‘Wicked: For Good’ review: Don’t dream too far

Despite their efforts, Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande can’t save the messy Wicked: For Good.

The writing has been on the wall for Wicked: For Good since the announcement that the musical’s adaptation would be split in two. Taking away the most critical hit to the film’s success (its director), the story was always where the sequel would suffer most. Because, despite a few good numbers, the second act of Wicked was always its weakest, trading in iconic, character-defining numbers for lukewarm reprisals and lackluster new numbers. The film desperately tries to weave together all of the ongoing plotlines while also acting as a clumsy prequel to The Wizard of Oz. The result is a lumbering, poorly shot slog of a ride that, in its pursuit of epic maximalism, stumbles into dull regurgitation instead.

Wicked: For Good takes place five years after the end of Wicked. Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo), now known as the Wicked Witch of the West, in on a constant run from capture by the Wizard (Jeff Goldblum) and Madame Morrible (Michelle Yeoh). As the corrupt leadership continues to try to discredit her name as a destructive force, Elphaba is trying to protect the rights of the Animals. Glinda (Ariana Grande), now a spokesperson of the Wizard and engaged to Fiyero (Jonathan Bailey), watches from afar. And, despite their engagement and Fiyero’s promotion as Captain of the Wizard’s Guard, it’s clear that he isn’t content, no matter how Glinda tries to dress up her seemingly happy life.

The film follows as their stories intersect and as Glinda continues to try to right her world, hoping for a semblance of peace. That way, she doesn’t have to investigate her own complicity too closely. As Elphaba grows more powerful, she finds herself further from all those she cares for. This includes her sister Nessa (Marissa Bode), whose own beliefs have been corroded by bitterness, influence, and her desire for love from a distant Boq (Ethan Slater). Battles are won and lost, love stories plummet and grow, and Dorothy arrives in Oz. It’s a lot. It’s too much. And yet, despite the many, many plot lines, the story fizzles and struggles to maintain any momentum.

Ariana Grande is the clear highlight in Wicked: For Good.

As was the case with Wicked, the best part is the two lead performances. This is Grande’s show, however, and she doesn’t hold back in showcasing herself as a bona fide performer. The closest we get to emotional truth is in her closeups as she makes increasingly complex decisions. Meanwhile, the subplots struggle because the cast members are less equipped to handle both the weight of the storyline and the effort required to make it good without strong writing.

The most puzzling aspect of the sequel (and, frankly, part one as well) is how devoid of life it is. Where is the spark and dazzle? Or the breathless magic conjured when characters take flight? Where is the immense heart linking Elphaba and Glinda together despite their struggle and the fascist regime forcing them apart? Sadly, Wicked: For Good is a flat, meandering story that offers up little to hold on to as we inch our way to the finish line with no one we genuinely care for, despite Grande and Erivo’s best efforts.

It’s all the more frustrating considering this year has had at least one good musical (at least in terms of direction). In contrast, Bill Condon’s Kiss of the Spider Woman shows how a good filmmaker and a director who understands how to shoot a musical are crucial to the success of any adaptation. The staging is key. It’s not just about grandiose sets and the individually planted rows of poppies that adorn it. Instead, good direction in musicals lies in capturing the characters, their movements, and their performances within those sets.

Jon M. Chu demonstrates a failure to understand how to shoot musicals.

This is true across decades and faithful to the original The Wizard of Oz that outpaces everything Wicked: For Good does here from the sets, to the Technicolor vision, to the makeup (god, the makeup; the less said about the Scarecrow, the better). As “We’re Off to See the Wizard” plays, we’re not honed in on Dorothy’s face but watching as the world grows, the entire cast behind her, the vision of this expansive plane coming into full view while also seeing her literally dancing through the yellow brick road to indicate her ongoing journey.

It’s not to say there isn’t room for close-ups that let the actors emote. There is a distinct difference, though, in acting on stage versus in film. But the director needs to know when to highlight spectacle over introspection and, better yet, in an ideal world, know when and how to blend the two.

Musicals require spectacle.

Director Jon M. Chu does not possess this feature. And the result is a set of musical numbers with no steam, thrills, or even suggestions of magic. Everything is cursory, overly marked yet under choreographed. Standout numbers from the original musical, such as “As Long As You’re Mine,” lose their necessary heat under pandering direction. The lack of chemistry between Bailey and Erivo doesn’t help.

But the most upsetting casualty is “For Good,” which, due to bad lighting and a stagnant, apathetic lens, gives no emotional heft to what is the star number of Act II of the stage production. This is where their story concludes, and for a number that has so often induced tears, the effect onscreen leaves one cold. Even if the story itself is thin and Elphaba and Glinda’s bond doesn’t quite have the narrative weight the story thinks it does, this song and the rousing, emotive vocals are meant to evoke an emotional response.

Any interesting threads burn out.

But the story is too long, too busy, and too boring up until this point to warrant any catharsis. Instead, it’s yet another number let down by thoughtless direction that relies heavily on production quality and actors we can’t see well because of poor lighting. For all the money poured into these lavishly crafted sets with their immense detail meant to elicit a sense of place, shouldn’t the filmmakers behind them want the audience actually to see it?

I’d say that Wicked: For Good loses steam, but it never even accelerates. The story never should have been split into two. By doing so, it does a disservice to the smaller triumphs. There are hints of a better production here. Despite the jabs, the set design and costuming are wonderful and help ground a flighty world. The artistry in the details, such as the propaganda pamphlets and posters that adorn Oz, suggests even more striking visuals.

And there’s undoubtedly a timeliness to the story itself about a world ruled by a fascist enforcing travel bans on those he deems lesser. And, in part, the original book limits the film, because it too fails to truly interrogate its own story for deeper meanings beyond a tale of friendship that transcends class and societal demands. But the whispers of more only make the flaws in the final production all the more apparent. With a solid director who understands musicals and how to shoot them, there’s a chance Wicked: For Good (and its precursor) might’ve been more than the sum of its parts.

The bottom line.

Instead, the film hits an awkward pace, split in too many directions as it tries to hopelessly wrap the story up nice and tidy while forgoing time spent on the more emotional moments. Grande is superb, and while Erivo gets less to do, her voice continues to pierce us with its clarity. There’s no denying the two and the strength in their onscreen dynamic. It’s just a shame that they don’t have the time and space to fully revel in all their strengths, reduced to a flat, soulless rendering of a story meant to soar.

Wicked: For Good is out now in theaters. Watch the trailer below. 

---

Images courtesy of Universal Pictures.