If you didn’t get all that from two witches singing harmonies only celestial beings could hit, maybe
Wicked isn’t for you. And that’s OK. Some of my fellow critics have had harsh reactions to
Wicked: For Good. NPR’s headline reads, “This could have all been one movie” and
IndieWire writes, “Finale of a Needlessly Two-Part Movie Musical Adaptation Doesn’t Go Out on a High Note.”
AP News went with a nod to
The Wizard of Oz: “sorry, my pretty, ‘For Good’ doesn’t delight.”
The Atlantic: "Wicked: For Good Bursts Its Own Bubble."
The New Yorker’s review by Justin Chang is the most ruthless, calling the movie “very, very bad” while chiding its “dreadful filmmaking.” Every one of these reviews make some fair points about the clunky inclusion of Dorothy, her cohort, and the effectiveness of
Wicked as a prequel to
The Wizard of Oz, but most of these critics didn’t like the first one either. And since, famously, part two of the musical has never been revered as highly as part one, those reactions were inevitable. But what so many of these detractors see as
Wicked: For Good’s weaknesses — its sincerity, optimistic politics, tidy resolutions, and feel-good messaging — are actually its strengths.