GuilbertG

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 Running Man, 2025 Directed by Edgar Wright Adapted from the original novel by Richard Bachman aka Stephen KIng -

"The Running Man" was a dystopian novel written by Stephen King ( under the pseudonym Richard Bachman ) in 1982. The USA has become an economic wreck. The gap between the rich and poor almost permanent. The government-run media network The Network entertains and pacifies the masses with ultraviolent game shows and blatant propaganda, and maintains order with paramilitary forces occupying cities and enforcing strict rules on mobility and general conduct.

It is set, fittingly, in the year 2025.

"The Running Man" was first translated into a movie in 1987, five years after its release and starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. Like another dystopian novel starring Schwarzenegger ( "Total Recall" by Philip K. Dick ), that adaptation bore little resemblance to the social commentary of the source materials, and served mainly as an action vehicle for its star.

Edgar Wright's 2025 version starring Glen Powell ( Top Gun: Maverick, Hitman, Twisters ) is far more faithful to King's novel, in both spirit and execution. Powell portrays everyman protagonist Ben Richards: a sympathetic - if hot-headed - worker, who's been repeatedly fired from several jobs due to his compassion for fellow workers. Because medicine and other basic commodities have been priced out of reach of the common people, Richard's toddler daughter falls in danger of dying from the common flu, and he is forced to enter The Running Man game, against the wishes pf his waitress wife Sheila ( Jayme Lawson, last seen in Sinners ).

The mechanics of The Running Man are simple: the contestants are declared enemies of the state, given fake criminal backstories to make the audience hate them, handed money and a 12-hour head start, and are then hunted by the show's generically-titled "Hunters," - professional Network-employed hitmen - as well as the general public, who can also win cash prizes for reporting or killing the runners. For their part, the runners win $100 for every day they remain alive and evade capture, earn bonuses for every Hunter or cop they kill, and earn the grand prize of $1 billion if they manage to stay alive for a month.

It is a prize showrunner and producer Dan Killian ( Josh Brolin, all charm and veneers ) has never had to pay out, as no Running Man contestant has ever lived long enough.

Powell is a magnetic onscreen presence and commands the movie's 2hr 15 min runtime, although like Schwarzenegger before him, does not really embody the "scrawny and pre-tubercular" everyman in the novel. Powell's Richards escapes assassination attempts from trained military forces - as well as bounty hunters - so competently one wonders if Wright should've given the character a police or military background to at least bolster the suspension of disbelief.

To be fair, Richards' cross-country survival is aided by several kindred spirits: mostly disgruntled civilians and a loose network of rebel activists trying to awaken the populace to the deceptions of the media and government. One of the more entertaining of these is Elton Parrakis ( Michael Cera ), who has rigged his senile mother's house Home Alone style for some of the movIe's more entertaining kills.

We also see Colman Domingo as the beloved game show host Bobby "Bobby T" Thompson, who puts on a game face but has nothing on the sleazy smarm of real-life Family Feud host Richard Dawson, who played the 1987 movie's composite game show host/producer Damon Killian.

Lee Pace ( GoTG, The Hobbit ) plays Evan McCone, the Hunters' squad leader who holds a tragic secret, but is wasted for 3/4ths of the film with his face behind a full mask. Also given short shrift are William H. Macy, a counterfeiter/arms dealer friend of Richards; Emilia Johnson, as a hostage taken by Richards in the third act; and Sean Hayes as one of Killian's lackeys.

Wright's films are usually light, funny capers, but "The Running Man" has a gravitas that thankfully avoids flippant MCU quips and Schwarzenegger one-liners. "Richards Lives!" is an oft-repeated line, though, evolving from a viewer fan-support chant when Richards starts turning the game's tides against all odds while generating record ratings.

Said ratings and the public's unexpected rallying behind Richards forces Killian, the game master, to offer him his own show - enough for him to rescue his family from poverty forever. Will Richards do the logical thing and succumb to corporate temptation? Or will he lay everything on the line just to stick it to the man?

King's novel - like much of his body of work - ends on a somber note. But Wright offers a much-needed grace note for these fraught and trying times, as well as to satisfy audience expectations, no doubt.

To say any more would be to risk spoilers.

"The Running Man" is a decent action movie with enough substance and social commentary to justify its existence. Wright's action set pieces are inventive without being comical, and his cast likable and game. We're not exactly in King's pre-Hunger Games arena yet, but the system is certainly gamed enough for the groundwork.

See "The Running Man" for Powell's abs and arse. Stay for a teaser into our dystopian endgame.

Frankenstein ( 2025 ) Direction and screenplay adaptation by Guillermo del Toro Netflix --

"Since childhood, I've been faithful to monsters. I have been saved and absolved by them, because monsters, I believe, are patron saints of our blissful imperfection, and they allow and embody the possibility of failing."

• Guillermo del Toro accepting the Golden Globe for "The Shape of Water."

I've been a longtime fan of Guillermo del Toro since 1992's "Mimic." His body of work is a catalogue of sci-fi, horror, and fantasy greats, from "Hellboy," "The Witches," "Pan's Labyrinth," to "The Shape of Water." All with his signature visual flair and unfailing sympathy for the monsters, if not the devil himself.

Thus it just felt natural for him to finally take a stab at Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus," the first sci-fi/horror novel, written on a dare by a woman among bored male writers on a dark, stormy night in 1818.

Like Dracula, most viewers are more familiar with the Universal Pictures' version of Frankenstein's monster, particularly Boris Karloff's iconic rendition: the greenish, lumbering hulk of mindless abomination wreaking death and destruction in its path. But even in the old Universal version, as well as other movies featuring Frankenstein's monster, there was an unexpected tenderness - even innocence - about the creature that managed to shine through.

Kenneth Branagh's 2003 film seems to be the most loyal to the original source material. A haunting, harrowing tale of one man's ambition of creating life turning into a nightmare of endless death. Del Toro, for his part, takes many liberties with Shelley's novel, but retains the tone and more importantly, the heart of her most famous work.

Del Toro's "Frankenstein" is gorgeous. It has an undeniable gothic feel, but is lit with vibrant golds, striking reds, and vivid greens - not at all like the expected somber blacks, greys, and blues of, say, a Tim Burton tale. The practical sets are grand: Frankenstein's laboratory is cavernous, with a definite steampunk aesthetic. The costumes are stunning, and the overall production design is sumptuous. I've never seen coffins as beautifully macabre as the ones you'll see in the first act, and an animatronic that presages the actual Creature exudes a remarkable pathos without a single line of dialogue.

And speaking of pathos, Del Toro wisely understands that for all its horror reputation, "Frankenstein" is at its core a tale of human frailty. A universal flaw embodied by its titular character, Victor Frankenstein: son of a stern doctor/baron ( Charles Dance ), with Oedipal attachments to his doomed mother. It is her demise giving birth to his brother William that propels Victor on his lifelong quest to conquer Death. Oscar Isaac ( Dune, Moon Knight, Inside Desmond Llewlynn ) portrays adult Victor with an almost-manic passion and single-minded vision, as we first see him in an academic tribunal defending his first unholy attempt at recreating life and defying Death itself.

In the audience sits Herr Harlander ( Christoph Waltz ), a former field doctor turned WWI arms manufacturer, who offers to bankroll Victor's experiments with unlimited funds and material support, with a single, secret request in return. Harlander is not in Shelley's novel and is a creation of Del Toro. In the novel Victor brought his Creature to life in his dorm room and not in some castle, as portrayed in all media thus far. But it wouldn't be a Frankenstein film if there is no grand guignol laboratory, and Del Toro's production designer outdid themselves with a massive, abandoned power plant with huge Medusa friezes as the birthplace of Frankenstein's monster.

As for the monster itself, Jacob Elordi ( Euphoria, Saltburn ) demonstrates he's more than just a pretty face, imbuing the Creature with an utterly heartbreaking innocence and pathos that will make millions of goth girls say "I can fix him." Which is also what, in essence, Elizabeth Harlander ( Mia Goth ) feels the moment she beholds him deep in Frankenstein's lair. In the novel, Elizabeth was Victor's adoptive sister who eventually becomes his bride and, later on in Branagh's version, the iconic Bride of Frankenstein. Here, she is the niece of Herr Harlander and the betrothed of William, Victor's younger brother. A curiously pallid yet at the same time vibrant glimmer of life amid Victor's obsession with Death, and whom he eventually begins to covet.

Mia Goth is primarily known as a scream queen ( Pearl, X, Suspiria ) and I suppose her casting is genre-inspired. I was never a fan before this, but her Elizabeth is defiantly outspoken and secretly passionate beneath her proper - and hauntingly ethereal - Victorian veneer, and I became as captivated with her as all her three romantic interests in the film.

Del Toro thematically maneuvers "Frankenstein" from a cautionary tale of hubris, to a conciliatory commentary on generational trauma. Victor feels neglected by his overbearing father. He, in turn, abandons his "son" as he becomes impatient with what seems to be its initial learning disabilities. Victor also years for a companion he cannot have; a grace his Creature likewise demands from him in the film's third act. But while neither of the duo will be granted their hearts' desires, in the end they will both have their own closures.

I felt that in his desire to make the Creature sympathetic, Del Toro robbed him of the duality that marks the species he was cobbled together from. In the novel and other movie adaptations, the Creature kills a child, alternately as an accident and as a way to inflict pain upon Victor. Here, his kills are mainly out of self-defense and rage. I missed the idea that it can commit horrible acts, not out of sheer malice, but simply because it did not know any better - just like its human family, who collectively reject it for looking different.

Del Toro also leans into sci-fi a tad much by making the Creature invincible. While the idea that Victor created immortality while he himself remains a victim of death is tantalizing, it's not a thematic through line in the film. The Creature's invincibility - not to mention its regenerative powers - eventually robs it of any concern the audience may have for its safety. And like all invincible characters, it can get boring after a while. Not Elordi's performance, mind. It's a career-best so far and should cement him as one of this generation's true rising stars.

There's also some dodgy animal CG that briefly takes you out of what is otherwise a totally immersive experience, but it's a minor blip in what is otherwise a magnificent accomplishment.