Sorry, You're Wrong About 'Wicked'

I guess we can call it "Meta Monday," because things are about to get a bit meta: In my review of Wicked: For Good, I have no choice but to talk about...reviews of Wicked: For Good. This is something I usually avoid like the plague. I'm an entertainment editor with opinions, and it's not my job to call out other entertainment editors with opinions. But I'm going to break my own rule here. I feel a very strong need to address the haters: You're 100 percent wrong about Wicked. (And this isn't the first time.)

Wicked: For Good has finally arrived in theaters and, as we all know, it's the second half of a movie musical that is based on a stage musical that is based on a book that is a spin-off of a classic book/movie musical. Phew. And for those using their platforms to take down the new movie, allow me to share a little reminder: Wicked on Broadway got horrible reviews.

Wicked, which is still running at the Gershwin Theatre in NYC, opened in October 2003, and the reviews were not kind. (I'll never forget the New York Times headline, "There's Trouble in Emerald City.") But mega fans and New York City audiences have proven for the last 22 years, the reviews were wrong. I thought it then, and I especially think it now. (For the record, I almost exclusively disagree with the Times' snarky theater reviews—see: Dear Evan Hansen—but that's neither here nor there.)

And now, with the arrival of the conclusion of the epic onscreen Wicked adaptation, the reviews (from critics at least) have been mixed. One particular headline called the film "very, very bad." But once again, the fans (myself included) have different thoughts on the matter. One need only look at the Rotten Tomatoes ratings—critics have the movie at 70 percent while audiences have it at a whopping 95 percent—to see that history might just be repeating itself.

The follow-up film is great. In particular, the last 20 minutes of the movie are epic and intimate, emotional and satisfying. But the full "second act" of Wicked delivers in a powerful and effective way.

Ariana Grande is the true star this time around (Cynthia stole the show more in the first half, though she is still incredible in part two). Grande's Glinda undergoes the most tragedy, heartbreak and growth in the film—and her portrayal of the pink witch is nuanced and Oscar nomination-worthy. I even enjoyed her new solo number (I'm usually not a fan of adding new songs to movie musical adaptations), "The Girl in the Bubble." I'm sure the song will also be nominated come award season.

The film is darker than the first half, but there is still plenty of fun for Oz fans as there are way more tie-ins to the original Wizard of Oz story. We finally get the tornado and the arrival of Dorothy; we get the backstory of the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion; we discover how the Wizard became so "wonderful"—at least in the eyes of Ozians. Each of these elements, which are amplified from the stage version, add to the fun and magic of the film. (And, like in the stage version, I'm glad we never see Dorothy's face—it isn't her story after all.)

The callbacks to the first movie are also satisfying. For example, the Wizard's late-in-the-film realization (provided courtesy of Glinda) is a doozy, and the return of Elphaba's childhood nanny Dulcibear pulls at the heartstrings.

Whether or not all of the reviews have been positive, the movie is a must-see. And I'm clearly preaching to the choir here as Wicked: For Good had a massive $150 million opening weekend.

Perhaps another 22 years from now, we'll all be able to look back on the "very bad" reviews and laugh—the stage show defied gravity critics then, and the film is doing the same now.

Want all the latest entertainment news sent right to your inbox? Click here.