Compare Wicked: For Good vs Practical Magic 2

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.

One review sees real progress in keeping women in their late 50s and early 60s at the center of a studio sequel rather than pushing them aside.

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 strongest realism praise goes to Bullock and Kidman’s sisterly dynamic, which one review says feels like real sisters clashing and reconnecting.

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.

One review says the sluggish writing and pacing drain the life-or-death material of stakes, leaving the movie ineffective as drama.

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

Effects opinion is split: one review praises the de-aging work, while another mocks the broader effects as distinctly unspecial.

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 shift toward a more genuinely spooky or creepy tone does not work for at least one reviewer, who says it clashes with the franchise’s lighter whimsy.

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.

The cinematography draws sharp criticism for an antiseptic, colorless look that loses much of the original film’s warmth.

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.

Tone is a persistent weakness, with reviews describing the sequel as a tonal mess or unable to settle between comedy, drama, whimsy, and darker supernatural material.

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.

Character growth is one of the clearest weaknesses. Reviews repeatedly say returning characters regress or stagnate, while Antonia and other supporting figures are given too little development.

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.

Comedy is inconsistent: Bullock’s timing and some physical comedy earn praise, but several reviews say the recurring jokes and comic beats simply do not land.

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 roughly 130-minute runtime is one of the strongest points of agreement, repeatedly described as overlong, criminally long, or far longer than the story can justify.

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.

Genre response is divided between viewers who enjoy the witchy romance-and-sisterhood blend and critics who see a weak legacy sequel with diminished magic.

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 sisterhood and female-solidarity message lands strongly for many reviewers, though one critique argues the sequel undercuts that theme by centering heterosexual romance too heavily.

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.

One harsh take calls the CGI climax poor, adding to complaints that the larger-scale magic looks less convincing than it should.

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.

Story reactions range from heartfelt and satisfying to threadbare and bloated, reflecting the wider split between emotional fans and critics frustrated by the plotting.

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 positive review likes that the film draws heavily from the source novel without feeling so beholden to it that casual viewers are shut out.

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.

Many reviews say the sequel repeats old beats and legacy-sequel formulas, though a minority feels it finds a fresh enough continuation without simply recycling the first film.

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

One favorable review specifically welcomes the use of practical effects instead of leaning entirely on CGI.

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

The musical score is praised alongside the soundtrack for helping carry the story between lighter and darker material.

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

One positive reaction says Lee Pace’s mysterious character kept the reviewer guessing about his intentions until the end.

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.

Susanne Bier’s direction divides reviewers. A few appreciate moments of warmth and looseness, but others criticize the pacing, flat staging, and lack of the original’s fairy-tale charm.

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.

Emotional response is highly split: some reviewers cried repeatedly and found the family losses deeply moving, while others thought the climax had not earned its emotional weight.

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.

Dialogue is a recurring complaint, described as woeful, repetitive, flatly informational, and at times painfully unfunny.

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

Editing is criticized for letting scenes drag or trail off and for odd cutaway choices that make the movie feel less polished.

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 family, grief, and sisterhood themes resonate strongly for some reviewers, while others find the transgenerational-trauma ideas overwritten or shallow.

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

The screenplay is the most repeated major complaint, criticized as weak, overstuffed, repetitive, contrived, and unable to support the ensemble or emotional stakes.

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.

Romance is uneven. Joey King and Xolo Maridueña’s pairing earns warm praise in one review, while Sally and Ian’s subplot is frequently called forced or lacking chemistry.

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.

Bullock and Kidman’s sisterly chemistry is the most consistent strength, repeatedly described as effortless, joyful, and essential. Romantic chemistry is much more uneven, especially around Sally and Ian.

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 sharply divides opinion. One reviewer calls the extended wrap-up useless and deadly, while another finds it fun, uplifting, and emotionally satisfying.

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 plot is one of the most criticized elements, repeatedly described as convoluted, thin, improbable, contrived, or mechanically assembled.

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.

Pacing is consistently weak, with complaints about plodding stretches, grinding mystery mechanics, and a story that takes too long to reach an obvious destination.

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

Value depends heavily on fandom: one reviewer recommends waiting for streaming, while another felt the theatrical polish justified spending money on a ticket.

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.

Rewatch potential is polarized: one enthusiastic review calls it easy to revisit beside the original, while another says it will not be returning next Halloween.

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.

Entertainment value is mixed. Warm reviews find the reunion funny, heartfelt, and easy to enjoy, while negative reviews call it tedious, boring, or barely watchable.

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 a major point of disagreement: several reviews call the performances charming or excellent, while others find the acting corny, awkward, or badly matched to the material.

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 soundtrack remains a clear strength, with praise for its music choices and the way it helps bridge the sequel’s lighter and darker moments.

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.

Bullock and Kidman remain the movie’s most dependable attraction, with many reviews praising their ease, charisma, and return to Sally and Gillian. A smaller but forceful group criticizes the performances as mannered or undercut by weak material.

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.

Supporting performances are generally liked, especially Joey King, Lee Pace, Dianne Wiest, and Stockard Channing. Maisie Williams is repeatedly described as underused or squandered.

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.

The sequel earns credit for expanding the Owens mythology and magical world, though some reviewers think the added lore contributes to an overstuffed story.

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 look is divisive. Some praise jewel tones and polished imagery, but many miss the original’s warmer texture and criticize the sequel as flat, glossy, or antiseptic.

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.

The Stevie Nicks-inspired witchy costuming is singled out as a joyful part of the sequel’s aesthetic.

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.

Production design is a strong visual asset, with praise for jewel-toned spaces, fairy-tale architecture, cozy details, and attractive locations.

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.

Fan-oriented reactions are considerably warmer than the critical consensus, with multiple reviews saying longtime viewers are the group most likely to enjoy the return.

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.

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 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 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 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.

Critical response is plainly weak, with the supplied coverage repeatedly noting low review-aggregation scores and broadly negative notices.

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