenreich's shifting identities drawing frequent praise. Strong acting often carries scenes whose plotting earns a less enthusiastic response.

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 handsome, richly colored presentation and giallo-like imagined sequences are frequent pleasures. A dissenting response finds the film visually anonymous despite its attractive material.

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.

Elegant clothes add visual pleasure, while smaller wardrobe changes help distinguish the nervous editor from his more polished fictional counterpart.

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.

Highsmith's weapon-filled, cluttered home vividly communicates her personality, while the glamorous interiors offer a contrasting world. The sets are among the most consistently admired parts of the production.

Mirren's American accent draws a specific complaint for sounding exaggerated, even from an otherwise enthusiastic response to her performance.

The isolated house and cool European settings create an appealing mix of cozy intimacy and menace. Some find the mood absorbing, while others wish the landscape or claustrophobia had been used more effectively.

The fictional Highsmith portrait earns both appreciation and frustration. Some find a convincing late-life personality, while others see a softened caricature or little more than a collection of biographical details.

The treatment of a real author is contentious, especially where her prejudices are softened or murderous possibilities are suggested. An explicit acknowledgment that the story is fictional offers some reassurance.

The ensemble can feel exceptionally well chosen, but one account finds the insistence on Edward's youth awkward beside the actor's clearly adult appearance.

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.

Mirren's long absences are a recurring frustration because the housebound contest is often the main attraction. Cooke likewise has less material than her performance seems capable of supporting.

The social-climbing plot loses force for one critic because advancement seems assured, without enough risk of exposure or loss of status.

Hitchcock-inspired visual techniques give the film a pleasing classical-thriller flavor, especially in its close-ups, juxtapositions, and understated staging.

Mirren's timing makes the barbed remarks land, with both a critic and an audience reaction singling out her comic precision.

A supposedly seductive surprise involving a bedroom intrusion and a knife is criticized as crossing the boundaries implied by the invitation.

The imagined collaboration between Highsmith and Edward is exhilarating when their intellectual, artistic, and psychological sparring comes together.

The best moments turn inventing a murder into a revealing contest between author and collaborator. Opinions split on whether the film explores that process sharply enough or wanders too far into the story they create.

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.

The near-constant smoking is distracting for one viewer, who finds it excessive rather than an effective part of the period atmosphere.

The film's balance suffers when the expanding story sidelines Mirren, whose central contest is often its strongest material.

Claustrophobic close-ups and carefully juxtaposed faces give the psychological exchanges visual force and emphasize unstable identities.

The attempted blend of literary drama and psychological thriller does not fully click for one account, leaving the performances stronger than the combined story.

The deliberately unflattering haircut contributes to Mirren's convincing lack of glamour as the reclusive author.

The strong language contributes to the mature-content reservation, especially for anyone seeking a gentler mystery.

The handling of sexuality divides opinion: one account appreciates its integration with identity themes, while another objects that a story about a queer figure remains heavily heterosexual.

Cold Alpine light and warmer noir shadows distinguish the film's different worlds. Low light and firelit interiors are also praised for expressing the characters' hidden sides.

The film can feel like a clever lost Highsmith tale, capturing her interest in deception and dark impulses. Other accounts see fan fiction that misses the originality, nastiness, and elegant plotting of its model.

The strangers-on-a-train opening supplies a clever, recognizable nod to Highsmith that adds pleasure for viewers who catch the reference.

One account credits the visibly convincing location work with strengthening the film's sense of place.

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.

The premise offers intriguing literary games, but the mystery does not always match the standard it invokes. A missing-agent thread is also criticized as underdeveloped.

Several accounts struggle to care about the invented murders because the story feels hypothetical or the social advancement too assured. The absence of meaningful risk weakens the thriller's urgency.

The initial train meeting is singled out as a clever way to launch the story and introduce its literary echoes.

Reversals divide opinion between ingenious surprise and predictable, low-impact plotting. Several accounts feel the final turns either go on too long or fail to reframe the story convincingly.

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

Opening the play into multiple screen realities is clever and cinematic for some viewers. Others find the expansion stiff, overcomplicated, or less tense than the basic two-person contest.

Highsmith makes an intriguing adversary: difficult to read, mischievous, and apparently several moves ahead of her visitor.

Edward works as a worthwhile protagonist for some, but the thinner, status-driven characters can make emotional investment difficult.

The title sounds somewhat like a direct-to-video thriller to one account, underselling the film's more sophisticated ambitions.

The opening narration suggests an intriguing possibility about who is inventing the story, but that possibility is considered underdeveloped.

The promotional impression can make the film look safer and more conventional than its adult wit, dark comedy, and ambiguous design actually are.

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 production values are gorgeous enough to stand out even in a strongly negative response to the movie overall.

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

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

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.