Wicked: For Good just came out recently, and it has been getting amazing reviews. Though it hasn’t blown up as much as the original Wicked movie, it still has a lot of traction in media. It has been praised endlessly for its music and acting, especially by the two big leads, Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande. Even though it has garnered all this praise, there will always be critics.
Justin Chang from The New Yorker wrote in his article about this new movie, “The best thing about the 2024 movie “Wicked” was that it ended. After some two and a half hours of dubious “Wizard of Oz” revisionism, stolidly antifascist politics, and digitally shellacked song-and-dance spectacle, the director Jon M. Chu brought the curtain down on a high note…What a world, what a world. The End. If only.” He points out that the filmmakers didn’t have to make another part of the franchise, and that it would’ve been much better if the franchise had stayed at one movie. This viewpoint is reiterated in Aisha Harris’s article for NPR, “Wicked: For Good is based on the show’s second act, and ever since it was announced that the two hour and 45-minute production (including intermission) would be sprawled across two separate films totaling an approximate five-hour runtime, people like me have wondered, What’s the (non-capitalistic) point of that? Having now seen For Good, I can attest there isn’t a point, or at least not a wholly convincing one.”
Many viewpoints have been put out, good and bad. I think there are also a lot of people, like me, who have not seen the second Wicked movie, and I’m happy with the ending of the first one. It gave me a good insight into the beginnings of the Wicked Witch of the West. In the end, Wicked: For Good is a movie that has garnered both good and bad praise, still keeping it a popular franchise.
About The Author
I watched the movie and thought it was rly good! This is a good article