Wicked: For Good is very light on the good. An adaptation of the second act of the popular play Wicked, this sequel is shockingly terrible and almost laughably (cackingly?) bad.
How Wicked: Part One and Wicked: For Good were filmed simultaneously only to result in two wildly different outcomes–I enjoyed the first part for what it was, even if there wasn’t much going on beneath the colorful surface–is absolutely confounding. Whereas Part One suffered from a lack of plot and forward momentum, but made up for it with sheer energy, strong musical numbers, and pure entertainment value, For Good tries to do too much and feels utterly flat and deflated throughout.
A lot happens in Wicked’s second act, but director Jon M. Chu’s devotion to the source materials makes bare the risks of being faithful to a plot that might work on a stage–but not necessarily on the big screen. The decision to split the adaptation into two parts makes obvious sense from a financial standpoint but not a quality one, as Wicked: For Good quickly descends into maddeningly nonsensical plotting.
Even just a year removed from the first one, I remembered very little of what previously happened–who is Boq? He’s a Munchkin, even though he’s not tiny? Fiyero isn’t that into Glinda? Should I care?–and based on what I witnessed here, I’d prefer the whole thing be erased from my memory. But even as I did get reacclimated to this world of Oz–colorful, yes, but still just as dull and unmoving as in the first one–Wicked: For Good bounces from one plot point to the next without developing the characters, their relationships, and more.
I saw the play once long ago (didn’t love it, but it was fine) and had forgotten the origins of the Tin Man and the Scarecrow, but boy do their introductions do not work at all at a cinematic level. How these poor saps came to be is downright cheesy, not to mention rushed and without proper development.
Speaking of cheesy, the big romantic scene between Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo, who seems to have lost interest in her role by this point) and Fiyero (Jonathan Bailey) is downright embarrassing to watch. My girlfriend and I started laughing, and we weren’t the only ones in the room trying to stifle our giggles. Their chemistry is nonexistent, but Cho does them no favors with weird staging and theatrics.
For a movie that races through various story points without a care in the world, the worst aspect of Wicked: For Good is that it is insanely boring throughout. The movie is well over two hours long and it feels much longer. The energy of Part One is completely absent from this second part and the humor all but abandoned. Even the musical numbers are bland–there isn’t a single song that stands out as a headturner.
The one highlight: Ariana Grande as Glinda. She was stellar in Part One and is less stellar here, though you can tell the issue is the material, not her.
Wicked: For Good is the opposite of good. Lifeless with very little value of note, it’s the epitome of bad storytelling. Splitting the play into two movies was, unsurprisingly, a bad decision, but had Cho been willing to pull more of the story into the first movie and flesh out what was left in For Good, he may have had a chance.
As is, it’s best to sweep Wicked: For Good under the table and float away in a hot air balloon, never to return.
Review by Erik Samdahl. Erik is a marketing and technology executive by day, avid movie lover by night. He is a member of the Seattle Film Critics Society.
