"[ Big sigh.] Well, reactions have been divided already. This may speak more to my reaction than anyone else's but I think the feeling will be Didn't we just do this a year ago? And with this movie opening now, right as the annual scourge that we call awards season is getting under way, I'm sure people will be talking about performances."
"You know, it's funny. As a critic, you find yourself in this very weird position of hoping every movie, even terrible ones, will draw people to the theatres. Even a terrible movie that does really well is great because, well, at least people are going. Unfortunately, too many people still equate box-office success with quality. And I don't think "Wicked: For Good" is a good movie at all."
Reactions to Wicked: For Good are divided, with many viewers experiencing a sense of repetition after the first installment. The film opens during awards season and is being positioned as a potential box-office savior amid industry struggles. Box-office performance continues to be conflated with artistic merit despite uneven results. The narrative and material do not justify splitting the story into two films; the stage musical runs roughly two-and-a-half hours and could have been adapted into a single two-and-a-half to three-hour film. The two-part structure leaves the project feeling lopsided and overextended.
Read at The New Yorker
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]