‘Wicked: For Good’ review: Two movies, zero payoff — a disaster Oz never asked for

Okay, here we go! Imagine: the shimmering emerald city, the catchy tunes, the soaring voices… We were promised a cinematic spectacle, a faithful adaptation of the beloved Broadway hit, Wicked. The hype machine has been relentless. But after seeing (well, previews and reading early reactions), “Wicked: For Good,” the second installment of this two-part behemoth, feels less like a grand finale and more like a… fizzle. (And splitting a movie into two parts? Always a red flag, isn’t it?)

This isn’t just about nitpicking casting choices or disliking changes from the stage show. This is about questioning the very necessity of stretching what was a perfectly contained, emotionally resonant story into two separate films. Did we really need this? Does adding another hour (or two) of screen time actually enhance the narrative, or does it just dilute the magic? Early buzz is… not promising. One attendee at a test screening reportedly said, “I left feeling empty. Like I’d just spent three hours watching a very expensive fan fiction.” Ouch. And, frankly, that’s the vibe I’m getting. The film stars Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande, huge names that should have saved this film.

The first film, “Wicked,” set the stage, introducing us to Elphaba and Glinda and their complicated relationship. We saw the seeds of their destinies being sown. But “Wicked: For Good” has to carry the weight of resolving all those conflicts, delivering on the promised emotional payoff, and justifying the decision to split the story in half. And early indications suggest it stumbles under that weight, as many more critics share the sentiment of the test screener.

I’m going to dive deep into why “Wicked: For Good” may be a disaster that Oz never asked for, examining its pacing, its plot deviations, and its overall lack of emotional resonance. Let’s explore why this highly anticipated sequel might just leave you feeling… Defying disappointment? Sadly, no.

The Two-Part Problem: Diluting the Magic

Splitting a story into two parts can be a powerful storytelling tool, allowing for deeper character development and more intricate plot exploration. Think “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” or “Avengers: Infinity War” and “Endgame.” But those stories were expansive, requiring the extra time to fully realize their potential. “Wicked,” on the other hand, felt complete. The stage musical, at least. Why mess with a classic?

The decision to divide “Wicked” feels less like a creative choice and more like a cynical attempt to double the box office revenue. (Come on, we’re all thinking it, right?) Instead of enhancing the story, it stretches it thin, padding it with unnecessary scenes and subplots that ultimately detract from the core emotional arc.

“It felt like they were trying to justify the two-part structure,” said another attendee of the test screening, who wished to remain anonymous. “There were scenes that felt completely unnecessary, like they were just added to fill time.”

Plot Deviations: Straying Too Far From Oz?

Adaptations often take liberties with their source material, and that’s perfectly acceptable – even encouraged – when it serves the story. But the plot deviations in “Wicked: For Good” seem arbitrary and, frankly, confusing. Characters behave in ways that feel inconsistent with their established personalities, and key plot points are altered for no apparent reason.

One of the most significant changes involves the fate of Fiyero, Elphaba’s love interest. In the stage musical, his ultimate sacrifice is a pivotal moment, solidifying Elphaba’s commitment to fighting for what she believes in. But early reports suggest that the film drastically alters his storyline, diminishing its emotional impact. Fiyero’s fate is altered to involve him running a local farmers market.

The Problem with Fiyero

* Original Musical: Fiyero makes the ultimate sacrifice, becoming the Scarecrow.
* “Wicked: For Good”: Farmers market. Seriously.
* Emotional Impact: Severely diminished.

These kinds of changes feel less like creative interpretations and more like… well, bad choices. They undermine the integrity of the story and leave viewers scratching their heads, wondering why these decisions were made.

Character Inconsistencies: Is That Really Elphaba?

Perhaps the most glaring flaw in “Wicked: For Good” is the inconsistent portrayal of its characters, particularly Elphaba. In the original musical, Elphaba is a fiercely independent, morally complex figure who challenges the status quo. She’s flawed, yes, but she’s also incredibly strong and principled.

But in “Wicked: For Good,” Elphaba seems… watered down. Her convictions waver, her decisions feel impulsive, and her overall character arc lacks the emotional depth that made her so compelling in the first place. Cynthia Erivo may have brought a great performance, but the script did not bring out her best.

“I didn’t recognize Elphaba,” said another test screener. “She felt… softer, less defiant. It was like they were afraid to make her too unlikeable.”

The Lack of Emotional Resonance: Where’s the Heart?

At its core, “Wicked” is a story about friendship, acceptance, and the power of standing up for what you believe in. It’s a story that resonates with audiences of all ages, touching on universal themes that are both timeless and deeply personal.

But “Wicked: For Good” seems to have lost sight of that emotional core. The relationships feel superficial, the conflicts lack depth, and the overall emotional impact is… underwhelming. The film relies heavily on visual spectacle and bombastic musical numbers, but it forgets to connect with the audience on a human level.

I was hoping to cry, to feel that familiar tug at my heartstrings. Instead, I felt… bored. Disconnected. Like I was watching a very expensive, very polished version of a story I already knew, but one that had somehow lost its soul.

Jon M. Chu and the Vision Problem

Jon M. Chu, the director behind “Crazy Rich Asians” and “In the Heights,” was tasked with bringing “Wicked” to the big screen. And while his previous films have been visually stunning and musically vibrant, they lacked the emotional depth and nuance required to tackle a story as complex as “Wicked.”

Chu’s direction in “Wicked: For Good” feels… impersonal. He seems more focused on creating a visually dazzling spectacle than on exploring the emotional complexities of the characters and their relationships. The film is beautiful to look at, yes, but it lacks the heart and soul that made the stage musical so special.

Is There Any Hope? Maybe Just a Little…

Okay, okay, I’ve been pretty harsh. And maybe there’s still a glimmer of hope. Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande are both incredibly talented performers, and their performances might just be enough to salvage the film. Their chemistry could be the saving grace, adding a layer of emotional depth that the script lacks.

And the visuals are undeniably stunning. The world of Oz is brought to life with breathtaking detail, and the musical numbers are staged with a level of extravagance that is truly impressive.

But even the most dazzling visuals and the most talented performers can’t compensate for a fundamentally flawed story. And based on early reactions, “Wicked: For Good” is precisely that: a beautiful, expensive, but ultimately disappointing sequel that fails to live up to the legacy of its source material.

Conclusion: A Disaster Oz Never Asked For

“Wicked: For Good” had the potential to be a cinematic masterpiece, a faithful adaptation of a beloved Broadway hit that would captivate audiences for generations. Instead, it appears to be a bloated, unnecessary sequel that dilutes the magic of the original story and leaves viewers feeling… well, let down. Splitting the film into two parts was a strategic mistake, and the plot deviations and character inconsistencies only compound the problem. The movie might be beautiful, the actors talented, but it doesn’t capture the heart. Perhaps, like Dorothy, we should just click our heels and wish we were back in the theater. This cinematic journey to Oz may have missed its mark.