Scorata scores summarize analyzed review evidence on a 1–5 scale; they are not laboratory measurements or a simple average of customer star ratings. Feature scores summarize the reviews covering that feature. The overall score averages feature scores within each review, then combines review averages. When both expert and customer evidence are available, those two groups receive equal weight. Products can have different review coverage, so small score gaps do not establish a winner.
Recommendations prioritize important features for the category, with a score of at least 3.5, a gap of at least 0.25 points and at least two supporting reviews per product. Features with widely varying scores or broad connectivity contexts are excluded from recommendations. These safeguards do not establish statistical significance.
Quick verdict
What each product is best for
The available evidence supports the recommendation below, but does not establish an overall winner. Check the remaining features against your priorities.
Choose Wicked: For Good for value for money and rewatch value.
There is not enough comparable review evidence to recommend Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass over the other product.
Why these recommendations?
Wicked: For Good
Where It Has the Edge
value for money is 5.0 vs 1.2. The reviewers who discuss the theatrical or home-media value directly find the spectacle, technical presentation, and extras substantial...
rewatch value is 5.0 vs 1.3. The most enthusiastic reviewers see the two-film adaptation as something they will revisit for years, especially for the...
faithfulness to source material is 4.6 vs 1.5. The film is widely seen as a faithful translation of Act II, which pleases established fans but also...
Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass
Where It Has the Edge
No clear scored advantage over the other product.
Wicked: For Good3.5 overall score
Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass1.7 overall score
Compare features
Scores are out of 5. Missing scores mean missing review evidence, not a missing feature.
Scored on both products
Ownership and support
Value for money
Wicked: For Good
5.0
Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass
1.2
Details and evidence for value for money
Wicked: For Good
The reviewers who discuss the theatrical or home-media value directly find the spectacle, technical presentation, and extras substantial enough to justify the experience.
Theatrical value is poor for most reactions, with explicit complaints about wasted money and recommendations to wait for a cheap rental or skip it. The limited Tom-and-Jerry focus makes the ticket feel especially hard to justify.
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 interest is very low. Multiple reactions explicitly reject sitting through the movie again, while even a more positive viewer says a revisit is unlikely in the near future.
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.
Most reactions find the movie exhausting, boring, irritating, or simply bad despite scattered fun. A small minority enjoys the relentless action and colorful chaos, but the overall experience trends strongly negative.
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 material struggles to create emotional engagement. Character stakes and relationships are present, but they rarely generate meaningful feeling.
Details and evidence for faithfulness to source material
Wicked: For Good
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.
The dominant complaint is that this barely feels like a Tom and Jerry movie once the opening ends. Classic slapstick and chemistry appear in bursts, but the mythology plot and new characters repeatedly push the title duo to the sidelines.
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 film has difficulty creating attachment to its new characters, leaving major events emotionally flat. The friendship material between Tom and Jerry offers a small exception, but it is not enough to carry the movie.
A few darker sequences generate real tension, particularly around transformations, political danger, and the build toward Glinda’s wedding and the witch hunt.
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.
As an animated franchise feature, the movie generally disappoints and is often described as a low point for Tom and Jerry. A couple of reactions land closer to average or mildly positive, but they are clear outliers.
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.
Some locations achieve a surprisingly realistic look despite the stylized fantasy setting. That environmental detail stands out within an otherwise highly cartoony presentation.
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.
Some viewer accounts found the movie frightening for young children. In a film aimed at families, that darker edge is treated as a drawback rather than an enjoyable scare factor.
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 new mythology characters are repeatedly described as thin, flat, confusing, or underdeveloped, and Tom and Jerry often lose agency as the story shifts away from them. This makes emotional investment difficult.
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 widely weakened by repeated false climaxes, an overextended final battle, and a finale that further sidelines Tom and Jerry. The spectacle grows while satisfaction drops.
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 movie’s tone is repeatedly called confused, overloaded, or inconsistent, with abrupt character shifts and clashing styles. Its constant energy rarely settles into a coherent rhythm.
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.
Direction is criticized for failing to organize the story, pace the spectacle, or frame the action clearly. Even visually promising material often feels weakened by a lack of control.
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.
Family appeal is highly uneven. Many reactions warn that children may be bored, confused, frightened, or overwhelmed, while one enthusiastic take considers the action-packed movie a very good choice for kids.
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.
Action is one of the most divided areas: some reactions enjoy the colorful scale and nonstop energy, while others find the set pieces stiff, overlong, or exhausting. The busiest climaxes often amplify the movie’s pacing problems.
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.
Tom’s romantic subplot with Jade is barely developed, and Jade is criticized for existing mainly as a love interest. The romance adds little depth to either character.
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 plot is criticized as predictable and built from familiar clichés despite the unusual setting. The mythology backdrop adds novelty, but the underlying story beats feel conventional.
The film’s strongest original touches come from how it expands or reframes familiar Oz material, but some reviewers feel too much of the adaptation simply repeats established beats or adds material without enough payoff.
The international mythology premise sounds distinctive on paper, but the execution is often called generic, derivative, or compromised. The reinvention rarely feels fresh enough to justify how far it moves from the franchise’s core.
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 opening and isolated Tom-and-Jerry gags can still be funny, especially when they resemble classic slapstick. Once the mythology plot takes over, the comedy is often described as poorly timed, repetitive, or dull.
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 movie often feels much longer than it is because of relentless pacing and repeated climaxes. Several reactions call the runtime excessive for the target age group or simply exhausting.
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.
Themes of enlightenment, honesty, and authenticity are visible, but they do not develop enough emotional weight to resonate. The ideas are clearer than their dramatic impact.
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 action photography gets more ambitious when characters start flying and the spectacle expands. The energized camerawork is one of the stronger parts of the larger set pieces.
The magical effects and deity powers are among the better-looking parts of the action. They add visual energy even when the surrounding story fails to make the spectacle matter.
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 softened cartoon violence disappoints at least one longtime fan because it reduces the impact of the physical comedy. The safer approach makes the slapstick feel less like classic Tom and Jerry.
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.
Storytelling is the movie’s biggest weakness: the mythology-heavy plot is frequently called muddled, directionless, thin, or barely functional. A small minority sees a decent or clever framework, but most reactions find the narrative unable to support the spectacle.
The musical score receives some of the warmer audio feedback, especially when it echoes classic Tom and Jerry music or keeps an energetic rhythm. Those nostalgic touches help the movie feel closer to the franchise.
The screenplay draws substantial criticism for disjointed structure, underexplained turns, repetitive ideas, and additions that do not justify the expanded runtime.
The screenplay is mostly criticized as weak, badly structured, unclear, or lacking compelling story logic. One mixed reaction does find some clever writing in the slapstick and narrative callbacks.
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 story is repeatedly described as incoherent, convoluted, overloaded, or difficult to follow. Rapid introductions, shifting goals, and unclear rules around the compass make the confusion worse.
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 one of the most consistent problems: the movie races forward with little breathing room, yet can still feel long and tiring. One positive reaction loves the nonstop momentum, but most find it chaotic or exhausting.
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 fully CG presentation is usually criticized as plasticky, dated, or visually mismatched. Even when the craft is serviceable, the digital look rarely captures the weight and elasticity associated with classic Tom and Jerry.
Details and evidence for chemistry between characters
Wicked: For Good
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.
Tom and Jerry’s familiar back-and-forth still has flashes of the old charm. Their best moments come when the film simply lets the duo bicker, chase, and play off each other.
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 Chinese setting and mythology are central to the movie, but some reactions find the cultural framing heavy-handed, stereotyped, or awkwardly grafted onto American IP. Those concerns make the localization feel less natural than intended.
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 English-language dialogue suffers from weak translation and exposition that can sound mechanical or overly literal. The result adds to the feeling that the dub lacks natural comic rhythm.
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 movie does contain ideas about friendship, honesty, authenticity, and enlightenment. The Tom-and-Jerry friendship theme earns some praise, but the broader messages are often judged too weakly dramatized to land.
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 frequently blamed for the movie’s breathless, disorienting flow. Cuts and structural trimming can make scenes feel rushed, butchered, or hard to process, though one mixed reaction mainly wanted the edit slowed down.
Sound is often too busy, with music, effects, and constant vocal noise competing for attention and sometimes burying dialogue. Nostalgic Tom and Jerry sound effects provide a welcome counterpoint in the more faithful moments.
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 visuals split opinion more than the story does. Bright colors, elaborate locations, and occasional striking sequences earn praise, but many find the art direction inconsistent, plasticky, dated, or excessively busy.
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.
Gold City and several fantasy locations show real visual craft, with strong scale, detail, color, and occasionally convincing realism. The environments are among the movie’s most consistently appealing elements.
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 ancient-China-inspired world has appealing ideas and enough detail to feel promising. The problem is that the movie rarely slows down or structures the story well enough to let that setting become immersive.
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 English dub is a recurring weak spot, with voices described as rough, overacted, forgettable, or noticeably off. One more positive reaction found the dubbing only mildly distracting rather than disastrous.
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 central vocal work gets a mixed reaction: Tom’s voice is considered fine, while Jerry’s sound is distracting enough to invite comparison to Donald Duck.
Details and evidence for supporting cast performance
Wicked: For Good
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 English supporting voices are generally weak, with performances described as disconnected, overacted, and lacking charm. The dub rarely gives the new characters enough personality to overcome the writing.
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 music can become overbearing, with the score described as relentless or constantly pounding. Rather than supporting the action, it sometimes intensifies the sensory overload.
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.
Broader audience response is weak, with low audience scores and multiple reactions expecting both kids and adults to disengage. A minority view sees strong kid appeal in the fast action and colorful presentation.
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.
Several reactions question the fit for young children because the movie can be bewildering, frightening, or overstimulating. One notably positive take strongly recommends it for kids and views the nonstop action as a feature.
Animation is the clearest visual bright spot, but opinions vary sharply. Some praise vibrant colors, attractive environments, and solid CG craft, while others call the movement stiff, plasticky, dated, or poorly suited to Tom and Jerry’s physical comedy.
Details and evidence for practical effects quality
Wicked: For Good
The practical craft receives favorable notice, especially when tactile sets and in-camera elements help Oz feel physically realized rather than purely digital.
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.
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.
Critical reception is exceptionally poor, repeatedly characterized as scathing, nearly unanimous condemnation, and a franchise low. The 0% Rotten Tomatoes figure is a recurring sign of just how badly it landed with critics.
Several reactions feel the presentation sells a more conventional Tom and Jerry movie than the one delivered. Complaints include the duo being sidelined, a darker-than-expected tone, and trailers or promotion that obscure how mythology-heavy the film becomes.
