Wicked: Pour De Bon

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.

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).

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.

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.