Wicked: Partie II

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.

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).

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.

"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.