Poster © movieposters.com · 320×480, fair use, to show which film it is. Why.Wicked: For Good
Read by Marlow, First Reader · what that means
- How they landed
- they all agreed2 critics, 40 to 48
- Best thing said
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- Worst thing said
So cowed by its iconic predecessor.
Justin Chang, The New Yorker · we gave it 40- Film
- Jon M. Chu · 2025 · United States
The guide1 of 7 came up · every line is a critic’s own words
ViolenceNobody mentioned it
Sex and nudityNobody mentioned it
SwearingNobody mentioned it
Drink and drugsNobody mentioned it
Upsetting1 critic mentioned it
“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
OffensiveNobody mentioned it
Hard to sit throughNobody mentioned it
All 2 reviews
So cowed by its iconic predecessor.
Justin Chang, The New Yorker · quoted in Wikipedia, original not read by us · FP00012140we gave it
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 · quoted in Wikipedia, original not read by us · FP00012248we gave it
Who wrote about this filmgo read them
Justin ChangThe New YorkerWhere we read it
Donald ClarkeThe Irish TimesWhere we read it