The latest installment in the "Wicked" franchise, "Wicked: For Good," has left fans underwhelmed and disappointed. The decision to split the story into two films was touted as a way to expand on the original tale and give fans more time with their favorite characters, but in reality, it's resulted in a messy, poorly paced film that fails to live up to its predecessor.
While the first "Wicked" film was a delightful adaptation of Gregory Maguire's book, which had already been adapted into a successful stage production by the L. Frank Baum company, director Jon M. Chu has taken a different approach with his sequel. Instead of condensing the story and removing weaker elements, he's opted to pad out the second act, resulting in a bloated film that lacks the dynamism of its predecessor.
The addition of new songs like "No Place Like Home" and "The Girl in the Bubble" fails to impress, with lyrics that are more confusing than engaging. The film's pacing is glacially slow, making it feel like a slog to sit through. Even the performances from Ariana Grande as Glinda and Cynthia Erivo as Elphaba can't elevate the material, which feels like it's been stretched to its limits.
The decision to split the franchise into two films was likely driven by a desire for more box office revenue, but at what cost? The film is now doomed to repeat itself over two consecutive holiday seasons, rather than being able to truly stand on its own merits. It's a shame, because with a little more focus and editing, "Wicked: For Good" could have been a truly great film.
The problem is that the story of "Wicked" has already been told in many different ways over the years - from L. Frank Baum's original book to the hit stage production, not to mention the 1939 film adaptation of "The Wizard of Oz." There's no real need for an expanded version of the story when practically everyone on Earth already knows some version of it.
In fact, one could argue that condensing the story and removing weaker elements would have resulted in a better overall product. The first "Wicked" film was already over three hours long, making it feel like a chore to sit through at times. By trimming up the second act and removing its weakest moments, the entire story could have been condensed into a single film that retained the high highs of the original while polishing off the duds.
Now, with "Wicked: For Good," the momentum of the franchise is crashing down, leaving fans feeling empty and disappointed. The addition of new characters and plotlines feels like a desperate attempt to stretch out the story, rather than allowing it to breathe and evolve on its own terms. It's a shame, because with a little more focus and restraint, "Wicked" could have been truly great - but instead, it's just another example of franchise filmmaking greed getting in the way of what should be a magical tale for all ages.
While the first "Wicked" film was a delightful adaptation of Gregory Maguire's book, which had already been adapted into a successful stage production by the L. Frank Baum company, director Jon M. Chu has taken a different approach with his sequel. Instead of condensing the story and removing weaker elements, he's opted to pad out the second act, resulting in a bloated film that lacks the dynamism of its predecessor.
The addition of new songs like "No Place Like Home" and "The Girl in the Bubble" fails to impress, with lyrics that are more confusing than engaging. The film's pacing is glacially slow, making it feel like a slog to sit through. Even the performances from Ariana Grande as Glinda and Cynthia Erivo as Elphaba can't elevate the material, which feels like it's been stretched to its limits.
The decision to split the franchise into two films was likely driven by a desire for more box office revenue, but at what cost? The film is now doomed to repeat itself over two consecutive holiday seasons, rather than being able to truly stand on its own merits. It's a shame, because with a little more focus and editing, "Wicked: For Good" could have been a truly great film.
The problem is that the story of "Wicked" has already been told in many different ways over the years - from L. Frank Baum's original book to the hit stage production, not to mention the 1939 film adaptation of "The Wizard of Oz." There's no real need for an expanded version of the story when practically everyone on Earth already knows some version of it.
In fact, one could argue that condensing the story and removing weaker elements would have resulted in a better overall product. The first "Wicked" film was already over three hours long, making it feel like a chore to sit through at times. By trimming up the second act and removing its weakest moments, the entire story could have been condensed into a single film that retained the high highs of the original while polishing off the duds.
Now, with "Wicked: For Good," the momentum of the franchise is crashing down, leaving fans feeling empty and disappointed. The addition of new characters and plotlines feels like a desperate attempt to stretch out the story, rather than allowing it to breathe and evolve on its own terms. It's a shame, because with a little more focus and restraint, "Wicked" could have been truly great - but instead, it's just another example of franchise filmmaking greed getting in the way of what should be a magical tale for all ages.
I mean, come on... who thought splitting a story into two films was a good idea? It's like they took a perfectly good tale and decided to split it up just to make more money 
. Newsflash: it didn't work! The first "Wicked" film was already over three hours long, so condensing the second act would've actually made sense 
. Instead, we got two films that are now going to be released back-to-back every holiday season 
. It's like they're trying to wear out their welcome rather than letting the story stand on its own merit 
.
. "No Place Like Home" and "The Girl in the Bubble" are just...meh 
. I mean, where's the magic? The spark that made us love the original story in the first place? It's like they took a bunch of notes from songwriting 101 and thought they could just mash it together 
.
. I mean, who needs an expanded version when practically everyone already knows some version of the story? 
It's like they're trying to milk a cow for all it's worth rather than letting it dry up 
. I mean, I loved the first one and was hyped for this sequel but it's just not living up to expectations 
. It feels like they're trying to cram too much into the story and it's ending up feeling bloated 
. And honestly, I don't think we need another Wicked film when there are so many other amazing stories out there 
. Can't we just enjoy the original instead of trying to milk it for all it's worth? 
. I wish they'd taken a chance on making something truly magical instead of trying to milk this franchise for as much money as possible 
. It's a shame, because with a little more focus and editing, it could've been something special 
.
and the new songs were cringeworthy 
it's like they took all the good parts of the first one and added like a million extra minutes that didn't add up 
at least now i know why the franchise gets split into 2 movies, its just cash grab 
I mean, I loved the first one and was hyped for more, but this is just a mess! Like, what's up with the pacing? It feels like they're trying to cram in as much filler as possible