<\/p>\n
Moviegoers across the world are about to discover something that theater fans have already known for years: The second half of Wicked<\/em> is far from Good. <\/em><\/p>\n The first half of the musical features all its most memorable songs and has enough of an identity to carve its own path despite its origins as, essentially, The Wizard of Oz<\/em> fan fiction. The closer the material gets to that original text, the deadlier it becomes, and Wicked: For Good <\/em>is almost entirely reliant on references to the beloved classic.<\/p>\n The second half of the play has no songs worth mentioning, so the movie version attempts to fix this by adding multiple original ones \u2014 but they\u2019re even worse. It feels like any other modern update of beloved intellectual property, in which they hope the audience will clap and bark like seals at the mere appearance of a reference they understand.<\/p>\n Remember the Cowardly Lion? Here\u2019s how he got so cowardly! You know the Tin Man? Well, he was once a normal man! The movie opens with the Yellow Brick Road being paved! It\u2019s Easter egg cinema at its worst.<\/p>\n Now demonized as the Wicked Witch of the West, Elphaba lives in exile in the Ozian forest, while Glinda resides at the palace in Emerald City, reveling in the perks of fame and popularity. As an angry mob rises against the Wicked Witch, she\u2019ll need to reunite with Glinda to transform herself, and all of Oz.<\/p>\n Wicked: For Good <\/em>is so patently silly that it makes you wonder how and why Wicked<\/em> became such a long-lasting phenomenon in the first place. It\u2019s so far removed from the highs of the first film, and that first half of the play \u2014 the earworm that is \u201cPopular,\u201d\u00a0<\/em>and the rousing barn-burner finale that is \u201cDefying Gravity\u201d \u2014<\/em> that it retroactively taints the entire experience and will have you questioning if you were too kind to part one.<\/p>\n Wicked: For Good <\/em>lays bare that splitting the adaptation into two parts was an absolutely disastrous decision. They turned a two-hour, 45-minute play (with intermission!) into a nearly five-hour film, and you feel every second of filler. It\u2019s vamping at feature length! One could feasibly watch the entire Broadway musical twice <\/em>in the time it would take to marathon both parts of the movie adaptation, which is absurd.<\/p>\n The simple fact is, Wicked: For Good<\/em> becomes insufferable as soon as it ties itself in knots to connect to The Wizard of Oz, s<\/em>aving all the inane plotting for this one. Ariana Grande\u2019s performance is consistent here, but Cynthia Erivo feels lost at sea and bored with the terrible material and arc for her character, a noticeably less animated performance than before. And don\u2019t get me started on the washed-out and ugly digital look of it all, despite the colorful sets.<\/p>\n It\u2019s shocking how much worse Wicked: For Good<\/em> is than last year’s blockbuster smash hit. It\u2019s so DOA that the packed house audience I watched it with sat there in stunned silence throughout, every joke and emotional beat landing with a thud to the degree that the dead air really filled the space. That was not the case with part one. It\u2019s one of the biggest disappointments of the year, though it\u2019s sure to make so much money that its director is already threatening<\/a> a part three.<\/p>\n What other critics are saying: <\/strong>The response is more mixed than it was for Wicked. <\/em>The Telegraph’s Robbie Collin<\/a> calls it “irritating” and says “the corporate stretch-it-out-and-wring-it-dry approach here has been deadening.” Pete Hammond at Deadline loved it, however, writing, “the visual effects are first rate” and that it “flies even higher” than the first. Wow!<\/p>\n