The eagerly awaited sequel, 'Wicked: For Good', has landed with a mixed reception from critics, who are generally positive but not as captivated as they were by its predecessor.
The film, released on Friday, reunites Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande as Elphaba and Glinda, delving into the origins of the iconic Wicked Witch of the West. While some critics praised the film, others found it lacking in comparison to the original.
Empire's John Nugent described it as 'not quite Wicked: For Great', awarding it three stars. Total Film's Molly Edwards, however, called it an 'absolute triumph', despite noting weaker source material and songs. And this is where the debate begins.
The Wizard of Oz spin-off, adapted from Gregory Maguire's 1995 book and the hit stage musical, offers new backstories for Dorothy's companions in Oz. Jeff Goldblum reprises his role as the Wizard, joined by Michelle Yeoh and Jonathan Bailey.
Francesca Steele from the i paper found it entertaining but not as captivating as Part One. But here's where it gets controversial—some critics were far less impressed. The Independent's Clarisse Loughrey called it an 'aimless slog', while the Telegraph's Robbie Collin criticized its pacing and character development.
Kevin Maher of the Times, however, awarded it four stars, claiming it surpasses the original in various aspects. Both films are directed by Jon M Chu, known for his work on Crazy Rich Asians and In The Heights.
Chu is also slated to direct a new adaptation of 'Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat'. Critics have praised Ariana Grande's performance, predicting another Oscar nomination. Variety's Peter Debruge and the Hollywood Reporter's David Rooney highlighted her nuanced portrayal, showcasing her acting range.
Rooney also praised Erivo's powerhouse performance, a sentiment echoed by the Guardian's Peter Bradshaw. The film retains the dreamlike quality and Broadway flair of its predecessor, but is it enough to cast a spell on audiences?
The stage musical was divided into two parts for the big screen, filmed simultaneously. The first installment was a box office success, winning multiple awards. But the sequel faces a challenge—many of Wicked's iconic songs were featured in the first film, leaving the second act with less musical impact.
Empire's Nugent noted a shift in tone, with a less cheerful atmosphere. So, is 'Wicked: For Good' a worthy successor, or does it fall short of expectations? The critics are divided, and the audience will have the final say. What do you think? Is it a magical experience or a disappointing journey down the yellow brick road?
