Wicked - Teil 2

Unlike the first movie, the sequel was very fast paced. This costed the movie emotion, depth, nuance and complex characters. Here, characters felt one dimensional and often singular in purpose. The purpose being, the advancement of the plot.

There's 2 reasons that make it worth watching - the first is the chemistry between Cynthia and Ariana is still strong (and dare I say falls flat everywhere else), and the second is the advancement of the plot. But if you've watched the first movie more than once, chances are you're probably not going to be as enthused to watch this more than once. At times, it felt like a Marvel movie - move fast, use light humour to break tension and segue, and have characters switch on a dime.

Overall, this feels undercooked. I would have happily waited another year for a sequel with better pacing and direction.

I'm exhausted.

First let's get the good stuff out of the way. The players are very good. Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo are fine singers, and Jeff Goldblum plays the old carny thimblerigger very well. Nathan Crowley's art design is excellent, exactly Mauve Decade as Beaux Arte starts to give way to more modern forms.

The problem is the insistence on going into every detail to make sure we know it's all the fault of wizard and witches meddling with forces beyond their control. Even more exhausting is that it's set to 11 at all times. Just when we think Goldblum is starting to sing an amusing song about how it was all a mistake, it gets caught up in big emotions. When Miss Grande and Miss Erivo are getting into a cat fight that might be funny, it has to be interrupted by an act of grand betrayal. There's no modulation. Drama needs comic interludes, and none are on offer here, just 1990s Broadway Opera Manque, when everyone wanted to be Andrew Lloyd Webber because the old Broadway hands were dead and they knew they weren't bright enough to be Stephen Sondheim.

And if you saw Wicked on stage, and remember it as having some comic interludes and not taking five hours to play out.... well, I never saw it. You may well be right. But once again, I'll note that Hollywood has forgotten how to make musicals, and thinks that making something twice as long makes it twice as good.

The pacing in this film doesnt quite hold attention like the first. For some reason the set pieces still look good but also seem a bit smaller somehow? Or less detailed maybe? Not sure but there felt like a lot of more obvious cgi in this one. There was no real main hit song like the first one had and they were all a bit less memorable so that was disappointing, possibly aside from no place like home. I was personally happy with the ending. All of these 10s are embarrassing this film was not at all visually stunning and was hard to hear regularly. Obviously die hard wicked fans who would give anything wicked a 10. If youre not a serious man wicked fan this isnt a good movie.

I think I would've given Wicked for Good a full extra star is Madam Morrible hadn't been performed by an actress as miscast as could be.

Now, I'm not a Wicked Nerd nor am I the biggest fan of musicals per se and neither is Michelle Yeoh, I have found out.

I actually liked the first Wicked, even though I wasn't a fan of Yeoh's performance; it was not as bad as could be.

Wicked part II was always going to be the lesser of the two films, simply because the first act of the musical has a more enjoyable plot and way nicer songs.

However, I wanted to give this film a fair chance.

Sure, the characters are, and their development is, quite questionable, but the film overall is enjoyable. Except whenever Madam Morrible opens her mouth.

And don't get me wrong; I think Michelle Yeoh is a wonderful and amazing actress. Just not in this role.

The sets and costumes are great. Lighting is good, but not as good as the first and the performances are excellent (apart from one).

Wicked: For Good (2025) Directed by Jon M. Chu Adapted for the screen by Winnie Holzman and Dana Fox, from the Broadway musical by Stephen Schwartz and Winnie Holzman , based on the novel by Gregory Maguire, from a story by L. F. Baum.

-

Even at the onset of production on the film adaptation of "Wicked" back in December 2022, it was beset by criticisms as to why there was a need to expand the 2hr and 45-minuter smash Broadway play into two movies with about more or less the same runtime.

But last year's "Wicked:Part One" was such a critical and commercial smash, these concerns fell by the wayside. Its 2hr 17 minute runtime flew swiftly by like a witch on a broom on a mission of doom. It left audiences wanting for more, seemingly proving that there may have been some wisdom splitting Acts 1 and 2 of the source material into separate films.

Alas, the much-anticipated conclusion of the Ozian saga might prove the naysayers right, after all.

"Wicked: For Good" opens and ends with many callbacks to the first film - a fairly standard aspect of sequels and remakes. While it isn't distracting, it is also obvious that "For Good" is retreading grounds already covered.

"For Good" also feels bloated and sluggish as it lumbers toward a genuinely heartbreaking scene between Elphaba and Glinda near the end. However, none of the other supposedly-emotional numbers, particularly the titular "For Good," tugged at my heartstrings the way the Broadway original did. I think it was because the singing and phrasings felt a little off in places. The simpler renditions of the Broadway versions followed a straight line to the feels; Grande and Erivo's emotional recitatives and line breaks don't feel like contrivances, but they felt like needless detours that did take me out of the moment.

Sometimes, simpler truly is better.

The two brand-new Stephen Schwartz songs, created for Oscar consideration - "No Place Like Home" and "The Girl in The Bubble" - are forgettable ballads that lack the instant musical hooks of the rest of the original songs. They also don't fit organically into the story.

Visually, "For Good" has nothing fresh or new to offer, due to the fact that both installments were shot at the same time and must necessarily hew to a consistent visual palette. Jon M. Chu's fantastical sets, costumes, and CGI remain impressive, but with the possible exception of the Kiamo Ku castle environs - where we spend too little time in - and Glinda's sumptuous Art Deco Ozian apartments, we've seen everything before.

Familiarity, contempt.

"Wicked: Part One" had far more energy, verve, and delight overall. Yes, it's fairly common knowledge that Act 1 contains much of the fun, whimsy, and musical bangers of "Wicked: The Musical," and Act 2 is more somber and dark but features the more emotionally-wrenching numbers. But I could feel the padding in the first half of "For Good," before it rushed to its conclusion in the second half.

The characters from "The Wizard of Oz" appear briefly here same as in the musical, but their presence in the film somehow feels even less substantial yet more intrusive than in the source material. I understand Dorothy is necessary for the story's denouement, and featuring her as a new fleshed-out character would bog down the film even more, but still.

The film also missed the chance to address some of the musical's plot holes, which are made even more glaring on the big screen. Like, why did the Cowardly Lion fear Elphaba, his original rescuer? There was likewise no resolution to the Tin Man's displaced rage at his creator. Neither were the Witch Hunters a credible threat whatsoever. All of them were just there for one musical number, then vanish from the narrative.

The addlepatedness of certain character decisions also become magnified on the big screen. In the famous wheat field standoff between Elphaba, Glinda, Fiyero, and the Emerald City Guardsmen, the Witch - now commanding the Flying Monkeys - could've made short work of the troops. Instead, they all fly off after Fiyero trades for Elphaba's release and simply leave him to his fate.

Now, I adore both Grande and Erivo, and Jon M. Chu - who I didn't think much of previously - made a believer out of me. But I don't think "Wicked: For Good" is going to get them their Oscar flowers, for many reasons. One is that the momentum of the thrill of finally seeing "Wicked" realized on screen has largely abated; 2025 featured many other movies that have stolen potential Oscar thunder and audience buzz. If Chu had compressed the story into a 3.5 or even 4-hour film, "Wicked" would've felt like a truly epic film in scope and duration, rather than two discrete installments, one of which will always be stronger than the other. And the Oscar chances for him and his two leads would've been much more great and powerful.

Grande and Erivo still convey an authenticity that informs their performances, undoubtedly as a result of their real-life friendship over the course of making these films three years past. But as far as characterizations go, I felt Glinda's changes of heart and character growth were more compelling in Part 1. Ditto Elphaba's character arc.

Here, the pair have pretty much settled into their roles as dueling leads, albeit tempered by a sincere love and palpable affection for each other. The passage of an entire year in real time - with its genuine real-world drama and challenges - hasn't dampened my desire to see the resolution of this fictional but fantastic friendship, because I did ugly cry at THAT door scene ( you'll know when you see it. )

But it's a little too little, and a little too late in the film, for me.

"Wicked: Part One" will always be one of my favorite all-time movies, the same way "Wicked The Musical" will always be in my Top Three.

I wouldn't say "Wicked: For Good" isn't any good.

It's just not as good as the first time.