Benutzerrezensionen

"Wicked: For Good" aims high with its musical ambitions, but the final result feels surprisingly hollow. It's the kind of film that promises grandeur - rich songs, emotional storytelling, a sweeping theatrical tone - yet delivers something that rarely rises above mediocre. For me, in contraposition with the previous very well done production, this movie is carried only by a few scattered moments of charm but weighed down by far too many shortcomings.

The biggest disappointment is the music. In a film where songs should carry emotion, character, and narrative weight, they instead feel weak, repetitive, and strangely uninspired. Most numbers come and go without leaving any impression, lacking both melodic strength and thematic purpose. Rather than elevating the story, the music often slows it down.

The script doesn't help. It feels thin, undercooked, and far too reliant on broad strokes rather than meaningful character development. Emotional turns arrive without buildup, conflicts lack impact, and the dialogue rarely adds depth. It's a story with potential, but very little of that potential makes it to the screen.

The pacing is equally problematic - inconsistent to the point of distraction. Some scenes drag without offering substance, while others rush through moments that should carry dramatic weight. The result is a film that feels both bloated and oddly empty, never finding its rhythm.

"Wicked: For Good" isn't without effort or intention, but it never manages to bring its ideas together into something compelling. It's underwhelming, forgettable, and a far cry from the magical musical experience it tries to be.

Surprising even the most optimistic of pundits last year, Wicked: Part One took the world by storm with its toe-tapping and empowering song and dance numbers, breathtaking filmmaking and star-making performances, setting in motion a phenomenon that has been reaching fever pitch as diehard and casual fans alike waited with bated breath as the second and final instalment For Good was unleashed around the globe.

One of those rare Hollywood blockbusters that managed to be a critical and awards darling as well as an audience pleaser, Wicked was a star aligning experience that now appears to have been a one off, with returning director Jon M. Chu and his star-studded cast struggling to bring the same amount of energy and magic to proceedings here in what amounts to a much more po-faced and stilted feature with only glimmers of the enchantment that made the first instalment of Wicked such a winner.

More serious in nature due to the requirements of its dramatic focussed narrative arc that differs majorly from the first films whimsical university vibrancy and introduction to the wonderful world of Oz, For Good feels like more of a procession of big plot developments and Hallmark like emotional beats as Cynthia Erivo's mistreated witch Elphaba and Ariana Grande's princess like Glinda find their lives clashing and their once fruitful friendship threatening to be torn apart permanently.

With the Broadway show on which Wicked stems from widely regarded as having a very clear winner in its two-act approach, with the plays first act accepted by most as the standout, Chu and his team had their work cut out for them as they attempted to bring a lesser collection of songs and ballads to life, as well as tie-up a story that in this slightly longer than two hours feature feels too crammed with conflicts and resolutions as the likes of Jonathan Bailey's Fiyero, Ethan Slater's Boq and Michelle Yeoh's Madame Morrible all get relegated to bit players as Chu struggles to maintain focus.

Lacking the equivalent of a toe tapping Dancing Through Life, a catchy and humorous Popular or the raw intensity or emotional power of Unlimited or Defying Gravity, plus the initial spark many felt when they were first welcomed through to the doors to Oz or Shiz University, For Good still finds its cast committed and up for the challenge but despite their best intentions and the films eye capturing visual design, the sparkle of Part One often feels distant and foreign to this outing that never manages to connect like its predecessor.

There's likely still going to be a collection of invested fans that find For Good meeting all their needs and box office receipts for this much-anticipated outing will likely be a godsend for many cinema chains around the world but after the highs of the first wonderous outing, it's hard not to feel disappointed by this follow-on that failed to find the heart and wonder that was so evident the first time around.

Final Say -

Destined to be more divisive than the universally appreciated and adored first film, Wicked: For Good lacks in many departments Jon M. Chu's first film thrived in, leaving us with a pretty but hollow vessel of what once was.

2 1/2 transport bubbles out of 5.

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.

After all of the audio cuts from the trailers that had me SO looking forward to entire numbers, I daresay it landed flat for me. I wanted to be gut-wrenched during and after this film but I just wasn't. There wasn't enough tension build-up to release during For Good and unfortunately I was underwhelmed by the delivery. I left the theater unmoved by the supporting cast performances. Act II is known to be the weaker act for the stage version, but the film had an opportunity to deliver better pacing and fuller picture. The plot points that feel rushed on stage felt rushed in the move as well.

Overall, the film kept my interest and boasts stunning optics, but doesn't touch the level of masterpiece or re-watchability part one had.

Wicked: For Good is the sequel to the first Wicked film from 2024. This follow-up is directed by Jon M. Chu, who also directed the first installment.

After Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo) exposes The Wizard of Oz (Jeff Goldblum) by revealing his lies, he turns the people against her. He also declares Glinda (Ariana Grande) the Good Witch, the symbol of goodness, to give the people hope. But that hope is false, built entirely on lies.

Elphaba now lives in exile in the forests and is known as the Wicked Witch of the West. Despite this, she still tries to fight The Wizard's deception and convince the people of the truth. The two witches must come together and decide: do they continue the lie of false hope, or do they reveal the truth and risk the people losing all hope?

The first Wicked film mainly told the backstory of Glinda the Good Witch and Elphaba, the Wicked Witch, and how The Wizard of Oz manipulated their friendship for his own benefit.

In this sequel, the two witches must face the consequences of their choices, though this may strain their friendship if they refuse to stand up to The Wizard. The first Wicked film is only five minutes shorter than the musical it's based on. Still, director Jon M. Chu chose to split the story into two films so that nothing from the musical had to be left out.

Because of that choice, the two films combined have a longer runtime than the stage musical. They had plenty of space, but at times it feels like they gave themselves too much space, filling the extra time with hints and references that heavily lean into the Wizard of Oz story. This provides some additional background on characters from that film, but not enough to truly get to know them. Fans of The Wizard of Oz can fill in these gaps themselves thanks to their familiarity with the characters from previous stories or adaptations.

For viewers unfamiliar with the other Wizard of Oz characters, these roles may feel underdeveloped, as if they're suddenly watching new characters who aren't fully explored. Although Wicked and The Wizard of Oz are essentially two separate narratives, they are merged here in a messy, rushed, and sometimes forced way.

The extra runtime across the two films did allow for every song from the musical to be included. There was even room for new, original songs that fit the films but aren't part of the stage production. As a result, more emphasis is placed on both the classic and newly added songs, rather than on fleshing out the Wizard of Oz characters, who end up feeling like added side characters, especially for viewers who don't know the story or earlier films.

Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande deliver strong performances and impressive vocals. Their characters do feel different from how they were portrayed in the first film, as the story pushes them to act in new ways. However, because the Wicked and Wizard of Oz storylines are combined so forcefully, it's sometimes unclear why certain characters make the choices they do.

The returning cast also performs well, but not all characters are given enough development due to the rushed pace created by blending the two narratives.

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 don't see how this is getting good reviews. The film mostly plods along in areas where it should be breezy and zips along it areas that could do more time. The musical numbers are very fragmented, sometimes it seem the cast aren't sure what song they are singing or what dance moves to do. All in all a big disappointment compared to the first film. This isn't one for casual cinema goer. One for the fans only maybe but only just.

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).

For Wicked groupies, of course, it was "GOOD." For the rest of us, who also saw part 2, not so much and it was way too long clocking in at 2 1/4 hours. No one cares how Glinda gets in the bubble and gets out of the bubble and the dance numbers were way too long and flat. Michelle Yeoh was horrible in the role of Madame Morrible. She should stick to martial arts roles. Cynthia Erivo as Elphaba really carried this movie like she does in part 1 but there was just too much filler and a lot of people ended up walking out 1/2 way through the movie sensing boredom. As a reviewer, I was rather disappointed with the dud ending and hope this is the last Wicked movie. If your love of the first movie made you show up, good for you and hopefully, you feel you got your money's worth. The rest of us, including me, thought it was way too long and poorly acted, for the most part.

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.

Despite Cynthia stealing every scene with her amazing presence, voice and acting, for me part 2 just didn't work. Weak plot, what was there was rushed through, squeezed in Dorothy etc with no explanation or context, Nessa story not explained (although she's annoying so glad she wasn't on screen any more than needed), very little on the wizard, quick spoiler reveal and then he flew off, and Michelle yeoh is just dreadful throughout. The passion between fiyaro and elpheba was a bit awkward and unbelievable, which is a shame. But the friendship between Glinda and Elpheba was strong and emotional, by far the outstanding performance, but nothing else came close. And the music was just a bit rubbish, perhaps we were spoilt in the first.

The music and songs were just as great as the first one. What I loved about this movie is that there was alot more emotion and less action towards the end. I think that is what made hit the most. I was nice the see the wizard of Oz references and I was very surprised by some of the reveals. I think the cinematography is a little better than the first. There are more visually interesting shots. I think I need to rewatch this film as I think the first movie is better. But it is one of the best movies of the year. I highly recommend it.

I loved the first movie and have watched it at least 10 times. Why is the second one so drastically less in all ways? The second act even has my favorite songs - As Long As Your Mine and No Good Deed - and I was very satisfied with them in the movie, but everything else around it was rushed or dragged out, dark or hokey and generally flat. And as I fully expected, the two new songs were uninspired and unmemorable. Seriously an entire song of Glinda walking around her home like an episode of AD's Celebrity Homes? This movie either ran out of steam or was done in parallel to part one but by the B Team. This would have been an epic masterpiece as one movie, but as two, it makes the second half feel like the caboose that's missing the front half of the train.

Always been a "Wizard of Oz" fan and I read and saw the "Wicked" play and saw the first film so you're right I returned to see the conclusion and final chapter "Wicked: For Good". And the film was entertaining and energy filled with music and again it's a journey of love, friendship, doubt, and trust! This time Elphaba(a fine performance from Cynthia) is well established as the wicked witch of the west, and she still is against the grain and challenges and questions the wizard. Still in conflict and dealing with her differences with Glinda(Ariana Grande) the good witch. Only things change with drama and accidents! As a house is dropped in Oz with a girl named Dorothy! Overall the production, design, and sets once again make it a tribute and a super great motion picture, really this was a fitting way to end this franchise!

Went into this with high expectations but left feeling indifferent.

As good as Cynthia Erivos performance is it wasn't enough to pull this film together.

Characters plot weak and story rushed. Whole thing was stretched far too thin- needed a good 45 minutes chopped off it.

Songs dull and immemorial- Dare I say a bit boring.

There were elements I enjoyed and liked the spin of how Tin man, Cowardly lion and Scarecrow were re-invented.

Hated the ending but I liked Cynthia's character and wanted vindication for her so was disappointed. I felt a lot of the characters were unnecessary additions .Overview ( Just Ok) I actually checked my phone several times during the showing to see how long was left. Such a shame as it had great potential.

What even happened? It was like the film was edited for people terminally on TikTok. Pacing was vile. Every scene I was just asking.. why? Songs were nice, vfx was good. But as a story, it was confused in every possible way. I couldn't really understand anyone's motives. Pointless film. Michelle yeoh is not a very good actress.. at least not in this.

Wicked should have been only one film. The two halves of the story compliment each other in a way that did not connect here, which I believe was due to the fact the studio wouldn't let us have a 4 hour film. This sequel, which acts as the finale to the story, fell completely flat as a result. Aside from some good singing and some glorious set and costume design, this didn't offer much more than the first half did. In fact, I think it offered substantially less. Now I know the stage play is similar and the story is practically the same, but it feels like there's something missing. Something that made the first half of the story feel fresh and ready to be told. It just feels like they were holding back.

Now normally, I write longer reviews and go into the acting, cinematography, all that jazz. But seeing how incredibly similar this film is to it's predecessor, considering it's a literal part two with the same cast and crew, I don't see a reason for going into all that stuff as nothing has changed. It's all the same design we saw in the first film. Nothing more and maybe a little less. A shame because this finale should have exploded, but the studio played it safe and we got what we got.

Overall, I won't say it's a bad film. There is a lot of creative genius going on behind the scenes here. It's just a shame they wasted all the money on the first half and phoned it in for this last part. I will also say, the film should have been only one film. Things could have been cut without consequence to the story as the important parts of their telling, according to the book, never make it to the screen. One such instance is the unbelievable romance that was completely shoehorned in. The wicked witch did not need a lover. It does nothing for the story and easily added 30-40 minutes of runtime to this film. If they would've cut that out and maybe a few more tidbits, this could have been one movie.

2.5 wicked witches out of 5.

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.

What an absolute visually spectacular piece of motion picture. Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo are absolutely marvelous in the second part, just as they were in part one. The storytelling is about as close as it'll get to the Broadway play. Which I actually want to praise Jon M Chu for adapting the musical into a film so effortlessly.

This film is fun from start to finish, the musical numbers are absolutely joyfully engaging, and I was appalled at how gorgeous the visual effects as well as the production, costume, and makeup design.

Everything about this film is what a sequel is supposed to be.

I highly recommend!

As with any movie set in Oz this succeeded, as did "Wicked" (of course) in being visually stunning. Unfortunately the setting was more interesting than the story to me.

The pacing felt off and too slow, perhaps to fit in all the songs and to give the audience time to admire the sets and costumes.

What may have been meant as big reveals were blatantly foreshadowed so they lost any potential drama. Character development was minimal so it's difficult to care much about what happens.

The Oz books were always socially aware and that stayed in the movie so it's not "woke" as much as it is true to the source. They may have pushed some parts harder and thars more bringing it current than pushing ideology.

Overall its an excellent watch and a mediocre listen. Even Jeff Goldbkum was muffled in this one.

A let down. The first film was so good. It had everything a movie should have, but this one comes out flat. I'm not sure if it was the fact that we all know the Wizard Of Oz story, so they gave us a backstage look at it, without really showing the main story. Or if they tried too hard. But the movie felt very empty.

The music and songs didn't fit well like the first film. And there was no more mystery in this one. We already know what happens if you've seen the Wizard of Oz film. It would have been nice if they added in the actual story of Dorthy and her friends. Instead they only mention them and show the in between scenes, of whats happening behind the story.

The movie had lots of great color and was visually appealing, but it didn't flow well. They did a time jump. It would have been a better film if they would have picked up right where the first one ended. Instead it felt rushed to get to Dorthy and her friends. There was no more character growth like the first film and they barely showed us the wicked witch of the east.

The first film had so much mystery to unravel and characters to fall in love with. In Wicked for good there was no more mystery. No knew characters or even a build in character depth. The movie could of at least explored the main girls magic capabilities more. And adding in the almost sex scene felt wrong, since the movie is supposed to be a family film.

I wasn't a big fan of the first Wicked. A rewatch on the small screen during the Oscar season made me appreciate it a bit more - performances, catchy pop-bubbly tunes and sheer production scale. But even then, the direction and pacing were unfortunate.

Wicked For Good makes the first film look like a cinematic tour de force. This one is just plain bad.

And yet it's somehow swimming in MUCH higher ratings than it deserves, thanks to an aggressively devoted stan base, not just for the IP, but for a certain pop star whose every micro-gesture is treated like Shakespearean brilliance. Someone please tell her (and them) that trembling your chin before crying is not the pinnacle of dramatic acting. It's a common expression and here it plays as forced... borderline silly. She had great comedic timing and scene-stealing energy in the first film but here, there's almost none of that spark, and the big emotional beats completely wash over her.

As for the movie itself... what. A. slog.

The middle stretch somehow manages to feel urgent and utterly uneventful at the same time. The songs are mostly forgettable, the humor dialed way down and the emotional moments land with all the depth of a puddle. The visuals resemble the first movie's aesthetic (no shock, shot back to back), but the CGI this time is noticeably worse. There are backgrounds so fake and (yet again) lighting so atrocious I genuinely wondered how those shots escaped the edit suite.

Hardcore stans will worship it anyway, quality becomes optional when you're deep in hype mode, but make no mistake - this is a genuinely weak sequel that trips into every trap sequels like this nowadays always fall into.

Now, personally, I wasn't too big on the first Wicked, nor the play, but I did enjoy the music and some of the artistic choices. Unfortunately, this continuation fails to live up to the charm the play and previous movie.

Throughout, the visuals and production designs are beautiful and colorful. It helps to establish the world of Oz, the setting and characters being shown. Alongside with the make-up, costume work, colorful patterns and sound designs. The performances are good, especially Cynthia Erivo as Erivo does a great job on capturing her character and role. Ariana Grande is pretty good as well, alongside with the rest of the cast members.

But what makes the movie fail is the messy pacing, storytelling, and the character dynamics. The director struggles to balance out between the tone, atmosphere and style properly, as it goes quite all over the place, which makes it confusing. Alongside with the writing offering cliche tropes and concepts that didn't work as it thinks it did, the characters, aren't interesting. Sadly, I disagree with many others but I felt the characters lack chemistry, as the dynamics and style didn't work and feels off-putting. Because of this, it made certain sequences feel boring and uneven.

The presentation is ugly, particularly the colors and portrait, the dialogue is pretty clunky, and the musical score and singing, unlike the first one, the songs aren't memorable or good. The song writing feels bland and clunky, and at times, some of the music feels like if AI was used.

Overall, it's a downgrade of the first one. I'm sure the fans will like it but those who loved Wicked, might not like this one as the first one.

Wicked: For Good defies gravity and exceeds expectations set by Part One. The character arcs are expanded and deepened, the cinematography and directing builds a "calm before the storm" energy that will leave you glued to the screen, and the set design and costuming/makeup truly brings the whole story together for good!

Performances by the entire cast left me with goosebumps, especially those of Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo. The Oscar campaign for these actresses is going to be wild and BOTH deserve to walk away with their WELL-EARNED awards in their respective categories. The buildup of their stories coincide in a beautiful and painful way that left me turning away with tears that refused to stop.

And I, of course, HAVE to mention the INSANE tension between Marissa Bode's and Ethan Slater's on-screen chemistry. The deep layers of Nessarose and Boq were visible in ways unexplainable by words, but more so through the feeling I had running up my spine.

When it comes to the vocal performances of the soundtrack, Thank Goodness and NO GOOD DEED truly stood out to me. Cynthia is an absolute powerhouse and had the entire audience erupting in cheers and applause.

When it came to the second half of the film, it was definitely faster paced while still allowing key moments to have their centerstage spotlight. And of course, we have the crossover with The Wizard of Oz that fortunately does not steal away from the core of the film. Jon M. Chu, you are a GENIUS. I truly enjoyed how many off-stage moments were expanded in this film and allowed for many narratives to be dived deeper into.

And then there's For Good...holy shiz. I was crying for half the song and then immediately after all the way until the end of the film. There's also ONE scene that was not rushed and gutted my heart out in ways I can't even explain.

All in all, it's an astounding conclusion to a beloved franchise. I am truly changed for good.

Congratulotions!