Detroit Metro Times article criticizes the sequel to musical film 'Wicked: For Good,' arguing that it fails to deliver on its promise of adding a dark texture to the magical land of Oz. The film, directed by Jon M. Chu, is based on the popular Broadway musical and aims to be an allegory for resistance against fascism.
The article claims that the sequel suffers from shallow storytelling and lacks emotional resonance due to the lack of character development in the first part. This results in a flaccid love triangle and unmemorable songs. The film's intention appears to be unclear, with some scenes portraying the animals of Oz being brutally forced into building the yellow brick road, and others depicting the Tin Man as violent and driven by vengeance.
The article criticizes the sequel for trying to dismantle the untouchability of the original 'Wizard of Oz' while failing to achieve this goal. Instead, it serves a glossy musical with forgettable songs and mixed metaphors. Despite the film's visually stunning sets and design, it ultimately falls short as a cinematic experience.
Overall, the article concludes that the sequel is a shallow waste of resources and fails to deliver on its promise. The critic awards the film a grade of D+.
The article claims that the sequel suffers from shallow storytelling and lacks emotional resonance due to the lack of character development in the first part. This results in a flaccid love triangle and unmemorable songs. The film's intention appears to be unclear, with some scenes portraying the animals of Oz being brutally forced into building the yellow brick road, and others depicting the Tin Man as violent and driven by vengeance.
The article criticizes the sequel for trying to dismantle the untouchability of the original 'Wizard of Oz' while failing to achieve this goal. Instead, it serves a glossy musical with forgettable songs and mixed metaphors. Despite the film's visually stunning sets and design, it ultimately falls short as a cinematic experience.
Overall, the article concludes that the sequel is a shallow waste of resources and fails to deliver on its promise. The critic awards the film a grade of D+.
. I mean, I've seen some bad musicals in my time, but this one sounds like a total mess 
. A dark Oz? Sounds cool on paper, but when you get down to it, it just feels like they took every idea that could be "edgy" and mashed them all together into a big ol' bowl of confusing soup 
. And don't even get me started on the love triangle - I mean, come on, we've seen that plot device done better than this before 
. But hey, at least the sets look pretty, right? 
Still, if they couldn't even get the storytelling right, what's the point of trying to add some depth to the original? Just feels like a cash-grab to me 
. I'd have given it a solid F- myself 
.
! I was super hyped about the dark Oz vibe but it totally fell flat for me 
. The love triangle is so cringeworthy and the songs? More like meh tunes 
. I get what they were trying to do, an allegory against fascism, but it feels like a weak attempt 
. And don't even get me started on the inconsistent tone 
. I feel like they took some amazing themes and turned them into a shallow musical with forgettable songs 
I'm not entirely surprised by this critique, as the original 'Wicked: For Good' was already a bit polarizing with some viewers. However, the sequel's failure to deepen the narrative and characters does seem like a misstep. It's almost as if they tried to pack too much into the story, resulting in a disjointed viewing experience 
. The article raises a valid point about the film's inconsistent tone, veering wildly from whimsical fantasy to brutal realism 
.
! I know some people might say it's all over the place, but I think that's part of its charm 
. I mean, who says you can't have multiple layers to a story? It's not like they tried to confuse us on purpose... 
The film's message is still there, even if it's not always straightforward. And let's be real, those animal scenes are gonna stay with me for ages 
. I'm all about representation in media, so I'm glad we're getting more depth into the Wizard of Oz world 
. Don't @ me, I think this film is a hidden gem 
.
i mean yeah maybe some of the songs r forgettable but who cares?! 
"The biggest adventure you can take is to live the life of your dreams." - Oprah Winfrey 
I gotta say, if they were trying for an allegory against fascism, it's kinda disappointing when it doesn't land. The visuals are fire tho! 
...
. And don't even get me started on those songs - I mean, who writes forgettable pop hits when you've got a whole world of characters waiting to be fleshed out? It's like they took all the depth and heart from the original and replaced it with... sparkly sets 
.
. I mean, do you think they could've done better with more character development? Or was that just what critics were expecting? I'm kinda curious about the article's source now... where did this critic get their info from? And why D+ exactly? What criteria are they using to give a grade like that?