Compare Wicked: For Good vs By Any Means

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

One strongly negative reviewer explicitly advises audiences not to spend money on the film, viewing its historical and representational choices as reason enough to skip 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.

A few viewers enjoyed the movie enough to consider another viewing, but others frame it as a solid one-time watch. Repeat appeal appears strongest for fans of the lead pairing and mob-thriller tone.

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 sharply split. Some reviewers found the violent buddy-thriller energetic and satisfying, while others found it dull, simplistic, or not worth the watch.

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

Wahlberg’s prosthetic nose and wig are repeatedly singled out as distracting, unnecessary, or outright silly. The period transformation is one of the production’s clearest visual misfires.

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.

Despite the conspiracy, violence, and shifting loyalties, one reviewer specifically found the movie easy to follow and always clear about location and motivation.

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.

This is emphatically not family-friendly material, with torture, bloody violence, pervasive rough language, and adult sexual content. Family-focused outlets strongly advise caution or avoidance.

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 most consistent complaint: reviewers repeatedly call it abrupt, anticlimactic, incomplete, or dependent on text cards. Several felt the movie stops just before the payoff its own setup promises.

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 historical drama is considered thoughtful in intent but blunt in execution. Its serious material carries weight, though the movie often pivots toward pulp and buddy-cop mechanics.

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 photography is frequently praised for moody lighting, rich color, controlled tracking shots, and striking period imagery. Even detractors often single out the camera work as more sophisticated than the script.

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 movie raises potent questions about racism, institutional failure, pacifism, and retaliatory violence, but many critics say it does not explore them deeply enough. A smaller group finds the moral conflict powerful and meaningful.

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.

Elegance Bratton earns strong marks for visual control, clear staging, and energetic crime-thriller craftsmanship. Some critics still feel the execution becomes blunt or paint-by-numbers when handling the larger historical and moral questions.

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 action ranges from crisp, emotionally charged shootouts and chases to sequences some found implausible or dull. Its pulpy violence works best for viewers who embrace the revenge-thriller mode.

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 a crime thriller and buddy-cop movie, it lands unevenly: some praise the muscular, crowd-pleasing pulp, while others see a slog that cannot reconcile action spectacle with serious historical drama.

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 reactions vary from brisk and lively to sluggish and uneven. Several reviewers enjoy the forward momentum once the leads are working together, while others note slow stretches and a narrative that fizzles near the end.

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

Terence Blanchard’s jazz-inflected score is frequently praised as tense, atmospheric, and a major mood-setter. One critic finds the emotional scoring overused, but the overall response is strongly positive.

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

At least one enthusiastic critic found the true-crime setup intensely gripping from start to finish, praising the film’s ability to hold the audience in a taut, confrontational mood.

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 film’s thesis about violence as a route to justice is deeply divisive. Supporters see righteous urgency and historical meaning; detractors view the revenge framing as morally shallow, reductive, or troubling.

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 follows a familiar buddy-cop and revenge-thriller path, with multiple reviewers saying its turns are predictable or formulaic. The real-life hook is more distinctive than the dramatic structure built around it.

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

The screenplay has a strong premise and occasional structure, yet many critics fault shortcuts, weak connective tissue, clichés, and underdeveloped moral questions. The writing is often seen as the main thing holding the movie back.

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 violence is exceptionally graphic, with torture, beatings, shootings, and bloody revenge throughout. Some reviewers find that intensity cathartic or narratively justified, but many call it excessive, grueling, or upsetting.

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 movie often loses credibility when its heroes commit conspicuous violence with few believable consequences. Critics describe several confrontations, body counts, and chase beats as Hollywood fantasy rather than plausible history.

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.

One reviewer felt the film actually needed more time, particularly to clarify relationships, the investigation, and the ending. The complaint is less about excess length than insufficient development.

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.

A family-focused review flags bedroom sensuality and partial nudity as another reason the film is unsuitable for younger or more conservative audiences.

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 blend of sober civil-rights drama, dark comedy, revenge fantasy, and buddy-cop pulp is one of the film’s biggest fault lines. Some enjoy the levity and energy, while others find the modes clash badly.

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 true-crime premise fascinates many reviewers, but the finished story is often judged simplistic, underdeveloped, or structurally incomplete. Strong performances and visual craft keep some viewers engaged despite those narrative problems.

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 humor mostly comes from Scarpa’s blunt personality and the mismatched-pair banter. Several critics welcome that relief, though one moral review objects to making his amorality a source of laughs.

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.

Several critics object to the way the film filters Black civil-rights history through a fictional partnership with a white mobster. Concerns focus on lost political context, white-savior dynamics, and whose story receives the most agency.

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 dialogue is a weak spot for several critics, who describe it as exposition-heavy, obvious, or underwritten. The banter can still generate humor, but the script rarely finds the nuance its subject invites.

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.

Wayne Strider’s shift from rule-bound agent to violent avenger is the central arc, and some found it compelling and well acted. Others felt his inner life was too thin or inconsistent for the transformation to fully land.

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.

The Strider–Scarpa pairing is widely seen as a major draw, with prickly banter and contrasting personalities giving the movie energy. A few critics, however, found their bond underdeveloped or unconvincing.

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 can be genuinely upsetting and powerful, especially when depicting racist terror and Strider’s fear and anger. For supportive critics, that intensity gives the movie urgency even when the storytelling is uneven.

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 graphic violence, torture, strong language, and sexual material make this a poor fit for younger viewers. Family-oriented critics strongly caution against it for children and teens.

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.

Reaction depends heavily on tolerance for brutal revenge fare and historical liberties. Mob-film and old-school crime-thriller fans may have a good time, while viewers sensitive to the framing or factual changes may want to skip it.

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 is a clear strength, blending period artists with a prominent end-credit title song. Reviewers who mention the music generally praise its energy, atmosphere, and emotional lift.

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.

Yahya Abdul-Mateen II receives especially strong praise for grounding Wayne with restraint, intensity, and emotional depth. Mark Wahlberg is more divisive, but many still find his broad mobster performance entertaining.

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 supporting ensemble is generally well regarded, with Nicole Beharie, Giancarlo Esposito, LisaGay Hamilton, David Strathairn, and others adding weight to smaller roles. Some critics wish those players had more to do.

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 one of the film’s clearest strengths, with the two leads repeatedly carrying material that some found thin or formulaic. Even mixed reviews often credit the performances with keeping the movie watchable.

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.

One critic argues that the film isolates its characters from the wider political and social life of 1966 Mississippi, making the setting feel more like a sealed dramatic vacuum than a fully lived-in community.

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 movie’s richest strengths are visual: saturated color, moody lighting, period swagger, and carefully composed imagery. A few critics find parts of the look overly contrasty or generic, but the broader response is favorable.

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.

The period setting is a standout, with convincing streets, interiors, cars, and décor making 1960s Mississippi feel tangible. Reviewers repeatedly praise the sets and overall period detail.

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 1960s wardrobe is a consistent visual highlight, especially Strider’s suits and the film’s pastel period styling. Critics who discussed the clothes found them polished and convincing.

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.

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 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.

Strong and pervasive language is a clear drawback for reviewers sensitive to profanity. Family-oriented critics specifically flag crude talk, repeated strong language, and rough speech.

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

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 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.

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

Reviewers broadly agree that the movie takes major liberties with its true-story label, especially through the fictional Wayne Strider and invented interactions. Some accept the dramatization, but many warn against treating it as a straight historical account.

One reviewer felt the movie delivers exactly the familiar thriller promised by its trailer, while another criticized the way its publicity foregrounded certain stars and packaged the story. The promotional framing is therefore contested.

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