Poster © movieposters.com · 320×480, fair use, to show which film it is. Why.44 they all agreed 2 critics · 40 to 48
Read by Marlow, First Reader · what that means · what he keeps
If you bought the first film's brash visual aesthetic – the result of a giant toddler vomiting candyfloss all over Walt Disney World – then you will be relieved to discover it has got no less stomach-unsettling.Donald Clarke, The Irish Times · we gave it 48
Certificate reasons from the British Board of Film Classification, classified 14/11/2025. Their words: Mild threat, violence, innuendo, language.
We could not read the certificate itself off their page, so we do not print one.
So cowed by its iconic predecessor.
Justin Chang, The New Yorker · quoted in Wikipedia, original not read by us · FP000121If you bought the first film's brash visual aesthetic – the result of a giant toddler vomiting candyfloss all over Walt Disney World – then you will be relieved to discover it has got no less stomach-unsettling.
Donald Clarke, The Irish Times · quoted in Wikipedia, original not read by us · FP000122<iframe src="https://fp.caelivonstudios.com/embed/wicked-for-good/"
width="380" height="86" frameborder="0" loading="lazy"
title="FP 44 for Wicked: For Good"></iframe>