Wicked: For Good – More of the Same Over Less of the Runtime (Early Review)

It’s nothing short of a small miracle that last year’s Wicked proved to be even remotely watchable across the course of its bloated runtime—itself a self-fulfilling headline as its promise of being a “Part 1” came with the caveat that it was already longer than the entirety of the Broadway play upon which it was based. One might then consider it a blessing for the film’s follow-up to gracefully leave audiences with roughly 20 more minutes to spend elsewhere, but as the (flying) monkey’s paw curls, even comparative brevity fails to make Wicked: For Good soar.

On the contrary, the undeniable contrivance that marks director Jon M. Chu’s follow-up to his massively successful musical adaptation feels so prevalent across the entirety of For Good that it arguably makes its own predecessor retroactively worse; when the time comes for all of that setup and flimsy character development to be cashed-out in a gloriously tragic tie-in to the legendary Wizard of Oz, all that’s left to be found when this film pulls itself apart at the seams is the reminder that, as its steadfast (and motivationally muddled) heroine professes, we need the wicked to appreciate the good. Maybe this wasn’t exactly the means Chu envisioned to communicate that message, but nonetheless, message received.

For Good more or less begins to fall apart the second it is forced to pick up right where Wicked had left off, as Elphaba (Erivo) now finds herself the subject of an endless propaganda campaign courtesy of the not-so-wonderful Wizard of Oz (Jeff Goldblum), and her one-time mentor Madame Morrible (Michelle Yeoh). As Elphaba works tirelessly to expose the Wizard’s fraudulence, so too do they work to paint her as the Wicked Witch of the West, intent on destroying Oz with the help of all the sinister animals in the kingdom.

Central to this campaign is Glinda (Grande), who has haphazardly forsaken (depending on the mood the film finds itself in) her friendship with Elphaba to stand as the one sign of good that can triumph over such wickedness. Her betrothed Fiyero (Bailey) isn’t so convinced, and as he’s tasked with bringing Elphaba in for “justice,” his desire to keep her unharmed constitutes just one of the many rifts that will test the bounds of the competing witches and one-time inseparable companions.

How inseparable Elphaba and Glinda actually were may prove somewhat exaggerated in the midst of a story that seems intent on selling that unshakeable bond between characters whose mutual tolerance was only really beginning to solidify by the end of “Part 1,” but whatever admirable work Erivo and Grande had done—and continue to do here—is just one of the many casualties Chu is forced to let pass for the sake of such a ghastly rush-job. Across the board, motivations make little-to-no sense save for their narrative function to keep the plot moving forward, but none of it is ever felt to the degree that any of these swerving betrayals ever come across with a sentiment more impassioned than “…If you say so.” If Erivo and Grande were falsely divided into “Lead” and “Supporting” categorizations for the first film’s awards run, its successor may as well classify both as supporting players, because Chu’s overarching (lack of) vision and pacing gives the distinct sense that For Good is led by absolutely nobody.

This baffling and increasingly irredeemable approach becomes ever clearer in the face of the film’s primary goal of aligning itself with Victor Fleming’s 1939 classic The Wizard of Oz—a film which, before one invokes any accusations of incomparable, pedestal-placing bias, isn’t even remotely a favourite of this writer—as Winnie Holzman and Dana Fox’s boneless screenplay overstuffs itself with explanations and tie-ins that are never afforded the breathing room to coalesce organically; Elphaba’s sister Nessarose (Marissa Bode) proves a notable fatality in this script’s failure to give these characters any function beyond their need to remind us of where we all know this story to be heading.

One could reasonably chock every last one of these criticisms up to Chu and company’s adherence to potentially flawed source material, but as is always the case when it comes to adaptation… well, it’s an adaptation; the choice to split Wicked into two parts demonstrates itself to be increasingly foolhardy with each passing minute that Part 2 rushes through its own story beats, while Part 1 was in no hurry at all to get things rolling. (Lest we forget, Holzman is once again adapting HER OWN work.) The only real consistency across these films, unfortunately, appears to be Chu’s continued adherence to a sanitized digital aesthetic and a series of rote musical numbers that primarily amount to characters walking in circles or standing face-to-face as they play out the Broadway hits.

If Wicked‘s greyed-out “Defying Gravity” number was intended to be the show-stopping cliffhanger moment that set the stage for a petrifying, grandiose finale that examines friendship, prejudice and perseverance, then Wicked: For Good stands as proof that all that number did was quite literally stop the show altogether. When it is all said and done, Jon M. Chu’s efforts could only really be lauded in that, across the endless sea of Return of the King-style chapter-closings, they do manage to, eventually, put this show to a stop. For Good. Hopefully…

still courtesy of Universal Pictures

If you liked this, please read our other reviews here and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter or Instagram or like us on Facebook.

Julian Malandruccolo

letterboxd.com/CynicOfCinema/