“Wicked: For Good” is challenging the preconceived notions of those critics generally skeptical of sequels that seem more focused on box office success than maintaining narrative depth. Despite this, some viewers have found the sequel lacking, with its typically weaker second act contributing to the perception that it doesn’t quite match the original film.

Directed by Jon M. Chu, the concluding chapter of the cinematic adaptation of “Wicked”—a prequel to “The Wizard of Oz” that evolved into a Broadway hit—hits theaters this Friday. The film welcomes back Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande, reprising their roles as Elphaba and Glinda, characters known from the original tale as The Wicked Witch of the West and Glinda the Good, respectively.

Arriving almost exactly a year after its predecessor, the film currently enjoys a 72% approval rating from critics on Rotten Tomatoes and a Generally Favorable score of 61 on Metacritic. In comparison, the first “Wicked” film proudly displays a Certified Fresh rating of 88% on Rotten Tomatoes and a score of 73 on Metacritic.

While a number of critics have been charmed by what they describe as a “surprisingly satisfying conclusion” to the saga, others have criticized the film’s “breathlessly stretched-out second act.”

In a 2.5-star review, Slant Magazine remarked that the film lacks the emotional impact, even on a nostalgic level, reminding audiences that it is the “wrenching stage form of ‘Wicked'” that truly leaves a lasting impression.

ScreenCrush summed it up poignantly, noting that “as the lyrics of the title song suggest, a change for good does not necessarily mean a change for the better.”

The Boston Globe was similarly unmoved, finding “For Good” to be “more of the same, only darker,” taking after the stage hit’s latter half “which even fans would agree is not as good as the first.”

According to Screen Daily, the more-is-more approach — with its “opulent production design and oversized emotions” — doesn’t hold the film up but serves to have a “numbing effect, the endless spectacle leaving little room for nuance, depth or genuine feeling.”

That take was shared by The Associated Press, which said, “The rub of going for maximum effect all the time is that the actors never have a chance to simply be.”

Despite the criticisms, Erivo and Grande have been praised for “almost” saving a film that fails to hit the high notes.

“What a performance from Erivo,” read The Guardian’s 4-out-of-5-star review, while The Hollywood Reporter said Grande “humanizes and enriches the character and, by extension, the whole movie.”

Giving Elphaba and Glinda more scenes and songs together also rectifies “a common complaint” of the stage show, Variety said, making the final stretch feel like “a robust tale unto itself.”

“Through sheer insistence, Erivo and Grande, who deserve the bump in status they’ve received, almost pull it back together with a closing duet that makes a virtue of emotional incontinence,” declared The Irish Times.

All in all, critics largely agreed that “Wicked” might have “proved a musical for the ages” had it been released as one film. Still, longtime fans of the show are sure to find magic in the performance of its stars.

“You couldn’t ask for a more ‘Wicked’ closer,’” said USA Today, proclaiming that Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande are “at their witchy best.”