This is a solid sequel, even if I don’t quite share the tidal wave of hype surrounding it. These films are fun—beautiful to look at, well-acted, and bursting with whimsical energy—but for me, that’s the extent of it. They’re enjoyable, not transcendent.
To the film’s credit, the cast is strong across the board. Everyone shows up ready to deliver, and the chemistry is consistent. The set pieces are gorgeous—there’s a shimmering, magical atmosphere that’s undeniably inviting. Even without having seen the stage version myself, it’s easy to appreciate the level of craftsmanship on display.
Where the movie falters is in the storytelling. With two full parts to work with, I expected a deeper, richer unfolding of the lore—especially when it comes to iconic characters like the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Cowardly Lion. Instead, their introductions feel rushed or oddly disconnected. The Scarecrow and Tin Man moments don’t quite land with the emotional weight they should, and the Cowardly Lion practically appears out of nowhere. Yes, the film references the cub from the first installment, but the execution doesn’t give the audience enough to latch onto.
Then there’s Dorothy. We’re told she’s a naïve farm girl, but the movie never shows us why. And the ruby slippers sticking to her feet—what magic is doing that? Why? The movie raises questions it never fully explores, leaving gaps in a story that really shouldn’t have them, especially in a two-part adaptation.
Is the film enjoyable? Absolutely. It’s polished, charming, and elevated by strong performances. But it also feels like it leaves thematic threads hanging—lessons hinted at but not developed, character arcs introduced but not fully explored.
So yes, Wicked: For Good is a good time—but it could’ve been a great one with tighter storytelling and a bit more narrative intention.
Leave a Reply