Commentaires des utilisateurs

"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.

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.

Elphaba and Glinda find their respective paths, but their friendship is sorely tested. Can it survive, or will the once-close witches become mortal enemies?

The first film quite literally took the world by storm, entertaining millions and surprising many-people who went in expecting to loathe it were satisfied.

Where the first film is whimsical, uplifting, and somehow familiar, this second act is altogether more serious and a little deeper.

Dazzling special effects make it feel grand and opulent, but sometimes it's so polished and dazzling that the story gets a little lost. Occasionally it's so sentimental that it becomes a bit much.

It's not quite the hocus without the pocus, but it's not a patch on the first movie. Yes, it's visually stunning and nobody on earth could tell me there isn't chemistry between Cynthia and Ariana-it's there-but everything else just feels a little subdued.

As expected, there are many references to the first film. I couldn't help but think I'd sooner have been watching that. Die-hards will surely love it, but those who were unexpectedly surprised by the first may feel a little short-changed.

6/10.

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 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.

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 don't see how this is getting good reviews. The film mostly plods along in areas where it should be breezy and zips along it areas that could do more time. The musical numbers are very fragmented, sometimes it seem the cast aren't sure what song they are singing or what dance moves to do. All in all a big disappointment compared to the first film. This isn't one for casual cinema goer. One for the fans only maybe but only just.

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.

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.

Went into this with high expectations but left feeling indifferent.

As good as Cynthia Erivos performance is it wasn't enough to pull this film together.

Characters plot weak and story rushed. Whole thing was stretched far too thin- needed a good 45 minutes chopped off it.

Songs dull and immemorial- Dare I say a bit boring.

There were elements I enjoyed and liked the spin of how Tin man, Cowardly lion and Scarecrow were re-invented.

Hated the ending but I liked Cynthia's character and wanted vindication for her so was disappointed. I felt a lot of the characters were unnecessary additions .Overview ( Just Ok) I actually checked my phone several times during the showing to see how long was left. Such a shame as it had great potential.

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!

I loved the first movie and have watched it at least 10 times. Why is the second one so drastically less in all ways? The second act even has my favorite songs - As Long As Your Mine and No Good Deed - and I was very satisfied with them in the movie, but everything else around it was rushed or dragged out, dark or hokey and generally flat. And as I fully expected, the two new songs were uninspired and unmemorable. Seriously an entire song of Glinda walking around her home like an episode of AD's Celebrity Homes? This movie either ran out of steam or was done in parallel to part one but by the B Team. This would have been an epic masterpiece as one movie, but as two, it makes the second half feel like the caboose that's missing the front half of the train.

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 new film Wicked: For Good enters the Wizard of Oz universe with ambitious intentions, and as someone who considers The Wizard of Oz their all-time favorite movie, it is impossible not to walk in with high expectations. What immediately becomes clear is that Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande carry this film with remarkable force. Their performances as Elphaba and Glinda are emotionally rich, vocally stunning, and deeply connected, giving the movie its strongest and most consistent heartbeat. Their chemistry drives the story, grounding it even when the screenplay around them begins to wobble.

Despite its title and thematic focus, Wicked: For Good sidelines several major players in surprising ways. Jeff Goldblum's Wizard, who should command presence in a story centered on his reign, feels oddly minimized. The same goes for Michelle Yeoh's Madame Morrible, who operates more like a distant puppet master than an active force. Even characters who were significantly promoted through posters-including Elphaba and Glinda's school friends-barely appear, leaving the marketing feeling misleading. Nessa, too, barely registers, despite her important role in the overarching lore. The film ultimately belongs almost entirely to Glinda, shifting far away from the ensemble feel of the first installment.

Tonally, Wicked: For Good is much darker and heavier than its predecessor. The director does a solid job unifying the emotional depth and visual tone, but the joy, comedy, and vibrant energy that defined the earlier film are replaced by a more somber, romantic, and tragic atmosphere. While that direction fits the trajectory of the story, it also exposes inconsistencies and plot holes that the screenplay never fully resolves. Even major elements, like the talking animals-a central issue in the first film-feel strangely reduced and underdeveloped here.

The film's attempt to blend seamlessly into the known events of the 1939 Wizard of Oz movie results in its biggest storytelling missteps. The Cowardly Lion's origin is rewritten in a way that contradicts the established lore, turning him into a briefly seen, poorly-rendered CGI animal who appears and disappears without impact. The Tin Man's transformation, while expected, shifts drastically in tone by making him unusually aggressive and vengeful-an odd choice for a character defined by lacking a heart. The handling of Fiyero as the Scarecrow raises even bigger questions, particularly regarding his confusing allegiance to Dorothy and the timeline of how he ultimately reunites with Elphaba.

Some of the most jarring issues come from casting decisions that simply do not align with the universe the film is trying to honor. Dorothy's brief appearance feels strangely off, both visually and tonally, and Toto being inexplicably brown is another distracting departure. These choices might seem small, but when a film openly ties itself to such iconic source material, the details matter. Unfortunately, many of these details feel mismatched or underdeveloped, leading to noticeable continuity gaps that long-time fans will immediately catch.

Despite its flaws, Wicked: For Good remains enjoyable, thanks largely to the strength of its two leads. Ariana Grande will almost certainly find herself in the awards conversation, and Cynthia Erivo once again proves she can carry any emotional weight placed upon her. The film is heartfelt, beautifully performed, and visually ambitious, yet it often struggles under the pressure of honoring The Wizard of Oz while trying to reinvent its mythology. It is worth seeing, especially for fans of the first film, but it is also destined to fade over time-not because it is bad, but because it tried so hard to rewrite a classic that it occasionally lost its way.

There is no story in this movie. I went in with high expectations. And left disappointed. I could have done much more with two hours of my time.

After about twenty minutes, I already mentally checked out.

After about thirty minutes, I searched for the running time using my cell phone to determine how much longer I had to sit through this mess.

My friend called "Wicked: For Good" an "empty movie." It's an accurate description.

Not for literate adults. Bring your young children and grandchildren only. And something else to keep you busy while the movie's on.

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!

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.

Always been a "Wizard of Oz" fan and I read and saw the "Wicked" play and saw the first film so you're right I returned to see the conclusion and final chapter "Wicked: For Good". And the film was entertaining and energy filled with music and again it's a journey of love, friendship, doubt, and trust! This time Elphaba(a fine performance from Cynthia) is well established as the wicked witch of the west, and she still is against the grain and challenges and questions the wizard. Still in conflict and dealing with her differences with Glinda(Ariana Grande) the good witch. Only things change with drama and accidents! As a house is dropped in Oz with a girl named Dorothy! Overall the production, design, and sets once again make it a tribute and a super great motion picture, really this was a fitting way to end this franchise!

I will state at the outset that I saw this having NOT watched the first instalment. My grandkids had, and were keen to see the follow-up.

I knew the basic plot lines of Wicked and was aware of the characters so I was ready to sit back and entertained. Instead I had to sit through 2.5 hours of unevenly paced musical theatre with far too mercurial plot lines, average to poor script and lacking the one thing any musical must have - catchy or engaging songs.

There's no shortage of action and reasonable if not great CGI. There's acting is mostly acceptable although Jeff Goldblum is miscast as the Wizard of Oz and Michelle Yeoh is wasted here, given so little worthwhile dialogue to work with. I also got a little fed up of the endless closeups of Arianna Grande's cherubic face, finding myself studying how well her jewellery props were made instead.

The tone of most reviews here suggests disappointment from those who did see the first instalment and loved it. If, like me you haven't, then I suggest you give this a miss. If you think I have no right to comment because I didn't see part 1, then please note that my grandkids (who loved the first movie), kept tugging at my sleeve after about an hour, asking when it would be finished. Now THATS a meaningful review.

Plenty.

My Review - Wicked: For Good In Cinemas now My Score 10/10

To my knowledge there's never been a movie adaptation of an original Broadway musical split into two separate movies .

I'm pleased to report this second instalment really works living up to to the hype and promise of Wicked Part One.

To be really appreciated it must be seen on the big cinema screen as the extraordinary sets and costume detail plus the emotional impact would be lost on television.

John M. Chu who directed both instalments added to the realism of the movie by insisting on the minimal use of CGI rather opting for the building of massive sets . This included planting 9 million tulips to serve as part of the landscape for Munchkinland, although for wider shots VFX was still used.

I can't add a great deal more praise to Wicked :For Good because I'd be repeating much of my comments for my review of Wicked Part One .

I won't spoil the clever twists and turns that segue into the 1939 Wizard of Oz classic movie except to say when you see the back story of Wicked it opens up an entirely different interpretation to the Judy Garland beloved version based on the L Frank Baume characters, especially Glinda the Good and Elpahaba.

Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande repeat their brilliant interpretations of Elphaba and Glinda in fact I think they are more impressive in Wicked For Good because this story focuses on their emotional relationship .

Wicked 2024 focuses more on introducing us to the characters in their formative years.

Wicked For Good is darker because the Wizard and Madame Morrible's lies and corruption have turned Oz upside down.

Jeff Goldblum and Michelle Yeoh as well as Jonathan Bailey as Fiyero have much more dramatic impact in the second instalment.

Wicked 2024 was nominated for 10 Academy Awards winning 2 for Production and Costume design I suspect Wicked For Good will win more nominations and will win a few more major Oscars.

I love all the songs and orchestration in both movies plus new songs written by the original Wicked composer Stephen Schwartz who penned two new songs the film: "No Place Like Home," sung by Erivo's Elphaba, and "The Girl in the Bubble," sung by Grande's Glinda.

I gave Wicked (2024) a top rating of 10 and I'm giving Wicked For Good the same perfect score it certainly had been worth the wait .

This film is easily the most overhyped movie of this year. Between poor transitions and awkward performance, it feels a lot more like an excuse to tie up as many loose ends in between the first and the original Wizard of Oz, than an actual film. The love ballad might have been the most unconvincing and uncomfortable scenes of the entire movie, and yet its build up lasted the entire film. The plot had more holes in it than a high school film project, and that says a lot, being based off a novel and then a musical. I found myself checking the time more than once, grateful to God it wasn't as long as the first, which I actually enjoyed.

If you're a fanatic of this franchise you'll find a way to defend it. If you're a family trying to enjoy thanksgiving week and the holiday season, watch it. If you want to be entertained, stay in and watch the first, or stick to the musical.

I wasn't a big fan of the first Wicked. A rewatch on the small screen during the Oscar season made me appreciate it a bit more - performances, catchy pop-bubbly tunes and sheer production scale. But even then, the direction and pacing were unfortunate.

Wicked For Good makes the first film look like a cinematic tour de force. This one is just plain bad.

And yet it's somehow swimming in MUCH higher ratings than it deserves, thanks to an aggressively devoted stan base, not just for the IP, but for a certain pop star whose every micro-gesture is treated like Shakespearean brilliance. Someone please tell her (and them) that trembling your chin before crying is not the pinnacle of dramatic acting. It's a common expression and here it plays as forced... borderline silly. She had great comedic timing and scene-stealing energy in the first film but here, there's almost none of that spark, and the big emotional beats completely wash over her.

As for the movie itself... what. A. slog.

The middle stretch somehow manages to feel urgent and utterly uneventful at the same time. The songs are mostly forgettable, the humor dialed way down and the emotional moments land with all the depth of a puddle. The visuals resemble the first movie's aesthetic (no shock, shot back to back), but the CGI this time is noticeably worse. There are backgrounds so fake and (yet again) lighting so atrocious I genuinely wondered how those shots escaped the edit suite.

Hardcore stans will worship it anyway, quality becomes optional when you're deep in hype mode, but make no mistake - this is a genuinely weak sequel that trips into every trap sequels like this nowadays always fall into.

Now, personally, I wasn't too big on the first Wicked, nor the play, but I did enjoy the music and some of the artistic choices. Unfortunately, this continuation fails to live up to the charm the play and previous movie.

Throughout, the visuals and production designs are beautiful and colorful. It helps to establish the world of Oz, the setting and characters being shown. Alongside with the make-up, costume work, colorful patterns and sound designs. The performances are good, especially Cynthia Erivo as Erivo does a great job on capturing her character and role. Ariana Grande is pretty good as well, alongside with the rest of the cast members.

But what makes the movie fail is the messy pacing, storytelling, and the character dynamics. The director struggles to balance out between the tone, atmosphere and style properly, as it goes quite all over the place, which makes it confusing. Alongside with the writing offering cliche tropes and concepts that didn't work as it thinks it did, the characters, aren't interesting. Sadly, I disagree with many others but I felt the characters lack chemistry, as the dynamics and style didn't work and feels off-putting. Because of this, it made certain sequences feel boring and uneven.

The presentation is ugly, particularly the colors and portrait, the dialogue is pretty clunky, and the musical score and singing, unlike the first one, the songs aren't memorable or good. The song writing feels bland and clunky, and at times, some of the music feels like if AI was used.

Overall, it's a downgrade of the first one. I'm sure the fans will like it but those who loved Wicked, might not like this one as the first one.