Opiniones de usuarios

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.

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.

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'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.

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!

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.

"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.

Was it as good as the first one? No. Was it still a great film? Absolutely!

Anyone who has seen the musical will know the two acts are quite different: the first is much more upbeat and really tells Elphaba's story, while the second is more serious, sadder, and more about Glinda.

Wicked: For Good is no different, and both parts are played excellently again, especially Ariana, who must be in the running for a best actor nomination this time around.

I'd love to go and see them both together at the cinema, as I'm sure they'd work even better that way.

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 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.

As remarkable as the performances are-both Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande truly shine throughout the film (particularly Grande's Glinda, whose maturity and emotional depth anchor much of this second half)-Wicked: Part Two ultimately lacks the strength and cohesion of its predecessor.

Jonathan Bailey, Ethan Slater, Jeff Goldblum, and Michelle Yeoh all deliver standout performances, finally given the space to demonstrate why their casting mattered-something Part One failed to fully achieve for its supporting ensemble. On a technical level, the production design, makeup, costume design, and visual effects remain top-tier, matching the quality and ambition of the first installment. Cinematography is improved compared to Part 1.

However, while Part One stands firmly on its own-filled with the stronger musical numbers, color, and humor that have long defined the land of Oz-this second chapter feels more supplementary than essential for casual viewers. The editing and screenplay choices often prevent key musical moments such as "Thank Goodness" and "Wonderful" from reaching their full impact, trimming them so heavily that their magic is somewhat lost.

Conversely, several numbers receive impressive upgrades-"No Good Deed," "For Good," and "As Long As You're Mine" emerge as highlights, likely to leave audiences humming on their way out of the theater. It's during "I'm Not That Girl (Reprise)" that Grande's performance truly ascends, signaling the start of what could be an awards-worthy portrayal, rich in vulnerability and command.

In the end, while Part Two is undeniably flawed, it remains as enchanting as its material allows, offering moments of genuine wonder even as it falters under inevitable comparison to its predecessor. Despite its uneven pacing, this adaptation manages to refine and elevate many aspects of the Broadway source-ensuring that audiences will still leave the theater satisfied, their hearts light, and their spirits touched by a bit of Oz's timeless magic.

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!

For all you musical fans, I got early access to see this last night, and let's just say, it's everything you will want

Warning: you will be in tears.

Ariana and Cynthia's performance was nothing less than a masterpiece,

The graphics and vibrant colours made this movie captivating

I have already booked tickets to see it again tomorrow night and Friday night and Sunday night...

Worth every penny.

Wow! Was that a bit of a letdown compared to the first one? It had some cute moments, but overall, it just didn't quite hit the mark.

The pacing issues really stood out, especially when we consider how rich the source material is. Each character has such depth, and it felt like we barely scratched the surface. For instance, Alphabet Sister's journey could have explored her motivations and struggles more thoroughly. It would have been fascinating to see her evolve over time and how her relationship with the other characters shifted as they faced challenges together.

As for Dorothy, her arrival felt rushed. The anticipation of her character should have been built up gradually, leading to a more impactful reunion. Instead, it seemed almost like an afterthought, which was a shame given her significance to the story.

Overall, while "Wicked for Good" had its heartwarming moments, it left a lot to be desired in terms of storytelling. A trilogy could have offered the chance for character arcs to flourish, plotlines to intertwine more organically, and an ending that felt truly earned. Here's hoping any future adaptations take that into consideration!

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 really enjoyed this even though I already knew the story and it felt like such a long year wait I was quite worried it would disappoint but it didn't. Some people say the songs aren't as good as in the first one but I disagree, some of my favourites are in the second film. There was a lot of emotion, sad moments, funny moments... all sorts going on although I would say it doesn't need to be quite so long as it is and the two new original songs didn't feel necessary and I would probably just left them out. But it really is a must see. Loved the ending too.

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.

I think if you loved the first one, you'll also love this one. My wife cried like crazy in both movies haha. That being said I gave the original an 8 and this one a 7. This one didn't have as many catchy songs. Also its at break neck pace, so much stuff happened that made me wonder "wait are they not going to expand on that?" I think they could have expanded on the play and squeezed the audience a bit more with a 3rd movie. I would have shown up for it!

I actually believe that it is slightly better than the first movie. I think the drama works much better here between the two when they're not always in agreement on things and I believe that the supporting characters aren't as annoying. The ending is great as it truly leads into the Wizard of Oz perfectly and in an almost Lynchian dreamlike manner. The cinematography is much better, although there are still some scenes that are white washed and look too fake similar to some found in the first movie. Erivo is Oscar worthy in my opinion, however the songs aren't as good as the first which holds it slightly back. For some reason there's a cover of a Rihanna song, like what?

As with the first part, I have greatly mixed feelings - in large part because the 1995 Maguire book is my main frame of reference. My preferred analogy is that while Baum's original is practically an epitome of a children's story, Maguire went for the kind of a grimdark reboot 1990s were known for - and then the 2003 musical rowed back, its tone about halfway between the two. Of course, "tone" isn't just a slider one can adjust between "dark" and "light" as one wishes, but a canvas painted with a myriad plot beats, many of which necessarily morph even if the story is technically set in the same world and uses mostly the same characters.

Moreover, while the medium is probably not the message in and of itself (I suspect few people unthinkingly repeating McLuhan's famous aphorism would agree with the second part of his analogy - which praises the traditional Chinese medicine as "more holistic" than evidence-based one), it certainly shapes the nature of said message. I doubt Maguire would have been able to get away with reams and reams of moody introspection and debates over morality, consciousness, conscience and religion if he did anything besides writing A Serious Novel. On the flip side, the Stephen Schwartz adaptation not only excised what didn't seem to fit the medium, but had likewise absorbed its tropes, such as the greater emphasis on romance. This is perhaps best reflected in how Nessarose is primarily defined by her religiousness in the book and by her unfortunate love life in the musical. Chu's own, medium-driven decisions, such as splitting the musical into two and needing to find "padding" to compensate, pale in comparison to all the above as far as their significance goes.

In effect, the musical trades depth and complexity for the sake of pacing and cohesion (and of course, the music). Such a trade-off usually would not have been worth it, but Maguire's novel is itself flawed enough that it is easy to prefer the musical. Remarkably, Chu's two-part adaptation ends up inverting the pacing of the novel. There, it was the first half which proceeded at a decent clip; from Elphaba's infancy narrated by her struggling mother, to Shiz era busily introducing us to every character and the bulk of the worldbuilding and finally her early resistance era - all interspersed with its philosophy and the sense of creeping dread as we are constantly reminded of her fatal weakness. The first film is nice, but never comes close to the same highs - at the same time as it admittedly never breaches the same lows.

The second half of the novel, though, is where the things peter out as Maguire suddenly decides he still wants to match the original ending, and so Elphaba and Nessa spend years and years doing very little to oppose the Wizard but a lot to set up all the canonical events - no matter how little it makes sense from their perspective, and how much Maguire has to lean on a literal prophecy to fill in the gaps. In contrast, even with all the extra runtime, the pacing feels more rapid in this film than in the first as Chu feels forced to rush through the same canonical events, such as the origins of Dorothy's famed companions, and has to concentrate the darkness after mostly keeping it out of the first part.

Hence, while the second film might stumble more often than the first in the abstract, it never does so to the same extent as the book. The scenes necessary for the Tin Man and the Scarecrow to emerge are painful in how illogical they are...but it's hard to fault them too much as they are at least tightly integrated into the narrative, compared to the book's out-of-place efforts. About halfway through, the Wizard's plot armour is annoying and the second attempt to persuade him feels doomed from the start...but no more so than Elphaba's and Glinda's original journey in the book, which only makes sense in the outwardly prosperous Emerald City of the musical rather than the obvious police state of novel. Elphaba's relationship with Nessarose is disappointingly petty...but the same was true of the novel, which at times TRIED to frame their inability to stop squabbling and properly combine forces as a dramatic flaw, but often just made you want to scream at the page. Ironically, an action which feels shockingly callous in the film matches the book version of the character perfectly.

And thankfully, it's not all stumbles. The film continues to look nice, and while the supporting characters' performances can be...uneven, Erivo is a powerhouse, and Slater is a dark horse in a role where you would least expect it. The film's version of the Cowardly Lion seems to have been controversial, but to me, it works well knowing both the scenes in the novel he most closely maps onto, and the unfortunate real-world examples of the same narrative arc. The new song, "No Place Like Home", is a bit TOO much of a fourth wall lean, clearly stemming from the post-2003 changes in the political environment much more than the internal narrative logic (and is arguably undermined by the subsequent events anyway), but it's still nice, both thematically and in its metatextual echoing of Baum's ending.

To conclude: about 3/4s into the film, I went from all but facepalming at what was transpiring on the screen to utterly enraptured immediately after, as this film's rendition of No Good Deed was followed back-to-back with the stunningly sinister March of the Witch Hunters - the latter opening with one of the more effective chants in recent memory. This, right here, is about the quintessence of Wicked: For Good.